alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50412.

#### Protests 44216-K, etc., of Kaufmann Dept. Stores, Inc., et al. (Pittsburgh, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000051853
<NAME> CUSTOMER SPORTS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         750,019
<DEPRECIATION>                               (741,440)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          517,214
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       324,077
<OTHER-SE>                                   (832,626)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,669
<SALES>                                        197,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               206,341
<CGS>                                           22,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               363,556
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (179,998)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (179,998)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (179,998)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.47


 


SECOND ADDENDUM TO LEASE AND AGREEMENT -
SPRING 1995

(LOWER LOTS)


 


This Second Addendum to Lease and Agreement –
Spring 1995 (Lower Lots) (hereinafter referred to as “Second Addendum”) is made
effective the 21st day of March, 2003 between Andrianakos Limited
Liability Company, a Colorado limited liability company, the “Lessor”, and
CCSC/Blackhawk, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Central Station Casino, the “Lessee”.


 


RECITALS:


 


WHEREAS, Andrianakos Limited Liability
Company and Anchor Coin d/b/a Colorado Central Station Casino entered into that
certain Lease and Agreement Spring – 1995 (Lower Lots) dated August 15,
1995, as amended by Addendum to Lease and Agreement – Spring 1995 (Lower Lots)
dated April 4, 1996 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Lease”);


 


WHEREAS, Anchor Coin d/b/a Colorado Central
Station Casino assigned the Lease to CCSC/Blackhawk, Inc. effective
January 1, 2002.


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section A-6 of the
Lease, Lessor provided notice of the purchase of land suitable for parking lot
or building purposes consisting of all of Lot 14 except the Westerly 14 feet of
said Lot, Block 49, City of Black Hawk, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as
the “Black Hawk
Real Property”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section A-6 of the
Lease, Lessee exercised its option to lease the Black Hawk Real Property;


 


NOW THEREFORE, be it agreed as follows:


 


1.        The Black Hawk Real
Property is hereby added to the Property subject to the Lease.


 


2.        The parties agree that
this Addendum shall be supplemented with the new legal description for the
Black Hawk Real Property subsequent to the re-plat.


 


3.        Lessee shall pay
additional rent in the amount of $6,954.84 per month for the addition of the
Black Hawk Real Property commencing April 1, 2003. Lessee shall pay
additional rent in the amount of $4,573.05 representing the prorated additional
rent for the month of March 2003.


 


4.        This Addendum may be
executed in counterparts. Except as modified herein, all other terms and
conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[ILLEGIBLE]


 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Addendum
to be executed by its duly authorized officers as of the date on page one.


 


	
  LESSEE

  	
  LESSOR

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CCSC/Blackhawk, Inc.

  	
  Andrianakos Limited Liability Company

  
	
  d/b/a Colorado Central Station Casino

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Joseph
  Murphy

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Ioannis Andrianakos

  
	
   

  	
  Joseph
  Murphy, Treasurer/Secretary

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Ioannis Andrianakos, Managing Member
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:05-cv-04730-NS Document 79 Filed 03/18/09 Page 23 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ANTHONY WESBECHER,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL FOY,

Respondent.

CIV-S-04-0807 FCD CMK

ORDER

Respondent has requested a second thirty (30) day extension of time in which to file a

response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

Respondent is granted an extension of time to and including August 15, 2005, in which to file a response

to the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner.

July 21, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 24 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 1
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2022 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"&K000000Bulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&K000000September 2022
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 114 Filed 06/12/08 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN JENSEN,

) 2:04-cv-0686-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster )

General of the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,)

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff requests that Exhibit B to the Declaration of

Jamie Chacon be filed under seal because “the defendant has an

application to file the same document under seal, namely the

Application to File Under Seal Exhibits in Support of Government’s

Motion in Limine.” (Pl.’s Application to File Under Seal Ex. B. at

1.) This statement reflects a misunderstanding of the record. 

Although the government filed an application, it was denied because

the government failed to show that it was ripe for decision. (Order

filed Aug 22, 2005.) 

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 38 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff’s Application fails to comply with Local Rule 39-

141. Therefore, the Application is denied. The Clerk of the Court

shall return Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 38 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2
1-WA/2562126.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, 

LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES 

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 05-6020 (PBT)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion of Plaintiffs Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC, and 

Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) for an extension of time to 

respond to the motion of Defendants Evanston Insurance Company, Fidelity & Casualty 

Company of New York, and Liberty International Underwriters, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) 

to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and counsel for Plaintiffs having represented 

that counsel for Defendants consented to this motion, and for good cause shown, 

It is on this ___________ day of May 2006, 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ 

motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their response to Defendants’ motion to transfer 

venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by May 12, 2006.

_____________________________

Tucker, J.

Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 21-2 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 1 of 1

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 21 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of**

**Title 18 Of The United States Code**

 

I, Steven J. Martin, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The ServiceMaster Company, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Steven J. Martin   |
|--------|------------------------|
|   | Steven J. Martin       |
|   | November 14, 2008 |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN J. BONTTY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0714 FCD KJM P

vs.

J. McAFEE,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-00714-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 8, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED:May 23, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

/bont0714.800

Case 2:04-cv-00714-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View Previously Generated Historical Reports

To view previously generated historical reports, complete the following steps:

1. From the Reports tab, select Historical Reports and click View Previously Generated 

Reports.

• When a report request is submitted and the Historical Database is unavailable, an 

informational message appears stating, Historical Database is currently unavailable. 

All reports in Submitted status are processed when the Historical Database is 

available. Report requests that are in Submitted status remain in Submitted status 

until the database is available and the report is generated. After the report is 

generated a Completed status is displayed.

• When a report request is submitted and the report could not generate, its status is 

Error. Resubmit your report request to ensure your report is generated. If a report 

displays an Error status, the request can be resubmitted at any time without 

receiving a duplicate request message.

• Report requests are user specific and are not viewable by other users.

2. The View Previously Generated Reports page appears as shown in Figure 1.The page lists 

reports that were requested within the last seven days. Click CSV in the Download column 

for your desired report. 

Figure 1: View Previously Generated Reports

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• After the CSV file is downloaded, open it using Excel or Notepad.

• Duplicate report requests based on identical report parameters cannot be made 

within seven days, however, after seven days a duplicate report request can be 

submitted.

3. The File Download dialog box appears. Click Open, Save, or Cancel.

• Click Open and the content of the file displays. 

• Click Save to and choose the location where you want to save the file. 

• Click Cancel and the dialog box closes. No data is saved.

Application Tips

Additional Buttons
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 vs. No. 30,496

10 Otero County

11 CR-2008-299

12 ALFREDO MUNIZ,

13 Defendant-Appellant.

14 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ORTERO COUNTY

15 James Waylon Counts, District Judge

16 Gary K. King, Attorney General

17 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General

18 Santa Fe, NM

19 for Appellee

20 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender

21 Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender

22 Santa Fe, NM

23 for Appellant

24 MEMORANDUM OPINION

25 SUTIN, Judge.
2

1 Defendant appeals his conviction of two counts of criminal sexual contact of

2 a minor. In our second notice, we proposed to reverse and remand the merger of the

3 two counts and affirm denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement made

4 to police. Both Defendant and the State have responded to our proposed disposition.

5 Having considered their arguments, we reverse and remand for vacation of one count

6 and for resentencing of Defendant. We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.

7 The State agrees that reversal is warranted on the merger issue. Defendant

8 likewise agrees with our proposal to reverse. Therefore, for the reasons stated in our

9 second calendar notice, we reverse and remand to the district court to vacate one of

10 the convictions and resentence Defendant. See State v. Schoonmaker, 2008-NMSC11 010, ¶ 50, 143 N.M. 373, 176 P.3d 1105 (stating that double jeopardy requires one of

12 the convictions to be vacated).

13 With regard to our proposal to affirm the denial of Defendant’s motion to

14 suppress statements that he made to police, Defendant continues to oppose our

15 proposal. He continues to argue that he was not free to leave as the police already

16 knew they were going to arrest him and were simply waiting until he gave an

17 incriminating statement to do it. [DMIO 2] 
3

1 As we pointed out in both our first and second notices, there is nothing in the

2 record suggesting that the police were going to arrest him regardless of what statement

3 he made. Rather, everything in the record shows that he was free to leave at any time

4 during his statement. [RP 104-05, 240, 242] He was not in custody when he was

5 asked to come to the police station to talk to police.

6 For the reasons stated in the first and second calendar notices, we affirm the

7 denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement made to police.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

9 __________________________________

10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 _________________________________

13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

14 _________________________________

15 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
Exhibit 10.6


 


CONCEPTUS, INC.


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 

1995 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


 


1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan


Adopted:  November 22,
1995


Approved By Stockholders:  January 1996


 


First Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan


Adopted:  March 23,
2004


 


Second Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan


Adopted:  March 23,
2004


Approved by Stockholders:  June 1, 2004


 


Third Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan


Adopted:  April 3,
2006


Approved by Stockholders:  June 7, 2006


 


Fourth Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan


Adopted:  April 28,
2008


Approved by Stockholders:  June 4, 2008


 


Effective July 1,
2008, pursuant to Sections 19 and 20 of the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(the “Purchase  Plan”) of Conceptus, Inc. (the “Company”),
the Company hereby amends the Purchase Plan as follows:


 


1.             The first sentence of Section 13(a) is
hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“The maximum number of shares of the Company’s Common
Stock which shall be made available for sale under the Plan shall be 660,000 shares,
subject to adjustment upon changes in capitalization of the Company as provided
in Section 19.”


 


* * * * * * * * * *


 


I hereby certify that the foregoing Fourth Amendment
to the Plan was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company effective
as of April 28, 2008 and by the stockholders of the Company effective as
of June 4, 2008.


 


Executed on this 1st
day of July, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
              /s/
  Michael W. Hall

  
	
   

  	
  Michael W. Hall,
  Secretary
(Reap. Dec. 8625)

Entry No. 836795, etc.

#### Bluefuies New York, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 13, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that

> 1. The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chocolate bars and other chocolate articles exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A, there was no foreign value or export value of United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars and other chocolate articles listed in Schedule B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said Schedule B.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the items set forth in said Schedule B, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the stipulated facts and on authority of the decision cited in the stipulation, I find the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise listed in schedule “B,” attached hereto and made a part of this decision, and that, for the respective items of merchandise, such value is as listed in said schedule “B.”

The appeals, as they relate to other abandoned merchandise, are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*487
# sec5_snc_2023

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2023-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2022
Part 2 Fiscal Year 2020 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT Section IV

U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report

Attribute Name Short

Name Attribute Definition Domain SystemChars Reference SuppliedBy

IRC Handout February 2020

Disaster Emergency Fund 

Code

DEFC Distinguishes whether the budgetary resources, obligations 

incurred, unobligated and obligated balances, and outlays are 

classified as disaster, emergency, or neither none of the three. 

Note - Once a disaster one of the three has been identified, 

the title "Disaster and Emergency Item 1

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire Suppression" for example will 

be replaced with the actual title identified by OMB such as 

"Emergency PL 115-56."

A - Emergency PL 115-56,

B - Emergency PL 115-72,

C - Emergency PL 115-123,

D - Emergency PL 115-254,

E - Emergency PL 116-20,

F - Emergency PL 116-26,

G - Emergency PL 116-93,

H - Disaster PL 116-93,

I - Emergency PL 116-94,

J - Wildfire Suppression PL 116-

94,

K - Emergency PL 116-113,

L - Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression, 

M - Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression,

N - Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression,

O - Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression,

Q - Non Disaster or Emergency

1/A OMB 

Guidance/TF

M

Bulk File
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6936
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY DONYEL STANSBURY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR89-434-S) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Donyel Stansbury, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his "Motion to Abolish Supervised Release" as frivolous. Our review of therecord discloses that Appellant's claims are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stansbury , No. CR-89-434-S (D. Md. June 30, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED