alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 6 of 13
 

Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 8 of 13
 

Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 10 of 13
 

Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:05-cr-00044-GEKP Document 1169 Filed 11/29/22 Page 13 of 13
EPA SANITIZED
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 4
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 4
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6020

THOMAS RUSSELL EVANS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-638-2)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Russell Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Russell Evans 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 accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Evans v. Angelone, No. CA-01-

638-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 28, 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
----

----

I Comunicaciones

Comisión

----

CATÁLOGO COMÚN DE VARIEDADES DE ESPECIES DE PLANTAS AGRÍCOLAS

Cuarto suplemento a la vigesimocuarta edición integral

(2006/C 167 A/01)

SUMARIO

Notas explicativas

Lista de especies de plantas agrícolas

I.   Remolachas

II.   Plantas forrajeras

III.   Plantas oleaginosoas y fibrosas

IV.   Cereales

V.   Patatas

----

NOTAS EXPLICATIVAS

----

(1)DO C 68 A de 21.3.2006, p. 1. Catálogo modificado en último lugar por el tercer suplemento (DO C 146 A de 22.6.2006, p. 1).

(2)DO L 193 de 20.7.2002, p. 1. Directiva modificada en último lugar por el Reglamento (CE) no 1829/2003 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo (DO L 268 de 18.10.2003, p. 1).

----

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

5.AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA L.

6.AGROSTIS CAPILLARIS L.

12.DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

15.FESTUCA PRATENSIS HUDSON

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

19.LOLIUM × BOUCHEANUM KUNTH

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

27.POA TRIVIALIS L.

31.LUPINUS ALBUS L.

32.LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS L.

33.LUPINUS LUTEUS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

37.ONOBRYCHIS VICIIFOLIA SCOP.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

39.TRIFOLIUM ALEXANDRINUM L.

40.TRIFOLIUM HYBRIDUM L.

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

43.TRIFOLIUM REPENS L.

44.TRIFOLIUM RESUPINATUM L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

53.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L. VAR. OLEIFORMIS PERS.

III

56.BRASSICA JUNCEA (L.) CZERNJ ET COSSON

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

59.CANNABIS SATIVA L.

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

65.PAPAVER SOMNIFERUM L.

66.SINAPIS ALBA L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

79.TRITICUM SPELTA L.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----
## Focus On Food Labeling

**May 1993**

The articles in this special issue are presented here as they originally appeared in May 1993. Since then, there have been many changes on the food labeling scene. For the very latest information, visit the Food Labeling and Nutrition Section of this Website. Introduction
Good Reading for Good Eating
Cooking Up the New Food Label
Look for 'Legit' Health Claims on Foods
A Little 'Lite' Reading
'Nutrition Facts' to Help Consumers Eat Smart
'Daily Values' Encourage Healthy Diet
Ingredient Labeling: What's in a Food?
Nutrition Info Available for Raw Fruits, Vegetables, Fish
The Food Pyramid-Food Label Connection  FDA Home Page | Search | A-Z   Index | Site Map | Contact   FDA
FDA/Website Management Staff  Web page updated by clb 2003-APR-24.
Case 2:05-cv-02503-JF Document 23 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 1
llEVAL L. PATRICK 

Governor 

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY 

Lieutenant Governor 

September 21, 2009 

Ira Leighton 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U .S . Environmental Protection Agency-Region 1 

One Congress Street 

Boston, MA 

Dear Mr. Leighton : 

IAN A. BOWLES 

Secretary 

LAURIE I3URT 

Commissioner 

Enclosed please find the Massachusetts Certification of State Implementation Plan Adequacy Regarding 

Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This certification demonstrates the ability and authority of the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to implement, maintain and enforce the revised 24-hour fine 

particle (PM2 .5) NAAQS promulgated by EPA on September 21, 2006. MassDEP is submitting this 

certification within three years of promulgation, as required by the Clean Air Act . (CAA). 

MassDEP submitted a similar certification with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in December 2007, 

and with respect to the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS, in April 2008. This certification relies on the same statutes 

and regulations, as amended, and other documentation in support of Massachusetts' ability and authority 

as the previous certifications . 

If you have questions with respect to certification of legal authority, please contact Margaret Stolfa, 

MassDEP's General Counsel, or with respect to the overall Massachusetts PM2 .5 certification, contact 

Barbara Kwetz, BWP Planning & Evaluation Division Director. 

Enclosures. 

Cc (electronic) : Margaret Stolfa, MassDEP 

Carl Dierker, EPA-Region 1 

Anne Arnold, EPA-Region 1 

"rhis information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Gomes, ADA Coordinator at 617-556-1057 . TDD# 1-866-539-7622 or I-617-574-6868 . 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108 617-292-5500 

MassDEP on the World Wide Web: http ://www .mass.gov/dep 

0 Printed on Recycled Paper
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,752,092
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             1,708,897
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                177,048,261
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       9,512,891
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         9,147,795
<LOANS>                                    211,440,923
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             435,263,848
<DEPOSITS>                                 201,737,137
<SHORT-TERM>                               107,565,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         15,802,347
<LONG-TERM>                                 59,485,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,614
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,603,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             435,263,848
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             11,941,336
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            8,395,154
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            20,286,490
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,635,914
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,358,802
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        7,927,688
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,121,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                266,708
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   175,877
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.13
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,035,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              2,035,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,684,441
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   40,841
<RECOVERIES>                                    52,742
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,696,342
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,696,342
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
EX-4.57 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE EMIL CHRO






Exhibit 4.57




FIRST AMENDMENT TO



THE EXCLUSIVE EMIL CHRONICLE ONLINE LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT



THIS AMENDMENT was entered into on this 23rd day of January, 2008 (“Effective Date”), by and
between Gravity Co. Ltd., (“Licensor”) a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Republic of Korea and having its offices at 825-2 Yeoksam-Dong, Meritz Tower 14F, Kangnam-Gu,
Seoul, Korea and GameCyber Technology Ltd., a corporation having its principal place of business at
Room 908, 9/F, Nan Yang Plaza, No. 57 Hung To Road, Kwung Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Licensee”).




RECITALS



WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee (“Parties” collectively) has entered into EXCLUSIVE EMIL CHRONICAL
ONLINE LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (“the Agreement”), on August 1st, 2007.



WHEREAS, the Parties to the Agreement now desire to amend the Agreement as specified below.



NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:




1. Term



Licensee may commence and service the Game in one Territory separately and independently from the
other Territory. In the event that Licensee commences the commercial service in HongKong prior to
Taiwan, the Agreement regarding each Territory shall remain in effect for a period of three (3)
years counted from the commercial service date of each Territory. Licensee shall commence the
Commercial Service in Taiwan not later than ninety (90) calendar days from the Commercial Service
date in HongKong




2. Payment Schedule



Licensee shall follow License Fee Payment schedule (as defined in the Agreement Article 5.1) and
Minimum Guarantee Payment schedule (as defined in the Agreement


 









 






Article 5.2) under the Agreement in accordance with the commencing date of Opening Beta Test and
Commercial Service of HongKong.




3. Manner of Payment



In the event that Licensee commences the commercial service in one Territory prior to the other,
Licensee must provide Licensor with a separate royalty report for each territory on a monthly basis
within Fifteen (15) days after the end of the applicable month. Licensor shall issue one invoice
for each territory. Upon Licensee’s receipt of Licensor’s each written invoice for each territory,
Licensee shall pay such total invoice amount to Licensor. Any and all payments under the Agreement
by Licensee to Licensor shall be made in US Dollars (USD) and by wire transfer to any bank account
designated by Licensor.




4. Other Contents



Except as hereinabove expressly agreed and amended, all of the terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have caused and executed this Amendment on the date first
above-written in duplicate originals by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and
year first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Gravity Co., Ltd	 	 	 	GameCyber Technology Ltd.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name: Il Young, Ryu
	 	 
	 	 	 	 

Name: Wang Chak Kiu
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:   Chairman & CEO
	 	 	 	 	 	Title:    CEO	 	 
	 

	 	Date:
	 	 	 	 	 	Date:    15 February 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1083 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1083

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend section 1214 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
 stays during a period that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks a 
                                quorum.

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

SECTION 1. STAYS BY MSPB DURING PERIODS WITH NO QUORUM.

    Section 1214(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(i)'' before ``The Board may''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(ii) If the Board lacks the number of members appointed under 
section 1201 required to constitute a quorum, any remaining member of 
the Board who was appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, shall, upon request by the Special Counsel, extend the period 
of any stay granted under subparagraph (A).''.

            Passed the Senate May 11, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1083

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend section 1214 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
 stays during a period that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks a 
                                quorum.
```
# sec5_sbr_2024

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin  No. 2023-08	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout April 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-586
In Re: HAROLD DEAN RIVERS, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. CR-77-8) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Dean Rivers, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Harold Dean Rivers has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to provide him with a copy of a court reporter's handwritten notes of his eighteen-year-oldtrial. This issue has already been denied as the subject of a motion in a prior appeal before this court. United States v. Rivers , No. 96-6609 (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 1995) (unpublished). Accordingly, because this issue has already been decided, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Before the Third Division,

June 26, 1944

No. 49567.

#### Petition 6413-R of Vita Food Products, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared at the trial that the merchandise arrived before the consular invoice; the appraiser was consulted but was unable to furnish any other value and merchandise was entered at the value of a previous shipment. *244Upon receipt of consular invoice it was found that the pyiee was greater and the petitioner accordingly amended its entry. The caviar was appraised as entered, and later appraiser received report from abroad indicating a' higher value, and the collector called for reappraisement. Through compromise the case was settled at a value higher than entered but lower than contended for by collector. On the facts presented the court was of the opinion that the entry was made in good faith. The petition was therefore granted.
130245 v1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

BARBARA J. STENGER, : 

 Plaintiff, 

 : Civil Action No. 02-4158 

 v. 

 : 

ACTION DUPLICATION, INC., 

 Defendant. : 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

TO THE CLERK OF COURTS: 

 Kindly enter the appearances of Steven Kapustin and J. Bryan Tuk on 

behalf of the Defendant, Action Duplication, Inc., in the above captioned matter. 

FLAMM, BOROFF & BACINE, P.C. 

BY: _________________________ 

 Steven Kapustin 

 Attorney for Defendant, 

 Action Duplication, Inc. 

BY: _________________________ 

 J. Bryan Tuk 

 Attorney for Defendant, 

 Action Duplication, Inc. 

Date: September 5, 2002 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 4 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 1 of 2
130245 v1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

BARBARA J. STENGER, : 

 Plaintiff, 

 : Civil Action No. 02-4158 

 v. 

 : 

ACTION DUPLICATION, INC., 

 Defendant. : 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, J. Bryan Tuk, do hereby certify that on this 5th day of September, 2002, 

I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance to be 

served, via United States Mail, upon the following: 

James V. Fareri, Esq. 

Newman, Williams, Mishkin, Corveleyn, Wolfe & Fareri, PC 

712 Monroe Street 

Stroudsburg, PA 18360 

FLAMM, BOROFF & BACINE, PC 

 925 Harvest Drive 

 Blue Bell, PA 19422 

 Telephone: 215 239 6026 

 Facsimile: 215 239 6060 

 

 BY: _________________________ 

 J. Bryan Tuk 

 Attorney for Defendant 

Case 2:02-cv-04158-MMB Document 4 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAMONT WEBB, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

: NO. 05-2360

v. :

:

SHANNON, et al., :

Respondent. :

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, S.J. November 28, 2005

The Petitioner has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore

Wells’ Report and Recommendation. The objections are premised on his claim of factual

exculpatory evidence that he contends would show his innocence, and thus, it would follow, a

miscarriage of justice. 

He does not object to Judge Wells’ conclusion that his petition was not timely

filed and he is ineligible for equitable tolling. Those conclusions are not in dispute.

His claim of miscarriage of justice is based on his contention that certain time

cards of his and attendance records of the accusers will clearly show that he was in work and not

in accusers’ company. Also, Petitioner submitted affidavits of others, some of which claim the

accusers are known to be untruthful.

This is not the type of evidence that meets the demanding standard set forth in

Calderon v. Thompson, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 1502, 1503. First and foremost, this evidence is not

Case 2:05-cv-02360-RB Document 12 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 3
2

new; it was available before sentencing as Petitioner states in his objections. The time bar which

Judge Wells found extends to any claims made with regard to Petitioner’s claim of innocence.

An order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-02360-RB Document 12 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAMONT WEBB, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

: NO. 05-2360

v. :

:

SHANNON, et al., :

Respondent. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2005, upon consideration of the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Government’s Answer, inclusive of all exhibits thereto, and

after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra

Moore Wells, and the objections of Petitioner thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED without an evidentiary

hearing; and

3. Petitioner has presented meritless claims and/or failed to meet the

procedural requirements to have a petition reviewed. Furthermore, he has

shown neither a denial of a constitutional right, nor established that

reasonable jurists would disagree with this court’s procedural ruling. 

Consequently, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-02360-RB Document 12 Filed 11/29/05 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7245

In Re: DANIEL E. FELIX, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-46-AM) Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: February 13, 2004 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel E. Felix, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Daniel E. Felix petitions this court for mandamus relief, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). He also complains of judicial bias. Since the filing of this petition, the district court has entered a final judgment order in the underlying case. Consequently, respondent has moved to dismiss the mandamus petition. We grant the motion to dismiss the pe tition as moot because the district court has completed its consideration of the habeas petition and judicial disqualification at this time would serve no purpose in furtherance of Felix’s claim. Felix may, however, choose to raise the latter issue in seeking an appeal from this court. Accordingly, we grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss and deny the petition for mandamus as moot. We grant Felix leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his motion for injunction. 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. PETITION DENIED