alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8659)

Entry No. 812584.

#### Charles Happel, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided September 26, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that

> (1) Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which in *Herher*v. *United States,*C. D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> (2) At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher, is in United States currency as follows:

> 0 No. 1 — 1/18-9-18 “Uncoated” 9 cases each containing 25 pieces

> Binoculars_$20. 30 F. O. B. Yokohama

> Leather Cases_ 3.00 “ “

> 0 No. — 10/18-18/18 “Coated” 9 cases each containing 25 pieces

> Binoculars_$23. 00 “ “

> Leather Cases_ 3.00 “ “

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows, in United States currency:

> 0 No. 1-1/18-9-18 “Uncoated”

> 9 cases each containing 25 pieces

> Binoculars_ $20. 30 f. o. b. Yokohoma

> Leather Cases_ 3. 00

> 0 No. — 10/18-18/18 “Coated”

> 9 eases each containing 25 pieces

> Binoculars_$23. 00

> Leather Cases_ 3. 00

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS LEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-0983 LKK GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

___________________________________/

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been submitted. The dates for the

pretrial conference and jury trial, set for July 28, 2006, and October 10, 2006, respectively, are

hereby vacated. The parties are relieved of the requirement of filing pretrial statements at this

time. These dates will be reset upon resolution of the summary judgment motion, if appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/1/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jack0983.vac

Case 2:04-cv-00983-LKK -GGH Document 76 Filed 08/01/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY COX,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN ORNOSKI, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-0065 MCE DAD DP

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s request for a 90-day extension of time within

which to file a response to Petitioner’s objections to the lodging of the record is hereby granted. 

The response shall be filed on or before April 30, 2006. The length of this extension of time,

however, may be reconsidered sua sponte by the court should changed circumstances warrant the

advancing of the date for filing such objections. 

DATED: January 23, 2006.

Ddad1/orders.capital/cox0065.ord

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 43 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 47348.

#### Protest 28090-K of Karl Ullmann (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the protest was submitted without the introduction of testimony in support of the claim made. The protest was therefore overruled.
Case 2:04-cv-01061-WBS-CMK Document 58 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 10698)

#### The Gitkin Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 8985.

(Decided April 1, 1964)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain bamboo blinds exported from Kobe, Japan,-and entered at the port of New Orleans, La. ""

*479Stipulated facts, upon, which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the present merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is the “invoice unit values net packed as reflected by the commercial invoice,” and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-0878 GEB DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2009, the assigned district judge

granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter,

defendants filed an interlocutory appeal and argued to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s equal protection claim. On January

11, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to

defendants Kissinger, Peery, Qualls, and Money but reversed as to defendant Ingwerson. The

Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for

pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the scheduling

order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. If available, the court

1

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 207 Filed 07/06/12 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

may order that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of video-conferencing.

Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in writing as to

whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate

judge or if they wish to be referred to the court’s mediation program. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court

in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the

undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to wish to be referred to the court’s mediation

program. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall

return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the

parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each

party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to be referred to the court’s mediation program;

and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for

settlement conferences.

DATED: July 5, 2012.

DAD:9

davi0878.sc

2

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 207 Filed 07/06/12 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/10/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at Solar Energy Conference in Columbus, GA

SUMMARY: 

EPA Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to attendees at a solar energy 

conference in Columbus, GA, on 7/1/14. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was 

proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Bryan Myers/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Jonnelle Minnefee, Solar Tyme LLC and approximately 9 others

ATTACHMENT
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

PATRICK RONALD HOLLEY,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1425-GEB-PAN(JFM)-P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 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 June 6, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 99 Filed 07/14/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 6, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ February 7, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action shall proceed solely on the retaliation claim against defendant

Herrera raised in plaintiff’s original complaint and answered by said defendant on September 29,

2005.

Dated: July 13, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 99 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2
**Fw: Published discussion of the Xact Multi**  **Published discussion of the Xact Multi Published discussion of the Xact Multi -**  **Metals CEMS performance while Metals CEMS performance while**  **Metals CEMS performance while at Lilly**  **at Lilly.....**

**..... Jacksonville IT**  **Jacksonville IT Jacksonville IT 3** 

**, 2011**  **Jeff Ryan Jeff Ryan**  **to: David Ogulei, Sarah Marshall, Charles Hall, Dan** 

**Bivins, Kim Garnett 09/26/2012 03:38 PM** 

**Info from Rick Lambert to share with you.**

**____________________________________________________ Jeff Ryan**  **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development**  **National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division**  **Air Pollution Technology Branch 109 T.W. Alexander Drive**  **Mail Drop E305-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711**  **(919) 541-1437 (919) 541-0554 FAX**

**"And all this science, I don't understand." "It's just my job 5 days a week"** 

**Elton John - Rocket Man**

**____________________________________________________ ----- Forwarded by Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US on 09/26/2012 04:36 PM -----** 

**From: Richard H Lambert <lambert_richard_h@lilly.com>**  **To: Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA**  **Cc: Michael L Foster <foster_michael_l@lilly.com>**  **Date: 09/26/2012 12:49 PM**  **Subject: Published discussion of the Xact Multi-Metals CEMS performance while at Lilly..... Jacksonville IT3,** 

**2011**

Jeff,

I thought I would forward several recent publications by Lilly regarding our positive experience with the Xact multi-metals CEMS. We can discuss this and any questions you or Region V have on the conference call, but I thought the attached publications would provide documentation around our experience. I believe we (Lilly) have been very straight forward on our positive experience with the Xact and have published this quite a bit.

Once you get an idea of what day(s) and/or times next week work, I will schedule the call.

Rick

### Rick Lambert

Eli Lilly Engineering Tech Center Phone: 317-276-1820 Cell Phone: 317-319-0523 Email: rhlambert @ lilly

. com

**IT3 Paper on T149 CPT.ppt IT3 Paper on T149 CPT.ppt IT3 2011 Lambert.ppt**  **IT3 2011 Lambert.ppt**

**Execution of Comprehensive Performance Test using P articulate rev 1.doc**
No. 58983.

protest 117517-K (San Francisco).

#### Bellmar Liquor Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155) and *United States*v. *The Josebra Company*(41 C. C. P. A. 206, C. A. D. 552), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8161)

#### F. W. Woolworth Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 889618.

(Decided September 10, 1952)

*Sharretls, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *468IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the above named Appeal to Reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to re-appraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

STEVEN A. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0756 LKK JFM P

vs.

L. VILES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Due to the pendency of defendants’ November 7, 2005 motion for summary

judgment, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties are relieved of the obligation to file pretrial statements until further

order of court;

2. The pretrial conference set for January 13, 2006 before the undersigned is

vacated;

3. The jury trial set for April 4, 2006 before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton is

vacated; and

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 54 Filed 03/27/06 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

4. The above dates will be reset, as appropriate, following disposition of

defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

DATED: March 27, 2006. 

12

mart0756.vac 

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 54 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of M.D.P., a child, * From the 318th District Court

 of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. FM64398.

No. 11-18-00146-CV * November 20, 2018

 * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Gray, C.J., sitting by assignment, 

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James A. Yost, Vice President, Finance 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, to the best of my
knowledge:

         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 Company.



/s/ James A. Yost
--------------------------
James A. Yost
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
September 15, 2003
Before the Second Division,

February 15, 1950

No. 54028.

#### L. Batlin & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6757-R (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The customs broker who made the entry herein testified that at the time of the arrival of the merchandise he submitted to the appraiser a request for information, and when the same was returned to him, he misunderstood the appraiser’s request for a change in prices, deducting from the new prices suggested by the appraiser, the inland charges of cartage, inland freight, and insurance. When the appraiser advised him that the charges had been erroneously deducted, he filed an amended entry on or about September 20, 1948. The merchandise was appraised on December 29, 1948. The amended entry was disregarded by the appraiser for the reason that prior to the time of its acceptance the invoice and the merchandise had come under the observation of the appraiser for purposes of appraisement. Upon a full consideration of the entire record, it was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
SERVED: August 23, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 

COMPANY 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0806 

Case No. 2011CE250036 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On January 24, 2015, a Corrected Order Cancelling the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference was filed. 

On August 22, 2016, the FAA filed its Withdrawal of Complaint, stating that "[p ]ursuant 

to a settlement reached by the parties ... the [FAA], by counsel, hereby withdraws its Complaint 

dated October 15, 2014."1 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and·this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

1 On August 22, 2016, Office of Hearings attorney staff e-mailed the FAA and Respondent's counsel of record to 

confirm that the caption appearing on the Withdrawal of Complaint contained an incorrect Docket Number (FAA2016-0806, rather than FAA-2014-0806) and the FAA served the Withdrawal of Complaint on the correct counsel, 

Mr. Paul Alp. Respondent's former counsel, Mr. Allan Horowitz, confirmed that Mr. Alp and his firm had taken 

over the case. ' 
Docket No. F AA-2014-0806 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Ms. Andrea Michelle Harper 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Paul Alp 

Respondent's Counsel 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2595 

TEL: 202-624-2500 

FAX: 202-628-5116 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.
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

BENJAMIN ELLIS, No. CIV S-04-1483-LKK-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALBONICO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the order

and writ of habeas corpus testificandum issued as to inmate David Turner (see Doc. 161), issued

on March 26, 2010, is vacated. Mr. Turner will not be called as a witness at time of trial. The

Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Out-To-Court Desk, California

State Prison – Sacramento, P.O. Box 686, Soledad, California 93960-0686.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 7, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 163 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1926

CLOTILDE C. JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; 

SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00624-CMH-MSN)

Submitted: January 10, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clotilde C. Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Montgomery 

Barnwell, Matthew Douglas Patterson, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & 

SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, Nathan Ira Brown, 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Huntington, West 

Virginia, Sarah Reimers McIntee, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & 

SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clotilde C. Jimenez appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Jimenez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:16-cv-00624-CMH-MSN 

(E.D. Va. filed July 26, 2016; entered July 27, 2016). We grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED