alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018455EN.01000801.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-669/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 4(1) - Annexes II and III - Designation of special areas of conservation (SACs) - Harbour porpoise))

(2018/C 455/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Norris-Usher and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: G. Brown, acting as Agent, and by R. Palmer and M. Armitage, Barristers.)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to propose and transmit, within the period prescribed, pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annexes II and III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, a list indicating a sufficient number of sites hosting the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and by failing, to that extent, to contribute, pursuant to Article 3(2) of that directive, to the creation of the Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of that species, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to propose and transmit, within the period prescribed, pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annexes II and III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, a list indicating a sufficient number of sites hosting the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and by failing, to that extent, to contribute, pursuant to Article 3(2) of that directive, to the creation of the Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of that species, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---
88

Water

Rising temperatures and greater precipitation are likely to lead to more

evaporation and greater swings

between wet and dry conditions.

Changes in the amount and timing of

rain, snow, runoff, and soil moisture

are very likely. Water management,

including pricing and allocation will

very likely be important in determining many impacts.

Agriculture

Overall productivity of American

agriculture will likely remain high,

and is projected to increase throughout the 21st century, with northern

regions faring better than southern

ones. Though agriculture is highly

dependent on climate, it is also highly adaptive. Weather extremes,

pests, and weeds will likely present

challenges in a changing climate.

Falling commodity prices and competitive pressures are likely to stress

farmers and rural communities.

hile climate change and variability clearly affect each region quite

differently, there are issues of national importance that transcend

regional boundaries. Though many such issues were identified,the decision

was made to focus on five for this Assessment. These analyses provide a

more integrated national picture of the potential consequences of climate

variability and change,albeit a picture with regional texture.

These analyses also provide a basis for beginning to think about important

interactions between sectors with regard to climate impacts. For example,

the projected changes in the timing and amount of precipitation,and hence

in water supply, will very likely have significant implications for the other

sectors examined here: agriculture, forests,human health,and coastal areas

and marine resources. Similarly, the increases in the use of fertilizers and

pesticides that are projected for the agricultural sector have obvious implications for all the other sectors as well.

SECTOR OVERVIEW

W
89

Coastal wetlands and shorelines are

vulnerable to sea-level rise and

storm surges, especially when climate impacts are combined with the

growing stresses of increasing

human population and development.

It is likely that coastal communities

will be increasingly affected by

extreme events. The negative

impacts on natural ecosystems are

very likely to increase.

Human Health

Heat-related illnesses and deaths, air

pollution, injuries and deaths from

extreme weather events, and diseases carried by water, food, insects,

ticks, and rodents, have all been

raised as concerns for the US in a

warmer world. Modern public health

efforts will be important in identifying and adapting to these potential

impacts.

Forests

Rising CO2concentrations and

modest warming are likely to

increase forest productivity in

many regions. With larger

increases in temperature,

increased drought is likely to

reduce forest productivity in

some regions, notably in the

Southeast and Northwest.

Climate change is likely to

cause shifts in species ranges

as well as large changes in disturbances such as fire and

pests.

Coastal Areas 

and Marine

Resources
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES and LETHA A. BURNETT :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4236

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04236-LDD Document 7 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
|  Name      of Entity                                                                     |   | State      of Incorporation/Jurisdiction |   |  Doing      Business As                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
| § Southern      Indiana Gas and Electric    Company, Inc.  |   | Indiana                                  |   | Vectren      Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. |
| § Indiana Gas      Company, Inc.                                               |   | Indiana,      Ohio                       |   | Vectren      Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. |
| § Vectren      Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc.                                        |   | Ohio                                     |   |                                          |
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 1 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 2 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 3 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 4 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 5 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 6 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 7 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 8 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 9 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 10 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 11 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 12 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 13 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 14 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 15 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 16 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 17 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 18 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 19 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 20 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 21 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 22 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 23 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 24 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 25 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 26 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 27 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 28 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 29 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 30 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 31 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 32 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 33 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 34 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 35 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 36 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 37 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 38 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 39 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 40 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 41 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 42 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 43 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 44 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 45 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20130-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 46 of 46
PH2\771903.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TOLEDO MACK SALES & : 

SERVICE, INC., : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 2:02-CV-04373-RLB 

 : 

 v. : 

 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

MACK TRUCKS, INC., : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

MACK TRUCKS, INC., : 

 : 

 Counterclaim : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 : 

TOLEDO MACK SALES & SERVICE, : 

INC., : 

 : 

 Counterclaim : 

 Defendant. : 

STIPULATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN 

AMENDED ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), plaintiff Toledo Mack Sales and 

Service, Inc. and defendant Mack Trucks, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby 

consent and stipulate this __ day of January, 2004 that: 

Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 43 Filed 01/14/2004 Page 1 of 2
 2 

PH2\771903.1

Plaintiff Toledo Mack Sales and Service, Inc. may file an Amended Answer to the First 

Amended Counterclaims of Defendant Mack Trucks, Inc. 

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP DUANE MORRIS LLP 

By: _________________________ By: _______________________ 

 Jon A. Baughman Wayne A. Mack 

 Jeremy Heep J. Manly Parks 

 Barak A. Bassman Keith J. Verrier 

 3000 Two Logan Square Marcella E. McIntyre 

 18th and Arch Streets One Liberty Place 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 (215) 981-4000 (215) 979-1167 

By the court: 

________________________________ 

 J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 43 Filed 01/14/2004 Page 2 of 2
# C_2021490EN.01002601.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Simpson v Council

(Case T-646/16 P-RENV-RX) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Refusal of the Council to reclassify the person concerned, after he passed an open competition, at the grade laid down in the competition notice - Dismissal of the action on the merits - Appeal - Judgment set aside - Appeal judgment reviewed by the Court of Justice and set aside - Referral back to the General Court as the appeal court - Obligation to state grounds - Equal treatment)

(2021/C 490/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council (F-142/11 RENV, EU:F:2016:136), and seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Erik Simpson is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case T-646/16 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Erik Simpson is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case T-646/16 P;

| 3. | Declares that each party is to bear its own costs in Cases T-441/18 RENV and T-646/16 P-RENV-RX. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that each party is to bear its own costs in Cases T-441/18 RENV and T-646/16 P-RENV-RX.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
         IQ BIOMETRIX, INC., AND LIVIAKIS FINANCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

This Amendment  ("Amendment") to the Consulting  Agreement dated effective as of
January 1, 2004  ("Agreement"),  is entered  into by and  amongst IQ  BIOMETRIX,
INC.,  a Delaware  corporation  ("IQB") and LIVIAKIS  FINANCIAL  COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a California  corporation (the "Consultant"),  and is made effective as of
the 1st day of January, 2005 (the "Amendment Effective Date").

                                    RECITALS

WHEREAS,  the parties  have agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  between
Consultant  and IQB in exchange for the additional  consideration  to Consultant
described below.

WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement to reflect these changes.

NOW THEREFORE,  in  consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth
herein and for other good and valuable  consideration,  the receipt of which the
parties hereby acknowledge, Consultant and IQB agree as follows:

1.  Any  capitalized  terms  defined  in this  Amendment  are  specific  to this
Amendment  only,  and do not  modify  or  change  the  meaning  set forth in the
Agreement.  Unless expressly defined in this Amendment, the capitalized terms in
this  Amendment are as defined in the Agreement.  The Agreement  shall remain in
full force and effect except as supplemented and amended herein.

2 The parties hereby agree to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional
three (3) month period commencing  January 1, 2005 and running through March 31,
2005.

3. As the sole and complete compensation to Consultant for the services to
Company during the extended term described above, the Company shall grant
Consultant an additional twenty five thousand (25,000) shares of the restricted
common stock of the Company.

5. No other changes or modification  are intended by this  Amendment.  All other
terms and conditions of the Agreement are in effect.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  have  executed  this  Amendment by their duly
authorized representatives as of the date first set forth above.

"COMPANY"                               "CONSULTANT"
IQ BIOMETRIX, INC.                      LIVIAKIS FINANCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


By: /s/  William B. G. Scigliano        By: /s/ John Liviakis
    -----------------------------           -------------------------------
    William B. G. Scigliano, CEO            John Liviakis, President
# C_2018427EN.01004302.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-463/16) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aids - Reductions and exclusions for failure to comply with the rules on cross compliance - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Proportionality)

(2018/C 427/54)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, acting as Agent, M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59) insofar as it relates to the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BIENVENIDO RUIZ : CIVIL ACTION

:

:

v. :

:

EDWARD KLEM : NO. 04-5798

ORDER

In considering petitioner’s objections to Magistrate Judge Welsh’s Report and

Recommendation, I find that petitioner fails to address Judge Welsh’s conclusions of law and

merely reasserts his case as argued in petitioner’s traverse to respondent’s answer.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June 2005, after consideration of the petition for writ of

habeas corpus, the response thereto, petitioner’s traverse, Magistrate Judge Welsh’s Report and

Recommendation, petitioner’s objection thereto, and respondents’ response, it is ORDERED as

follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

3. There is NO BASIS for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

s/ Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.

THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.

Case 2:04-cv-05798-TON Document 15 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of GSV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  period  ending  June 30, 2003  (the  "Report"),  I,  Gilad
Gat, Chief Executive Officer  and  Chief  Financial Officer of  the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the  Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Gilad Gat
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003
Before the Second Division,

January 23, 1951

No. 55156.

#### Emil Leichter *v.*United States,

protests 111421-K, etc. (New York).

*342Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise-marked “A” or “B” on the invoices consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros-Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the items marked “A” were held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at $1.20' each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide-under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust III and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended September 29, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: November 8, 2006
_______________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7726

ELMER EUGENE HEATH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-920-7) Submitted: March 22, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elmer Eugene Heath, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Elmer Eugene Heath seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Heath v. Angelone , No. CA-00-920- 7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED