alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEJANDRO DIAZ, § No. 08-18-00184-CV

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § County Court at Law No. 3

LUIS AURELIO TODD, § of El Paso County, Texas

Appellee. § (TC# 2017-dcv4425)

CONCURRING OPINION

I agree with the court’s adoption of Tellez v. Madrigal, 223 F. Supp. 3d 626, 640 (W.D.

Tex. 2016), over DTEX, LLC v. BBVA Bancomer, S.A., 512 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1020 (S.D. Tex. 

2007) in this instance. As a Texas resident—whether longtime or newly arrived—I agree that Diaz 

is afforded a strong presumption of convenience when the trial court performs its forum non 

conveniens inquiry. Tellez, 223 F. Supp. 3d at 641. Yet, it must be additionally acknowledged that 

the Supreme Court of the United States instructed in Piper Aircraft that “[a] citizen’s forum choice 

should not be given dispositive weight[.]” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 n.23 

(1981) (“As always, if the balance of conveniences suggests that trial in the chosen forum would 

be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court, dismissal is proper.”)

Thus, I write separately to reiterate that our opinion should not be construed as necessarily 

rebuking the trial court’s conclusion, but merely its explicit reliance in this instance on DTEX. On 

remand, the trial court must again perform a forum non conveniens inquiry that weighs the public 
2

factors applicable here against plaintiff’s choice as guided by the analysis of Tellez. 223 F. Supp. 

3d at 640.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

November 4, 2020

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
No. 66274.

#### Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 303513-K, etc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “5-Ethyl-5-phenyl-hexahydropyrimidine-4:6-dione,” the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
January 2008 to January 2009 Schedule 

For Treasury-Disbursed Recurring Benefit Payments 

Settlement Dates 

Agency Jan’08 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

OPM Office of Personnel Management Civil Service Retirement/Annuity 

1/2** 2/1 3/3** 4/1 5/1 6/2** 7/1 8/1 9/2** 10/1 

RRB Railroad Retirement Board Railroad Retirement/Annuity 

1/2** 2/1 3/3** 4/1 5/1 6/2** 7/1 8/1 9/2** 10/1 

VA Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pension 

12/31* 2/1 2/29* 4/1 5/1 5/30* 7/1 8/1 8/29* 10/1 

SSA Social Security Administration 3rd of Month 

1/3 2/1* 3/3 4/3 5/2* 6/3 7/3 8/1* 9/3 10/3 

SSA Cycle -1

 2nd Wednesday 

1/9 2/13 3/12 4/9 5/14 6/11 7/9 8/13 9/10 10/8 

SSA Cycle -2 3rd Wednesday 

1/16 2/20 3/19 4/16 5/21 6/18 7/16 8/20 9/17 10/15 

SSA Cycle -3 4th Wednesday 

1/23 2/27 3/26 4/23 5/28 6/25 7/23 8/27 9/24 10/22 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

12/31* 2/1 2/29* 4/1 5/1 5/30* 7/1 8/1 8/29* 10/1 

. * = Settlement Date Adjusted to the Preceding Business Day ** = Settlement Date Adjusted to the Following Business Day 

Prepared by the U. S. Department of the Treasury/Fina
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 9, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00745

- CR

Miguel G. MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR420 3

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee’s brief was originally due to be filed on August 6, 2020. On August 31, 2020, we granted appellee an extension of time to file its brief until October 7, 2020. We stated: “No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating circumstances. ” On October 8 , 2020

, appellee filed a second mo tion requesting an extension of time to file its brief until October 21, 2020. Appellee did not assert that ex tenuating circumstances exist

. Nevertheless, we GRANT

IN PART appellee’ s motion . It is ORDERED that appellee’s brief is due on October 16, 202 0

. No further extensions of time will be allowed.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-00666-SD Document 1 Filed 02/11/05 Page 23 of 23
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Statement of Chief Financial Officer Furnished
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 The undersigned, Gary F. Hoskins, is the Chief Financial Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the “Company”).
 
 This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”).
 
 By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 A)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
 
 B)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
  November 12, 2010
/s/ Gary F. HoskinsDated
Gary F. HoskinsChief Financial Officer
 
 This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
vi {a

IPAC Operational Metrics for June 2016

Volume by Transaction Type:
Dollar ‘Sof Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] __% of Total Number of Transactions|
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 17,505 078,766,642| 99.61%] 11,342] 10.13%
[Buy/Set 63,250,551,197| 0.36% 38,930] 38.45%
[Benefits (RITS) 5,155,671,257] 0.0355 436] 037%
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 100,557,536] 0.0055 i167] Loss
[Zero Doar 0.00% 1 0.0035
[Grand Total -June 2016 7573.58 586 834) 00.00% 311916] 100.0%
[Grand Total - May 2016 16,154,064,247,52 100.00%| 109,335] 100.0%
[May to June Change 1419,521, 2.581
[Percentage Change Es 23615 |
[Grand Total -June 2015, 7,252,688 892, 313,735]
[June 2015 to June 2016 Change 710,320,896, =1,883]
‘Change =175|
Order entered February 8 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00046

- CV

IN RE MARK SCHWARZ, NEWCA STLE CAPITAL MANAGEM ENT, L.P.,

NEWCASTLE CAPITAL GR OUP L.L.C., AND GEOWORKS CORPORA TION, Relators

O rigina l Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 08

- 00144

- M



### O RDER Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY r elators’ petition for writ of

mandamus. We LIFT this Court’s January 22, 2019 stay of the trial court’s September 25, 2018

order. We ORDER relators to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
# C_2019082EN.01004601.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Haeberlen v ENISA

(Case T-632/16) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of remunerations and pensions of officials and other agents - Regulations (EU) Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 - Adjustments of salaries and pensions for 2011 and 2012 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Rules on social dialogue))

(2019/C 82/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Haeberlen (Swisttal, Germany) (represented initially by L. Levi and A. Tymen, subsequently by L. Levi and last by L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of ENISA of 21 October 2015, ordering the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 3 133,19, following the application to his remuneration of the adjustment of 0 % for 2011 provided for in Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5), and the adjustment of 0.8 % for 2012 provided for in Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12), and, second, compensation for the non-material harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Thomas Haeberlen to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Thomas Haeberlen to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,576
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,592
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,246
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    107,840
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,392
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,417
<LOANS>                                        233,058
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383,964
<DEPOSITS>                                     234,275
<SHORT-TERM>                                   101,330
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,666
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 383,964
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,726
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,330
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,056
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,037
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,901
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,155
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  55
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    843
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         843
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       653
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.62
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,843
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,843
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,689
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        7
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,682
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,682
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

  

We have issued our reports dated February 29, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting standards during 2007 and 2006) and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of  internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Marine Products Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of the Company on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-59886, effective May 1, 2001 and File No. 333-117837, effective July 30, 2004). 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

February 29, 2008 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1397 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1397

 To nullify any generalized, routine or ongoing reporting requirement 
  imposed on a person licensed under section 923 of title 18, United 
  States Code, that is based on the geographic location in which the 
 licensee is located or on the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns, or 
       any specific type of rifle or shotgun, to the same person.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2017

  Mr. Strange (for himself, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To nullify any generalized, routine or ongoing reporting requirement 
  imposed on a person licensed under section 923 of title 18, United 
  States Code, that is based on the geographic location in which the 
 licensee is located or on the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns, or 
       any specific type of rifle or shotgun, to the same person.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting the Second Amendment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION OF ANY GENERALIZED, ROUTINE OR ONGOING REPORTING 
              REQUIREMENT IMPOSED ON A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SECTION 
              923 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, THAT IS BASED ON THE 
              GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION IN WHICH THE LICENSEE IS LOCATED OR 
              ON THE SALE OF MULTIPLE RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS, OR ANY 
              SPECIFIC TYPE OF RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, TO THE SAME PERSON.

    No person licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States 
Code, shall be subject to any generalized, routine or ongoing reporting 
requirement based on the geographic location in which the licensee is 
located or on the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns, or any specific 
type of rifle or shotgun, to the same person.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016156EN.01002301.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2016 — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas

(Case C-64/16)

(2016/C 156/32)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses

Applicant:

Defendant: Tribunal de Contas

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In view of the mandatory requirements of eliminating the excessive budget deficit and of financial assistance regulated by EU rules, must the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the measures to reduce remuneration that are applied to the judiciary in Portugal, where they are imposed unilaterally and on an ongoing basis by other constitutional authorities and bodies, as is the consequence of Article 2 of Law No 75/2014 of 12 September?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

1

---
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.18 OF THE POOLING AND SERVICING
                     AGREEMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 21, 2000


                    BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
                MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2000-7


I, Robert S. O'Neill, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A. (the
"Servicer"), the Servicer in connection with Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2000-7, do hereby certify that (i) a review of the activities of the
Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of its performance under this
Agreement (the "Agreement") has been made under my supervision, (ii) to the best
of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled in all
material aspects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

Certified on this 4th day of March 2003.

                                    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


                                       By:
                                          ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Robert S. O'Neill
                                            Title: Senior Vice President


Inv M65
No. 58468.

protest 229393-K (New York).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*409Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE IVAN LOPEZ :

 : CIVIL ACTION

v. :

 : NO. 04-4181

JEFFREY BEARD, ET AL. :

 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2017, upon consideration of Petitioner’s Motion 

for Discovery (ECF No. 54), Respondents’ Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 64), and 

Petitioner’s Reply (ECF No. 73), it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part as follows:

1. The Commonwealth shall provide Petitioner with any evidence in its possession or 

control tending to show that Miguel Moreno testified pursuant to an agreement with the 

Commonwealth. 

2. The Commonwealth shall also provide Petitioner with the results of any polygraph 

examination of Miguel Moreno. 

3. In all other respects the Motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________ 

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

Case 2:04-cv-04181-RBS Document 83 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES PARKER SHIELD; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

JOHN SINCLAIR; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35650

D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00044-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs, five members of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a

non-federally recognized Indian tribe, appeal from the district court’s judgment

dismissing their action alleging that defendants violated their rights under 42

FILED

MAY 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-35650

U.S.C. § 1985(3) and 25 U.S.C. § 1302. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp.

Research & Special Programs Admin., 457 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2006), and we

may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d

1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed the claims plaintiffs brought under

section 1985(3) because the first amended complaint failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that they are a protected class. See Schultz v. Sundberg, 759

F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (to bring a claim under section 1985(3),

plaintiffs must show that “the courts have designated the class in question a suspect

or quasi-suspect classification requiring more exacting scrutiny or that Congress

has indicated through legislation that the class required special protection”).

The district court properly dismissed the claims plaintiffs brought under the

Indian Civil Rights Act because “the only remedy available from the federal courts

under [the Act] is a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303.” Hein v.

Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, 201 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th

Cir. 2000).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.