alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1Gross domestic product91.991 94.818 97.335 99.236 100 101.211 103.199 105.002 106.5882Personal consumption expenditures92.26 94.728 97.099 100.063 100 101.654 104.086 106.009 107.2123 Goods96.951 98.277 99.403 102.362 100 101.637 105.345 106.666 106.1874 Durable goods107.668 105.915 103.764 101.758 100 98.621 97.649 96.467 94.7295 Nondurable goods 91.592 94.438 97.214 102.653 100 103.084 109.128 111.765 111.9936 Services89.93 92.974 95.977 98.943 100 101.663 103.463 105.689 107.7537Gross private domestic investment94.556 98.191 99.985 101.203 100 99.076 100.336 101.608 104.0398 Fixed investment 94.507 98.167 99.988 100.996 100 99.179 100.506 101.852 103.7679 Nonresidential93.829 96.561 98.574 100.336 100 99.069 100.524 101.977 103.1610 Structures82.056 92.048 97.62 102.259 100 98.843 101.748 103.732 106.92511 Equipment98.639 98.317 98.602 98.691 100 98.009 98.928 100.187 100.56512 Intellectual property products 95.986 97.508 99.181 100.826 100 100.539 101.788 103.167 104.1913 Residential98.103 103.821 105.176 103.647 100 99.644 100.392 101.246 106.2214 Change in private inventories --- --- --- --- --- ------ --- ---15Net exports of goods and services--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---16 Exports94.379 97.759 101.119 105.815 100 104.415 111.14 112.185 112.4317 Goods95.472 98.83 102.187 107.203 100 105.034 113.013 113.508 113.13918 Services92.039 95.481 98.852 102.83 100 103.096 107.039 109.312 110.90119 Imports93.56 97.491 101.05 111.695 100 106.008 114.273 114.862 113.82320 Goods94.572 98.662 102.187 113.862 100 106.742 116.178 116.855 115.4821 Services89.55 92.703 96.477 102.227 100 102.849 105.713 105.895 106.3922Government consumption expenditures and gross investment88.235 92.086 96.14 100.282 100 102.673 105.56 106.882 107.88923 Federal91.449 94.448 97.319 100.286 100 102.614 105.344 106.184 107.64324 National defense 91.395 94.633 97.572 100.809 100 102.365 105.191 106.252 107.825 Nondefense91.529 94.101 96.85 99.321 100 103.064 105.624 106.077 107.38226 State and local86.333 90.677 95.426 100.279 100 102.714 105.71 107.371 108.073Addendum:27 Gross national product 91.968 94.796 97.315 99.229 100 101.321 103.322 105.126 106.712005 2006 2007 2008Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product[Index numbers, 2009=100]Bureau of Economic AnalysisLast Revised on: March 27, 2014 - Next Release DateApril 30, 2014Line2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EPA/NAIMA Meeting

December 6, 2012 

Kansas City, Kansas

Participants

NAIMA Members

• Steve Aldridge, Knauf Insulation

• Lauren Alterman, CertainTeed Corporation

• Chris Bulls, Owens Corning

• Carlos Davis, CertainTeed Corporation

• Ken Gould, Owens Corning

• Sherri Livengood, Johns Manville

• Mike Pettis, Owens Corning

• Grover Thomas, Guardian Fiberglass

• Brent Tracy, Johns Manville

NAIMA Staff

• Angus Crane

• Chris Martin

• Denise Radinovic

EPA

• Keith Barnette

• Stephanie Dolan

• Susan Fairchild

• Hugh McCullough

• Dave Reeves - RTI
#### Ex parte KING.

No. 24944.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1950.

Bracewell. & Wright, Huntsville, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.'

Relator is a prisoner in the State Penitentiary and addresses his original petition to this Court seeking his discharge .from the custody of the penitentiary officials.

The petition alleges that appellant was charged with murder in the District Court of Sabine County; that he was tried by a jury which returned a verdict on the 20th day of November, 1946, and assessed his punishment at twenty-five years in the penitentiary. It then recites that the judgment of the District Court was entered that he “be confined in the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than twenty-five years.”

Certified copies of the proceedings have been obtained and are before us in considering this application. The original judgment contains the jury’s verdict as follows: “We the jury find the defendant Z. T. King guilty as charged in the indictment and assess his punishment at twenty-five years confinement in the State Penitentiary. H. E. Reeves, Foreman.”

The court has no authority to enter a judgment for any term other than that specified in the jury’s verdict. In as much as it is contained in the judgment it *502makes the same definite, regardless of the further recitation that he is to serve “for a term of not less than 2 years nor more than 25 years.” See Ex parte Simmons, Tex.Cr.App., 229 S.W.2d 167.

The relief prayed for is denied and appellant is remanded to the authorities of the State Penitentiary to serve the term assessed against him.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHANNEY VELWOOD,

Appellant

v. No. 06- 15 -00161- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Appellant Shanney Velwood, by and through her undersigned

counsel, and pursuant to Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

respectfully moves for a second extension of time to file her brief in this cause.

In support, Appellant submits the following:

I

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted on May 20, 2015 in Cause No. 42474,

424 th Judicial District Court, Burnet County, Texas of the offense of possession of a

controlled substance. After she was sentenced, she filed a timely motion for new trial

that was subsequently overruled by operation of law. Thereafter, on August 10,

2015, she filed timely notice of appeal.

II

After the Clerk’s Record and the Court Reporter’s Record had been filed, this ACCEPTED

06-15-00161-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/14/2015 2:28:14 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKCourt set the deadline for Appellant’s Brief, which was due to be filed on or before

November 12, 5015. This Court, however, granted a motion for extension of time

until December 14, 2015 based on the illness of undersigned counsel.

III

Undersigned counsel sought medical attention , and has largely recovered. In the

interim, however, counsel fell behind on all his work, including numerous writs of

habeas corpus. In addition, counsel’s only brother has been hospitalized with

dementia after an apparent suicide attempt, and counsel has been trying to make

arrangements for his treatment. Because of these reasons, counsel needs a short

extension of time to complete the brief in this cause.

IV

This is Appellant ’s second motion for extension of time. Appellant asks only that

she be given a seven

- day extension of time. Undersigned counsel, a former briefing

attorney, fully understands the Court’s desire to expedite the resolution of crimina l

cases, and files this motion only out of necessity.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Terrence W. Kirk

Terrence W. Kirk

State Bar No. 11513500

1504 West Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 236

- 8511

(512) 474

- 8252 (Fax)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this motion was emailed to Mr. Gary W.

Bunyard, Assitant District Attorney, at g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.us , on this the 14 th

Day of December , 2015.

/s/ Terrence W. Kirk
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1348 CAF 11-02135** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CATTARAUGUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF DAWN M. LOVELESS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEFFERY M. GORE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

EMILY A. VELLA, SPRINGVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

STEPHEN D. MILLER, OLEAN, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Larry M. Himelein, J.), entered October 14, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, inter alia, sentenced respondent to four months in jail.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns commitment to jail is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order confirming the determination of the Support Magistrate that respondent had willfully violated a prior child support order and that directed that he be incarcerated for a period of four months. We affirm the order with respect to the willful violation of the support order. “There is a presumption that a respondent has sufficient means to support his or her . . . minor children . . . , and the evidence that respondent failed to pay support as ordered constitutes ‘prima facie evidence of a willful violation’ ” ( Matter of Christine L.M. v Wlodek K. , 45 AD3d 1452, quoting Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; see Matter of Jelks v Wright , 96 AD3d 1488, 1489). Here, petitioner met its burden of demonstrating that respondent willfully violated the prior order by submitting evidence that respondent failed to pay support pursuant to the order, and the burden therefore shifted to respondent to submit “some competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments” ( Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 70; see Jelks , 96 AD3d at 1489). Respondent failed to meet that burden inasmuch as he did not present evidence establishing that he made reasonable efforts to obtain gainful employment to fulfill his support obligation ( see Jelks , 96 AD3d at 1489; Matter of Hunt v Hunt , 30 AD3d 1065, 1065).

Respondent’s contention that a jail term was improperly imposed**-2- 1348 CAF 11-02135** 

is moot inasmuch as the commitment portion of the order has expired by its own terms ( see Matter of Alex A.C. [Maria A.P.] , 83 AD3d 1537, 1538; Matter of Lomanto v Schneider , 78 AD3d 1536, 1537). We therefore dismiss respondent’s appeal from that part of the order ( see Alex A.C. , 83 AD3d at 1538).

Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Maynard L. Jenkins, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CSK Auto Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation ; and
     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information ; and
     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ MAYNARD L. JENKINS   Maynard L. Jenkins *Chief Executive Officer*
April 14, 2004
Page 59
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Inconnection with the Annual Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/Afor the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

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

 
| Date: June 17, 2009 | By:      | /s/  Wilson W. Cheung                            |
|--------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                     |     | Wilson  W. Cheung                                |
|                     |     | Chief  Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary |
| * *                 | * * | *Principal Executive Officer and*                |
| * *                 | * * | *Principal Financial Officer*                    |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63571-63572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27197]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Advisory Group on Electron Devices, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Working Group C (Electro-Optics) of the DoD Advisory Group on 
Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting. The 
announcement of the meeting is being published in less than the 15-day 
requirement by law because of scheduling conflicts.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, November 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, 
Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 
(DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and 
managing an effective and economical research and development program 
in the area of electron devices.
    The Working Group C meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the Military Departments propose to 
initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This 
opto-electronic device area includes such programs as imaging device, 
infrared detectors and lasers. The review will include details of 
classified defense programs throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, 
(5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) 
(1994), and that

[[Page 63572]]

accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-27197 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03536

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

{(you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. (f 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed ce11. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection ('> t( ~ 

' 751.5 $0 l - 1 

0 !( {,i) _I o.nu 

O.lit r, fit o.on 

o Of { 1\(1 _., u.Oo 

' 0.1)11 I " 0.00 

" 0 (II I ... o.!)o 

0 f•t , t)JI{) 

. ()(I( lJ ')t, 

'J ., ' lltf r. (rl' 

-, r, .I \.'.l)U ~ I• ')r, 

' t,_,. ' ft!l (, (o;' 

) {I f. I > trt•O t II 

I (I fi(J ,, 

t U.tJ:J ,)1 

.1.1 n (HI '' (JC· 

0 f:l I I 'l() ( ,)i_l 

,) trn f>.OO 

i ( ,( J 1.!.00 '> o.ou .) o.GO ) () (l,) ...., () (l(l 

\ ;) {)(' ~ u l)(J r• 

) o .• Jo 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $63,878 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: • 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeUj)) 

*Replacement 0.0 -... o no $0 ') !l'l 

\ (I (10 ~! 1,1){1 

... /) 1](1 t I I 10 

\ (l ,,, 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): *Replacement of 

the skin panel is covered under Boeing waranty. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory act "?~ 

YES* D O~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? - , 

YES* D NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a signifi cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. - ' 

YES D NO IZI 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? - , 

YES* D NOIZ! 

*Explanation:
OAR Box 1413 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

109)11-1-110 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/9/2008 3:11:25 PM Sheet 109 of 114 

P.1 
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data a-i-no 

P.2 

http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/surveymost 

Data extracted on: January 20,2000 (05:16 PM ) 

Producer Price Index-Commodities 

Series Catalog: 

Series ID : WPUSOP2900 

Not Seasonally Adjusted 

|3AN * 9 ?m 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Group : Stage of processing 

Item : Intermediate materials less food and energy 

Base Date : 8200 

Data: 

Year, 

1990, 

1991, 

1992, 

1993, 

1994, 

1995, 

1996, 

1997, 

1998, 

1999, 

2000, 

Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep 

120.0,120.0,120.3,120.6,120.7,120.5 

122.4,122.2,121.8,121.6,121.4,121.4 

121.1,121.4,121.6,121.8,121.9,122.0 

122.9,123.5,123.9,124.1,123.8,123.7 

124.8,124.9,125.2,125.4,125.7,126.3 

132.6,133.8,134.4,135.2,135.6,13 5.7 

134.8,134.4,134.1,133.9,134.1,134.0 

134.1,134.2,134.2,134.2,134.2,134.2 

134.3,134.2,134.1,134.1,133.9,133.6 

131.9,131.8,131.9,132.1,132.5,132.9 

No data available for this year.,,, 

Oct, 

120. 

121. 

122. 

123. 

126. 

136. 

133. 

134. 

133. 

133. 

Nov,Dec, 

6,120.8, 

1,120.9, 

1,122.2, 

6,123.8, 

7,127.3, 

1,136.1, 

6,133.6, 

2,134.2, 

6,133.4, 

4,133.7, 

Ann 

121. 

121. 

122. 

123. 

128. 

136. 

133. 

134. 

133. 

133. 

4,122.0, 

0,121.0, 

4,122.3, 

9,124.0, 

3,129.2, 

1,135.8, 

9,133.6, 

3,134.2, 

1,132.7, 

7(P) ,134 

122 

121 

122 

124 

130 

135 

133 

134 

132.4 

• 2(P) 

,122 

,121 

,122 

,124 

,130 

,135 

,133 

,134 

,132 

,134 

0,120.9 

0,121.4 

4,122.0 

4,123.8 

.9,127.1 

1,135. 

9,134. 

3,134. 

1,133. 

.4(P),134. 

IIIII I 

Preliminary. All indexes are subject to revision four months after original pub 

= 1= ia. o 

_EG.CC C 

Producer Price Indexes Home Page 

Data Home Page 

BLS Home Page 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

catron_b(a),bls. sov 

1 of 1 1/20/00 5:15 PM
#### In the Matter of Frank P. Zacarolli et al., Constituting the Rockledge Road Property Owners Association, Appellants, v Arthur Bandayan et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hillsdale, et al., Respondents, and Stephan J. Bosko et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered July 26, 1989 in Columbia County, which partially granted petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hillsdale that the business of respondent Bojko Enterprises, Inc. continued to be a customary home occupation use under applicable zoning regulations.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice George L. Cobb. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2922 

To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect court officials 

away from the Supreme Court grounds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. HOLDING (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COBLE, Mr. WATT, and Mr. 

MARINO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to 

protect court officials away from the Supreme Court grounds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SUPREME 

4 COURT POLICE TO PROTECT COURT OFFI5 CIALS OFF SUPREME COURT GROUNDS. 

6 Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2019’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6912

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID EDWARD ADAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District 

Judge. (7:06-cr-00022-SGW-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Edward Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Edward Adams appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Adams, 

No. 7:06-cr-00022-SGW-1 (W.D. Va. May 28, 2015). 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