alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:12-CR-155 (3)

JUDGE SMITH

JOSE SANTOS GARCIA-ISIORDIA,

Date of Original Judgment:

Defendant. November 6, 2013 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), in an “Agreed Disposition Case.” (Doc. 180). Defendant was

originally sentenced on October 30, 2013 to 64 months imprisonment for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin. Defendant’s advisory sentencing

guideline range was 70 to 87 months, based on an offense level 27 and criminal history category

I. 

On November 1, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated Guideline

Amendment 782, which reduced by two levels the offense levels assigned to the drug quantities

set forth in §2D1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, as well as parallel changes for

the listed chemicals found in §2D1.11. Defendants who are currently imprisoned for these drug

offenses are eligible for retroactive application of the guidelines as long as they meet certain

eligibility criteria.

The parties agree that the Defendant meets the Sentencing Commission’s eligibility

requirements for the retroactive application of Amendment 782 to his case. After considering

the original guideline range, the extent of any downward departure, the circumstances of

Case: 2:12-cr-00155-GCS-NMK Doc #: 182 Filed: 03/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Defendant’s case, and his behavior while incarcerated, the parties jointly recommend a reduction

of Defendant’s sentence to a term of incarceration of 57 months. 

Whether to grant a reduction of sentence pursuant to §3582(c)(2) is within the discretion

of the court. United States v. Ursery, 109 F.3d 1129, 1137 (6th Cir. 1997). In considering

whether a reduced sentence is appropriate, this court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C.

§3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable. See §3582(c)(2). 

Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion, the statutory sentencing factors set forth in

§3553(a), and the joint recommendation of the parties, the Court concludes that a reduction of

Defendant’s term of incarceration is appropriate in light of the reduction in the applicable

guideline range. The sentence of 64 months incarceration previously imposed in this case is

hereby reduced to a term of incarceration of 57 months. Under Amendment 782, Defendant’s

release date shall be no earlier than November 1, 2015. Except as provided above, all other

provisions of the judgment previously entered in this case shall remain in effect.

The Clerk shall remove Document 180 from the Court’s pending motion’s list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Order Date: March 4, 2015

Effective Date: November 1, 2015

-2-

Case: 2:12-cr-00155-GCS-NMK Doc #: 182 Filed: 03/04/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification by the Chief Executive Officer of

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned chief financial officer of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/  Jamie L. Buskill

Jamie L. Buskill

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC

October 21, 2005
No. 50617.

#### Protests 934872-G, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, *J.*

The record showed that certain items of the merchandise consist of so-called racello hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 47291; that other items consist of sisal hemp hats the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218); and that other items consist of hemp knotted straw hats similar to those involved in Abstract 46497. Upon the established facts and following the cited authorities, the merchandise in question was held dutiable as claimed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BOBBY J. JOHNSON, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 479, 38 CMR 277

No. 20,869

April 5, 1968

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Lieutenant Colonel Martin S. Drucker,*and *Captain Frederick L. Haag*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major R. Kevin McHugh,*and *Captain Balfe R. Wagner*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Evidence of other acts of misconduct by the accused, including communicating a threat, was introduced in connection with charges resulting from an assault upon a sergeant. Assuming admissibility of the evidence, there were no instructions as to the limited purpose for which it could be considered by the court members. United States v Bryant, 12 USCMA 111, 115, 30 CMR 111. The Government’s case rests upon the testimony of alleged accomplices and an identification of the accused by the victim under unusual circumstances. Considering all the evidence, *480including the accused’s denial of complicity, we are convinced the error is prejudicial as to Charges I, II, and III. United States v Gewin, 14 USCMA 224, 34 CMR 4; United States v Donley, 15 USCMA 530, 36 CMR 28. However, the compelling nature of the evidence as to the breaches of restriction indicates there is no fair risk the court members were influenced in their deliberations on these *offenses*by the other acts of misconduct. Consequently, the findings of guilty of the two specifications of Charge IV can properly be affirmed. See United States v Lewis, 14 USCMA 79, 33 CMR 291.

The decision of the board of review is reversed as to the findings of guilty of Charges I, II, and III, and their respective specifications, and the sentence. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the board of review. In its discretion, the board of review may order a rehearing or dismiss the aforementioned charges and reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty, and in the light of this opinion.
Case: 2:11-cv-00782-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00782-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00782-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00782-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00782-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T20:01:22-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# C_2008038EN.01000301.xml

| 12.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 February 2008

(2008/C 38/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4542 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4538 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74620 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4202 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6005 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 99,24 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0265 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,650 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,47 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6968 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,6138 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6540 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,256 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7795 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6061 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4536 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,3376 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8394 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0619 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 375,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3238 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,4470 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2799 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 487,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7160 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,491 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,8710 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,500 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5601 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,6428 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4542

JPY

Japanese yen

155,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4538

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74620

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4202

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6005

ISK

Iceland króna

99,24

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0265

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,650

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,47

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6968

PLN

Polish zloty

3,6138

RON

Romanian leu

3,6540

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,256

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7795

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6061

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4536

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,3376

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8394

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0619

KRW

South Korean won

1 375,96

ZAR

South African rand

11,3238

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,4470

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2799

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 487,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7160

PHP

Philippine peso

59,491

RUB

Russian rouble

35,8710

THB

Thai baht

46,500

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5601

MXN

Mexican peso

15,6428

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  Exhibit 4(q)    
    



PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY        P. O. BOX 2606        BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA    35202-2606  


 WAIVER OF SURRENDER CHARGE ENDORSEMENT

for Terminal Illness or Nursing Home Confinement  


        We
are amending the Contract to which this endorsement is attached by adding the following provisions: 




Waiver of Surrender Charge—We will waive any applicable surrender charge if, at any time after the first Contract
Year: 



	(1)
	you
are first diagnosed as having a terminal illness by a physician that is not related to you or the Annuitant; or,



	(2)
	you
enter, for a period of at least ninety (90) days, a facility which is both:



	(a)
	licensed
by the state; and,



	(b)
	qualified
as a skilled nursing home facility under Medicare or Medicaid. 








The
term "terminal illness" means that you are diagnosed as having a non-correctable medical condition that, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, will result in your death in
less than 12 months. A "physician" is a medical doctor licensed by a state=s Board of Medical Examiners, or similar authority in the United States, acting within the scope of his or her
license. You must submit written proof that is satisfactory to us of a terminal illness or nursing home confinement. We reserve the right to require an examination by a physician of our choice at our
expense. 



Once
the waiver of surrender charge has been granted no surrender charge will apply to the Contract in the future and no additional Purchase Payments will be accepted. 


If
any Owner is not an individual, the Waiver of Surrender Charge provisions will apply to the Annuitant. 





        Signed
for the company and made a part of the contract as of the Effective date. 


PROTECTIVE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 



	
	

 
	Secretary













QuickLinks



Exhibit 4(q)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
     the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
     reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000097432
<NAME>                        TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  71,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    14,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,400
<PP&E>                                         2,479,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 858,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,222,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          316,900
<BONDS>                                        1,204,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,731,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,222,300
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               468,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               95,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             58,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   42,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            69,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   69,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0 <F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not meaningful since Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation is a
wholly-owned subsidiary.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 1 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 2 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 3 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 4 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 5 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 6 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 7 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 8 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 9 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 10 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 11 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 12 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 13 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00593-EAS-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 14 of 14  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T14:05:19-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DERRICK LAMONT HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-1186, CA-01-4182)

Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Lamont Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lamont Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2001) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-98-1186, CA01-4182 (D.S.C. filed Dec. 13, 2001; entered Dec. 14, 2001 & filed

Jan. 9, 2002; entered Jan. 10, 2002). 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**WILLIAM RAUCH,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 10 WM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File Petition** 

**for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** GRANTED **. Although counsel was negligent,**

**Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-filed Petition fo r Allowance of Appeal.**  See

**Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(B). Counsel is** DIRECTED **to file the already-prepared Petition for**

**Allowance of Appeal within five days.**
Scan for more recommendations or 

Safety Alerts

Fourth Quarter Safety Alert

Twenty-six years of data shows a 4th Quarter spike in fatal roadway worker incidents. 

A comparison of roadway worker fatality data over a span of 26 years (1997–2022) indicates that 

the highest number of roadway worker incidents occur in the 4th Quarter. 

• 96 roadway worker fatalities occurred between 1997-2022

• 36% (35 of 96) of the fatalities occurred in the 4th Quarter.

o 2 of these 35 fatalities occurred in November 2022.

• 48% (17 of 35) of Q4 fatalities occurred in October

FAMES has not determined the reasons for the 4th Quarter spike in roadway worker fatalities, 

but the pattern is undeniable and alarming. 

In recognition of these trends, FAMES takes this opportunity to remind all roadway workers to 

be hyper-vigilant with regards to the application of on-track safety protection, especially during 

the 4th Quarter. If you see someone fouling a track without on-track safety protection, say 

something to them. 

Dedication: The FAMES Committee dedicates its efforts to all roadway workers who have lost their lives 

in the performance of duty and to the families, loved ones, and coworkers they have left behind.

Mission Statement: The Mission of the Fatality Analysis of Maintenance-of-way Employees and 

Signalmen (FAMES) Committee is to analyze all fatalities and selected related incidents to make 

recommendations to reduce the risk of future occurrences and eliminate fatalities to roadway workers.

If you have concerns regarding the application of on-track safety at the job site, 

invoke your legally protected right to make a good faith challenge and remain clear 

of the tracks until the challenge has been resolved.
A90A0267.

#### MINGO v. THE STATE.

(394 SE2d 104)

Decided April 10, 1990

Rehearing denied April 24, 1990.

*Landau, Davis & Farkas, Thomas G. Ledford,*for appellant.

*Britt R. Priddy, District Attorney, John L. Tracy, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Beasley, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions of kidnapping, OCGA § 16-5-40; robbery, OCGA § 16-8-40; and rape, OCGA § 16-6-1.

1. Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to admit, for purposes of impeachment, certified copies of the victim’s guilty pleas to charges of issuing bad checks.

After the State rested, defendant proposed to recall the victim to question her pursuant to offering the copies of guilty pleas. Defendant stated they would show the victim was guilty of offenses involving moral turpitude so as to impeach her testimony and impugn her credibility. The trial court ruled the evidence improper for impeachment purposes and that the offenses did not involve moral turpitude.

Defendant did not request that the witness be called for purposes of further cross-examination. He had made no attempt to raise the issue when the witness was cross-examined. In effect, he was recalling the witness as his own for purposes of impeachment. There being no showing of entrapment, this is not permitted. OCGA § 24-9-81; *Eberhart v. State,*121 Ga. App. 663, 664 (3) (175 SE2d 73) (1970). It was not an abuse of discretion to refuse permission to recall the State’s witness and introduce evidence impeaching her.

2. Defendant complains of the sufficiency of evidence to sustain his conviction. The matters he raises concerning credibility of witnesses are for the jury, under proper instructions from the trial court, and not for the appellate court. *Roberts v. State,*259 Ga. 441, 442 (1) (383 SE2d 872) (1989). He did not establish his alibi or the victim’s non-credibility as a matter of law.

A rational trier of fact was authorized to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20214

Summary Calendar

MARY DAVIDSON, ET AL ., Plaintiffs

SHERRY THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant

VERSUS

GUARDIAN PLANS, INC., ET AL ., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

(H-95-CV-1353)

November 19, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-appellant, Sherry Thompson, filed a charge of

discrimination with the EEOC on June 21, 1990 against De fendantappellee Service Corporation International (SCI). On September 11,

1992, the EEOC issued a determination and right to sue notice.

Thompson did not request review of this dismissal nor did the EEOC2

issue a notice of intent to reconsider Thompson’s charge. Although

t he earlier right to sue notice had not been revoked, a second

right to sue notice was issued by the EEOC on February 1, 1995.

This second notice was subsequently revoked. On May 2, 1995,

Thompson filed suit against Guardian Plans, Inc., SCI, Kenneth

Griffin, David Willis, and Garrison Wynn pursuant to the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Thompson

alleged disparate treatment and retaliation.

On October 22, 1996, the district court granted summary

judgment on Thompson’s claims in favor of all the defendants. With

regard to the the individual defendants, the di strict court

reasoned a Title VII suit cannot be maintained against employees in

their individual capacities and no evidence existed indicating that

Griffin, Willis, or Wynn were “employers” as defined by Title VII.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the remaining defendants

as Thompson’s suit was not filed within the 90-day filing period

provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and no grounds under the

doctrine of equitable t olling existed for extending the filing

period. On appeal, Thompson argues that the district court erred

in finding her suit was not timely filed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the re cord excerpts,

and the relev ant portions of the record itself. We affirm for

substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

AFFFIRMED.