alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 10/11/2012

Sample Number: 124273-001 Date Collected: 10/03/2012 07:45 Date Received: 10/3/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Bromide, Br 35.5 mg/L 10 2 KLG 10/10/2012 EPA 300.1

Selenium, Se 299 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 10/05/2012 13:27 EPA 200.8

Chloride, Cl 3220 mg/L 60 10 KLG 10/10/2012 EPA 300.1

Fluoride, F 61.3 mg/L 2 0.5 KLG 10/10/2012 EPA 300.1

Sample Number: 124273-002 Date Collected: 10/01/2012 08:30 Date Received: 10/3/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Bromide, Br 34.8 mg/L 10 2 KLG 10/10/2012 EPA 300.1

Selenium, Se 350 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 10/05/2012 13:32 EPA 200.8

Chloride, Cl 3000 mg/L 60 10 KLG 10/10/2012 EPA 300.1

Fluoride, F 60.6 mg/L 2 0.5 KLG 10/10/2012 EPA 300.1

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 124273 Page 1 of 1
#### Charles ZOHLMAN and Charles Gertler, as Executors, etc., Petitioners, v. Sylvia ZOHLMAN, Respondent.

No. 39860.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 29, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 235 So.2d 532.

ERVIN, C. J„ and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                            856,749
<SECURITIES>                    3,292,812
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,533,554
<ALLOWANCES>                      108,000
<INVENTORY>                       378,443
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,264,710
<PP&E>                         13,728,818
<DEPRECIATION>                  7,509,604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 14,147,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             691,539
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          223,180
<OTHER-SE>                     11,453,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   14,147,217
<SALES>                         7,883,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                8,607,212
<CGS>                           3,785,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   7,168,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   23,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   62,614
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 23,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,414,672
<INCOME-TAX>                      527,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,414,672
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      887,572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
#### Sara Norphlet POWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13325.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Sept. 26, 1977.

*944Hal V. Lyons, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King by F. Lee Drake, Jr., Shreveport, for Commercial Union Ins. Co., plaintiff-intervenor-appel-lant.

Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, Shreveport by Richard H. Switzer, Shreveport, for defendant and 3rd party plaintiff-appellants.

Nelson & Achee, Ltd., Shreveport by Roland J. Achee, Shreveport, for William L. Walton, 3rd party defendant-appellee.

Before BOLIN, C. J., and PRICE and MARVIN, JJ.

MARVIN, Judge.

In an action for the wrongful death of the plaintiff’s husband in a Shreveport automobile accident, the lower court rejected the demands of plaintiff and the collision insurer of her late husband’s automobile for amounts paid under its insurance policy. The sole issue is whether the decedent was contributorily negligent in colliding with a parked truck. We affirm.

The accident occurred after dark about 6:00 p. m. on a winter evening. Defendant’s truck stalled shortly before the accident at the intersection of Grimmett Drive and Thomas Street and was left parked in the westernmost (or outside curb lane) of the two southbound lanes of Grim-mett. The lower court found that the lights of the truck were not illuminated when the accident occurred. Defendant’s driver made no attempt to warn other southbound traffic of the parked truck, but left it unattended. Under these circumstances, defendant’s driver breached his duty to warn approaching motorists of the parked truck. *State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. South Cent.*Bell, 343 So.2d 758 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1977).

At least two southbound vehicles in decedent’s lane of travel avoided the truck before the decedent’s fatal collision. The testimony conflicted as to the distance from which and extent to which the parked truck could be observed under the lighting afforded by the decedent’s automobile and by the several streetlights and other lights in the area. Also, we are not shown any circumstances from which we can reasonably infer that the decedent driver was momentarily confused or distracted and unable to timely react to the obstruction.

*945There is credible evidence to support the lower court’s conclusion that the decedent should have seen the parked truck in sufficient time to have avoided the collision.

At appellant’s cost, judgment is

AFFIRMED.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 99

To remove the limitation on the availability of funds previously appropriated

to the Resolution Trust Corporation and to provide additional resources

for the Resolution Trust Corporation and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. ROUKEMA (for herself and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance

and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To remove the limitation on the availability of funds previously appropriated to the Resolution Trust Corporation

and to provide additional resources for the Resolution

Trust Corporation 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Resolution Trust Cor5 poration Funding Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING.

7 Section 21A(i) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act

8 (12 U.S.C. 144a(i)) is amended—
2

HR 99 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (3)—

2 (A) by striking ‘‘until April 1, 1992’’; and

3 (B) by inserting ‘‘, out of any money in the

4 Treasury not otherwise appropriated,’’ after

5 ‘‘provide’’; and

6 (2) by adding at the end the following new

7 paragraph:

8 ‘‘(4) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.—Pursuant to the

9 request of the President and in addition to amounts

10 provided under paragraphs (2) and (3), the Sec11 retary of the Treasury shall provide, out of any

12 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,

13 to the Corporation such sums as may be necessary

14 not to exceed $10,000,000,000 to carry out the pur15 poses of this section until April 1, 1994.’’.

16 SEC. 3. CAPITALIZATION OF THE SAIF.

17 Whereas on October 1, 1993, the Federal Deposit In18 surance Corporation assumes responsibility for resolving

19 failing thrifts, using the resources of the Savings Associa20 tion Insurance Fund; and, whereas under the provisions

21 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and En22 forcement Act of 1989, the Treasury Department was to

23 have begun making contributions to the Savings Associa24 tion Insurance Fund; and, whereas the Savings Associa25 tion Insurance Fund may not be adequately funded; and
3

HR 99 IH

1 be it further Resolved, That it is the sense of the Congress

2 that the Secretary of the Treasury shall begin to take the

3 necessary measures to carry out the requirements of the

4 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforce5 ment Act of 1989, with respect to the capitalization of

6 the Savings Association Insurance Fund.

Æ
EX-10.19





 Exhibit 10.19 

PURSUANT TO ITEM 601(B)(10) OF REGULATION S-K, CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN REDACTED AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, HAVE BEEN MARKED
“[***],” SUCH REDACTIONS ARE IMMATERIAL AND WOULD BE COMPETITIVELY HARMFUL IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. 
 Addendum to Memorandum
of Understanding 
 Reference is made to the Memorandum of Understanding by and between INNOVIZ Technologies Ltd. (“Innoviz”),
and Magna Electronics Technology, Inc. (“Magna Electronics”) dated October 12, 2020 relating to the supply and manufacturing of the InnovizOne Optical Module for the BMW [***] program (“MoU”). According to
Section 1) last paragraph, the parties will use commercially reasonable efforts to enter into a definitive supply agreement which is expected to replace the MoU within no later than December 12, 2020. The Parties hereby agree to extend
such deadline with both retroactive and future effect until February 1, 2021, such that this will be deemed to have always been the intended date. 

Other than for such extension, the MoU shall remain unchanged. 

The parties agree to enter into this agreement on this date: 
  

					
	For and on behalf of	 		 	For and on behalf of
			
	INNOVIZ Technologies Ltd.	 		 	Magna Electronics Technology, Inc.
			
	Date: December 8, 2020	 		 	Date: December 8, 2020
			
	 /s/ Oren Rosenzweig
	 		 	 /s/ Sharath Reddy

	Authorized Signature(s)	 		 	Authorized Signature(s)
	Print Name/Title: Oren Rosenzweig, CBO	 		 	Print Name/Title: Sharath Reddy, SVP Magna Electronics


  
 1
# Official Journal C 81/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.081.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 81 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5415 March 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.081.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 81

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5415 March 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 081/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 081/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6110 — Aegon/Unnim/Caixasabadell Vida) (2) | 5 |
| 2011/C 081/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6125 — Reale/Unnim/CSG) (2) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 081/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2011/C 081/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6110 — Aegon/Unnim/Caixasabadell Vida) (2)

5

2011/C 081/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6125 — Reale/Unnim/CSG) (2)

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 081/04 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2011/C 081/05 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 081/04

Euro exchange rates

6

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2011/C 081/05

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EVA PLAN ADOPTED FEBRUARY 24, 1997


"In the event bonuses are declared under the EVA Plan for 1997,
1997 will represent year one for all current participants in the
plan and the payout percentage for 1997 will be 67% and that the
payout percentage for years two through four thereafter will be
50%, 40% and 33%, respectively, and will remain 33% after year
four."
#### In re Investigation of Alleged Violation of the Code of Governmental Ethics by RolandF. COPPOLA, Member of the Louisiana State Police.

No. 53138.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Louisiana Commission on Governmental Ethics applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. 270 So.2d 190.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT to SECTION
1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 15, 2009 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |     |  |                        
|---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|January 18, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Craig F. Maier     
|                 |  |     |  | Craig F. Maier         
|                 |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the
liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other otherwise stated in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 968 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                               H. R. 968

 To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act with 
            respect to the authorization for appropriations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

Mr. de la Garza (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Stenholm, and Mr. Smith 
  of Oregon) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act with 
            respect to the authorization for appropriations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 31 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (7 U.S.C. 136y) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 31. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATION.

    ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
(other than section 23(a))--
            ``(1) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1994;
            ``(2) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
            ``(3) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; and
            ``(4) $160,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.''.

                                 <all>
```
1 Date: November 2 , 2010
Subject: Minutes of the October 25 , 2010 Conference Call with Ne vada Division of Environmental Protection EPA Contract No. EP

- D

- 06

- 118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4

- 06 RTI Project No. 0210426.004.006

From: Chuck French OAQPS/SPPD/MM G (D243

- 02) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

To: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0239

I

. Introduction

A conference call with Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) was held o n October 25 , 2010 . The purpose of the meeting was to discuss NDEP ’ s major comments to the proposed rule. This memorandum summarizes the major topics discussed during the meeting

.

II

. Attendees

Mike Elges, NDEP Rob Bamford, NDEP Larry Kennedy, NDEP

Chuck French, U.S. EPA, OAQPS Robin Se gall, U.S. EPA, OAQPS Tom Driscoll, U.S. EPA, OAQPS Sona Chilangaryan, U.S. EPA, Region 9 Steve Frey, U.S. EPA, Region 9

Richard Marinshaw , RTI International Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

III

. Discussion

The major topics discussed during the meeting i ncluded annual compliance testing, U.S. EPA Method 29 mercury testing, and other mercury test methods.
Order filed June 9, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00013-CV

___________

JAMES BOSWELL, Appellant

V.

ECTOR COUNTY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ECISD 

SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES; MIKE ATKINS; TRYON LEWIS;

MURRAY A. CRUTCHER, III; AND ATKINS, HOLLMANN, 

JONES, PEACOCK, LEWIS & LYON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-133,485

O R D E R

We have reviewed the “Affidavit by James Boswell” filed in this cause on 

April 25, 2016. Among other things requested by Boswell in his affidavit, Boswell 

asked that we file the document as a request for the recusal of Justice John Bailey. 

Pursuant to Rule 16.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Justice Bailey
2

has considered the motion in chambers. Justice Bailey has found no reason to recuse 

himself and, pursuant to Rule 16.3(b), has certified the issue to the entire court for a 

determination by the other justices of this court.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b).

Chief Justice Jim R. Wright and Justice Mike Willson have decided the matter

without Justice Bailey’s participation.

The recusal of appellate judges is controlled by Rule 16 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. The grounds for recusal of an appellate court justice are 

provided in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 16.2; see TEX. R.

CIV. P. 18b. We find no reason for Justice Bailey to recuse himself and hold that 

none of the grounds set out in Rule 18b are applicable to Justice Bailey in this case. 

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b; see also Manges v. Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex.

1984); McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. 

denied).

Boswell’s request for the recusal of Justice John Bailey is denied.

PER CURIAM

June 9, 2016

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

and Willson, J.

Bailey, J., not participating.

 

1A copy of Justice Bailey’s written certification is attached to this order.
Certification filed June 9, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00013-CV

___________

JAMES BOSWELL, Appellant

V.

ECTOR COUNTY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ECISD 

SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES; MIKE ATKINS; TRYON LEWIS;

MURRAY A. CRUTCHER, III; AND ATKINS, HOLLMANN, 

JONES, PEACOCK, LEWIS & LYON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-133,485

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I have reviewed the “Affidavit by James Boswell” filed in this cause on 

April 25, 2016. To the extent the document seeks my recusal, I have reviewed the 

document in chambers. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b). I find no reason to recuse

myself and, under Rule 16.3(b), certify the issue of my recusal to the entire court for 
2

a determination by the other justices of this court. See Manges v. Guerra, 673 

S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984); McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex.

App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied).

JOHN M. BAILEY

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------






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 Annual Report of Western Power Equipment Corp, a Delaware
coporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Repost"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act o f1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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/ C. Dean McLain
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and President
November 12, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7280

CARLON EDWARD PITTMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-94-855-2)

Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: May 9, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlon Edward Pittman, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,

Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Pittman v. Angelone, No. CA-94-855-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 1995). 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
#### Carl Eugene BOWMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-401.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.