alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          25,765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                       779
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,445
<PP&E>                                         164,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,072
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          136,842
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,255
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   269,202
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,650
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (41,296)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (41,296)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (51,069)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.22)


</TABLE>
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the undersigned, Ronald J. Radcliffe, Chief Financial Officer of Empire Resorts,
Inc.,  a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to his
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2005 of the Company
(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.

March 30, 2006

By:  /s/ Ronald J. Radcliffe
     --------------------------
     Ronald J. Radcliffe
     Chief Financial Officer
```
Exhibit 15.1








(KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda. letterhead)
 
 
 
 May 17, 2012
 
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 We were previously principal accountants for Farmacias Ahumada, S.A. and its subsidiaries (“FASA”) a Chilean wholly-owned significant subsidiary acquired by Grupo Casa Saba, S.A.B de C.V. (“GCS”) on October 3, 2010 and, under the date of January 13, 2012, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of FASA as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the periods from October 3, 2010 (the date of acquisition) to December 31, 2010 and from October 3, 2009 to December 31, 2009, before the effects of the adjustments for the correction of the errors described in Note 4 to such financial statements. On April 29, 2011, we were dismissed. We have read GCS's statements included under Item 16-F of its Form 20-F/A dated May 17, 2012, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with GCS’s statement that the change was approved by GCS’s Board of Directors and at the General Annual Shareholders Meeting held on April 29, 2011.
 
 Very truly yours,
 
 KPMG Ltda.
  á
 Senior Partner
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

156) ll-K-(B)-155 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:53 AM Sheet 156 of 325 
P.2 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. 

1655 NORTH PORT MYER DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 703/528-1900 A-83-27 

II-K-CBO-155 

November 1, 1984 

Mr. Robert Short 

Economic Analysis Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Drop-12 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-02-3564, Work Assignment #19 

Dear Robert: 

Attached are 1990 projections for an additional fifth round SO, 

NSPS IFCAM run. 

TH/ce 

Enclosure 

cc: Dr. A. Wehe 

Sincerely, 

Tim Hogan 

MANAGEMENT / ECONOMICS / ENGINEERING 
P.3 

1990 IFCAM PROJECTIONS1 

100-150 

Boiler size (MMBtu/hr) 

150-200 200-250 >250 >100 

S09 emissions 

3 (10 short tons) 

11 12 29 

Annualized costs 939 763 461 1,308 3,470 

(10° $ 1982) 

Fuel demand 

(IO12 Btu) 

Coal 0 

Residual fuel oil 62 

Natural gas 67 

0 

51 

60 

0 

32 

35 

26 

64 

103 

26 

209 

264 

New industrial fossil fuel-fired boilers installed after 1985. Reference 

case fuel prices. Option Case 6 (reference letter from T. Hogan to R. Short 

dated October 19, 1984) bujt with an exemption from the scrubbing standard 

for low (less than 30 percent) capacity utilization rate residual fuel oil 

boilers (which are subject instead to a 0.8 lb S02/MMBtu emission ceiling).
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3709 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3709

**Commission Decision of 04/03/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3709 - ORKLA / ELKEM) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 04.03.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/200975

To the notifying party

Dear Sirs,

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.3709 – ORKLA/ELKEM Notification of 31/01/2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C33, 08/02/2005, p. 12

1. On 31/01/2005 , the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 by which the undertaking Orkla ASA (“Orkla”, Norway) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Elkem ASA (“Elkem”, Norway) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for Orkla: branded consumer goods, chemicals, energy and financial investments;

- for Elkem: production and supply of metals and materials to the steel, foundry, chemicals, electronics and aluminium industries and energy.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph c, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] Available on DG COMP website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
#### AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, a corporation doing business in Florida, Appellant, v. Marian Juanita SAVOCA and Frank Savoca, individually and as husband of Marian Juanita Savoca; Clara B. Magin d/b/a Flo-Mar Beauty Salon, Appellees.

No. 70-83.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 27, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3577 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building located at 300 E. 3rd 

Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the ‘‘Virginia Smith 

Federal Building’’, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 3577 ES

1 SECTION 1. VIRGINIA SMITH FEDERAL BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

3 300 E. 3rd Street in North Platte, Nebraska, shall be 

4 known and designated as the ‘‘Virginia Smith Federal 

5 Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

9 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Virginia 

10 Smith Federal Building’’. 

Passed the Senate February 27, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3577 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building located at 300 E. 

purposes. ‘‘Virginia Smith Federal Building’’, and for other 3rd Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the
EXHIBIT 23.1b



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Bank United Corp.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos.
333-19237, 333-37645, 333-75937, and 333-83797 on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 333-42765 on Form S-8 of Bank United Corp. and its subsidiaries
and Registration Statement No. 333-47308 on Form S-4 of Washington Mutual, Inc.
of our report dated October 23, 2000, relating to the consolidated statements of
financial condition of Bank United Corp. and subsidiaries as of September 30,
2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the September 30, 2000, annual report of Form 10-K of Bank United
Corp. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph, which states that we also
audited the combination of the accompanying consolidated financial statements
for the year ended September 30, 1998, after restatement for the 1999 pooling of
interests. Insofar as our report relates to the amounts included for Bank United
Corp. and subsidiaries for the year ended September 30, 1998, prior to the
restatement for the pooling of interests, it is based solely on the report of
Deloitte & Touche LLP. Insofar as our report relates to the amounts included for
Texas Central Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998, it is based
solely on the report of Payne Falkner Smith & Jones P.C.



KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
December 14, 2000
# L_2005025EN.01006001.xml

| 28.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 25/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 25/60

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 139/2005

of 27 January 2005

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004 of 3 September 2004 on a special intervention measure for oats in Finland and Sweden for the 2004/2005 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 21 to 27 January 2005, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004, the maximum refund on exportation of oats shall be 30,90 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 285, 4.9.2004, p. 3.

3

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK S. STEPHENSON, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) C.A. No. 04-324 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

Commissioner of Social Security, )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on November 5, 2004, and was

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for a report and recommendation

in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the

Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. #12), filed on July 5, 2005,

recommended that the District Court grant the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

#10) and deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #8). It was further recommended

that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security

income (SSI) and Childhood Disability Benefits (CDB) be affirmed. The parties were allowed ten

(10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff’s counsel by

certified mail, and on Defendants. Objections were filed by Plaintiff on July 18, 2005. After de

novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the report and

recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 24th Day of August, 2005;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

#10) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.#8) is DENIED.

Case 1:04-cv-00324-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s

application for supplemental security income (SSI) is AFFIRMED.

The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated July 5, 2005, is adopted

as the opinion of the court.

/s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cc: Susan Paradise Baxter

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

all parties of record _____

Case 1:04-cv-00324-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT M AT T H E WM ARK

M O O RE , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JO E SCH M IDT , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35668 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-00002-SLG M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Sharon L. Gle a son, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2013 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : K O Z INSKI , C hie f Judge , B E RZ O N and IKUT A , C irc uit Judge s. 1. The Ala s ka

C ourt of Appe a ls c onc lude d tha t M oore wa s not c onstruc tive l y

de nie d c ounse l. This wa s not “ c ontra ry to, or [] an unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de t e rm i ne d by

the Supre m e 

# FIL ED AUG 15 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).pa ge 2

C ourt of the Unite d State s.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). Fa ilure to subje c t a prose c utor’ s c a se to a dve rsa ria l te sting will only

c onstitute

c onstruc tive de nia l of c ounse l whe n “ ‘ c ounse l e ntire ly fa ils to subje c t the prose c ution’ s c a se to m e aningful a dve rsaria l te sting.’ ” B e ll v. C one , 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002) (quoting Unite d State s v. C ronic , 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984)). M oore ’ s la wy e r pre se n te d his de sire d intoxic ation de fe nse at tria l . Additionally , the Supre m e C ourt ha s ne ve r found tha t a c rim ina l de fe n d ant ha s a

right to a m e a ningful re lationship with his attorne y . M orris v. Sla

ppy , 461 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1983). In a ny e ve nt, the proposition tha

t a se rious bre a

kdown in the

attorne y -c lie nt re lationship may rise to a c onstruc tive de nia l of c ounse l is not “ c l e arly e sta blishe d” by

Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. 2. M oore c ite s no Supre m e C ourt c a s e to support his c la im that the tria l c ourt’ s inquiry

into his motion to substitute c ounse l wa s ina de quate . As suc h, he fa ile d to sa

tisfy AEDPA’ s thre s hold for re v ie wing a sta t e c o urt a djudic ation on the m e rits. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). AFFIRM E D.
Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jason Kellerman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd. 

|   | By:    | /s/ JASON KELLERMAN                       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                           |
|   | Name:  | **Jason Kellerman**                       |
|   | Title: | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |

I, Dianne Dubois, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd.

|   | By:    | /s/ DIANNE DUBOIS           |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |                             |
|   | Name:  | **Dianne Dubois**           |
|   | Title: | **Chief Financial Officer** |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

677 

KA 07-02647 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

EDDIE AMARO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D.

Walsh, J.), rendered September 19, 2007. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first

degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and

criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Stuart
      D. Beath, Chief Financial Officer of International Fuel Technology, Inc. (the
      “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
      30,
      2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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




Dated:
      November 14, 2007




By:
            */s/
              Stuart D. Beath*Stuart
              D. BeathChief
              Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6916
ROBERT L. F. BARBER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1006-R) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. F. Barber, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Barber v. Angelone , No. CA-96-1006-R (W.D. Va. June 12, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED