alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERDUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.**

 

I, Marshall C. Turner, ChiefExecutive Officer of DuPont Photomasks, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, in connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q(the “Report”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission, do hereby certify that to myknowledge:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company in respect ofthose items required to be described or presented in such Report under Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 
| /s/ MARSHALL  C. TURNER  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Marshall C.  Turner      |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
|                     |
| Date:  February 12, 2004 |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to DuPontPhotomasks, Inc. and will be retained by DuPont Photomasks, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

I, Satish Rishi, ChiefFinancial Officer of DuPont Photomasks, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, in connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q(the “Report”) for the quarter ended December 30, 2003, as filed with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission, do hereby certify that to myknowledge:

 

1.     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company in respect ofthose items required to be described or presented in such Report under Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 
| /s/ SATISH  RISHI        |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Satish Rishi             |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
|                     |
| Date:  February 12, 2004 |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to DuPontPhotomasks, Inc. and will be retained by DuPont Photomasks, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4797-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4797-DR), dated June 28, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued August 27, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 28, 2024.

Houston and Sibley Counties for Public Assistance

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-20498 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6273

KAREN CHANITA POWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BARBARA J. WHEELER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (CA-04-670-7)

Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 22, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Chanita Powell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Karen Chanita Powell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order dismissing her petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice for failure to exhaust state

court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Powell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
#### TARKENTON v. STATE.

No. 20595.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 29, 1939.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Jan. 17, 1940.

J. T. Kelley, of Odessa, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for attempting to pass a forged instrument, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

The original transcript ”failed, to show any notice of appeal as required by Art. 827, C.C.P. By a supplemental transcript now before us there is shown a “docket entry” by the trial judge stating that notice of appeal was given, but it does not appear that such order was carried into the court’s minutes. It has been held many times that the docket entry is not a “record” entry as required by Art. 827. See 4 Tex.Jur., Sec. 123, p. 172, and cases there cited; also Lenox v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 259, 116 S.W. 816; Haynie v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 241 S.W. 478; Bryson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 20 S.W.2d 1047; Thackerson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 26 S.W.2d 241.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Appellant’s Motion to Reinstate the Appeal.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The record having been perfected, the appeal is reinstated and the case considered on its merits.

*717The indictment charged appellant •with the offense of attempting to pass as •true a forged instrument. The jury found appellant guilty of the offense of passing ■as true a forged instrument. The verdict fails to follow the charge in the indictment and the charge of the court, in that it finds appellant guilty of an offense not set forth in the indictment. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to order .a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause •remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals -and approved by the Court.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-41180 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN CARLOS COVARRUBIAS-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-331-1
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent J u a n Carlos Covarrubias-Garcia has moved for leave t o w i t hdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Covar r u b ias-Garcia has not filed a response. We h a ve reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolo u s i s sue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 19 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-41180 Document: 00511891469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2012No. 11-41180

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-41180 Document: 00511891469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 71668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; Worker Classification Survey; Correction

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor published a document in the Federal 
Register on November 8, 2013, announcing submission of the Wage and 
Hour Division sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal 
titled, ``Worker Classification Survey,'' to the Office of Management 
and Budget for review and approval for use in accordance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and to invite 
comments on the ICR. The document contained an incorrect URL to access 
a copy of the ICR free of charge via the Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-
4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 8, 2013, in FR Doc. 2013-26746 
on page 67196, in the first column, correct the first paragraph of the 
ADDRESSES caption to read:
    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; 
including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency 
of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the 
RegInfo.gov Web site at  http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201303-1235-002 or by contacting Michel Smyth by 
telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or sending 
an email to DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.

    Dated: November 14, 2013.
Michel Smyth,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-28556 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-27-P
```
exv10w3






EXHIBIT 10.3




FORM OF BILL OF SALE AND ASSIGNMENT




     WHEREAS Pawn Plus 1, LLC, Pawn Plus 2, LLC, Pawn Plus 3, LLC, Pawn Plus 4, LLC, Pawn Plus 5,
LLC, Pawn Plus 6, LLC, Pawn Plus 7, LLC, Pawn Plus 8, LLC, ASAP Pawn, LLC, The Pawn Place,
Inc., and Craig A. McCall, Inc., (collectively, “Sellers” or, individually, each a “Seller”), Craig
A. McCall, EZPAWN Nevada, Inc. (“EZPAWN”), and EZCORP, Inc. have entered into that certain Amended
and Restated Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 24, 2008 (the “Agreement”);



     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Sellers hereby sell, assign, and transfer to EZPAWN all of Sellers’ rights, title and
interest in the assets described in the above-referenced agreements and schedules thereto
including, without limitation, the pawn loan agreements, deferred deposit loan agreements, auto
title loan agreements, and all ancillary documents and powers of attorney executed pursuant
thereto. Such transfer is made without any representations, warranties or recourse and Purchaser
shall take the assets “as is”, except as provided in the Agreement.



     Purchaser and Sellers agree that the Purchase Price shall be $34,374,305.03. This instrument
shall be binding upon Sellers, Sellers’ successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of
EZPAWN and EZPAWN’s successors and assigns.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sellers and EZPAWN have signed and delivered this instrument on the
13th day of November, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SELLERS:	 	 	 	PURCHASER:	 	 
	PAWN PLUS 1, LLC, PAWN PLUS 2, LLC,	 	 	 	EZPAWN Nevada, Inc.	 	 
	PAWN PLUS 3, LLC, PAWN PLUS 4, LLC,	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	PAWN PLUS 5, LLC, PAWN PLUS 6, LLC	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	PAWN PLUS 7, LLC, PAWN PLUS 8, LLC	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ASAP PAWN, LLC	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Craig A. McCall
	 	 	 	 	 	Connie Kondik	 	 
	 

	 	Sole Manager
	 	 	 	 	 	Secretary	 	 






 









 





	 	 	 	 	 
	THE PAWN PLACE, Inc.

 	 	 
	By:  	 	 	 
	 	Craig A. McCall 	 	 
	 	President 	 	 
	 
	CRAIG A. MCCALL, INC.

 	 	 
	By:  	 	 	 
	 	Craig A. McCall 	 	 
	 	President
# Eiropas Savienības C 271A/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 271A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 58. sējums2015. gada 18. augusts |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 271A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

58. sējums2015. gada 18. augusts

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Labojumi |
| 2015/C 271A/01 | Labojums paziņojumā par atklātajiem konkursiem — Konferenču tulki (AD 5/AD 7) — EPSO/AD/311/15 — čehu valoda (CS) — EPSO/AD/312/15 — horvātu valoda (HR) — EPSO/AD/313/15 — lietuviešu valoda (LT) — EPSO/AD/314/15 — maltiešu valoda (MT) ( OV C 224 A, 9.7.2015. ) | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

Labojumi

2015/C 271A/01

Labojums paziņojumā par atklātajiem konkursiem — Konferenču tulki (AD 5/AD 7) — EPSO/AD/311/15 — čehu valoda (CS) — EPSO/AD/312/15 — horvātu valoda (HR) — EPSO/AD/313/15 — lietuviešu valoda (LT) — EPSO/AD/314/15 — maltiešu valoda (MT) ( OV C 224 A, 9.7.2015. )

( OV C 224 A, 9.7.2015. )

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

Labojumi

| 18.8.2015 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 271/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 271/1

---

Labojums paziņojumā par atklātajiem konkursiem

Konferenču tulki (AD 5/AD 7)

EPSO/AD/311/15 — čehu valoda (CS)

EPSO/AD/312/15 — horvātu valoda (HR)

EPSO/AD/313/15 — lietuviešu valoda (LT)

EPSO/AD/314/15 — maltiešu valoda (MT)

(
  “Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis” C 224 A, 2015. gada 9. jūlijs
  )

(2015/C 271 A/01)

1. lappusē:

tekstu:

“
  Reģistrēšanās termiņš: 2015. gada 11. augusts līdz plkst. 12.00 (dienā) pēc Briseles laika
  ”

lasīt šādi:

lasīt šādi:

“
  Reģistrēšanās termiņš: 2015. gada 18. augusts līdz plkst. 12.00 (dienā) pēc Briseles laika
  ”.

5. lappusē:

tekstu:

tekstu:

“PIETEIKŠANĀS TERMIŅŠ UN VEIDS

Pieteikumu var iesniegt elektroniski EPSO tīmekļa vietnē http://jobs.eu-careers.eu līdz

2015. gada 11. augustam plkst. 12.00 (dienā) pēc Briseles laika.
  ”

lasīt šādi:

lasīt šādi:

“PIETEIKŠANĀS TERMIŅŠ UN VEIDS

Pieteikumu var iesniegt elektroniski EPSO tīmekļa vietnē http://jobs.eu-careers.eu līdz

2015. gada 18. augustam plkst. 12.00 (dienā) pēc Briseles laika.
  ”

---
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40305 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL BELLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MARK DAVIS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-251

- - - - - - - - - - March 24, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Michael Belle, Texas prisoner #476226, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Belle contends that the district court committed procedural errors when considering his case; that defendant Mark Davis retaliated against him for his use of the prison grievance system; that Davis and other defendants deprived him of food, recreation, and showers and conspired to do so; that defendant Dixon deprived him of adequate ventilation in his cell; that Davis wrote a falseNo. 98-40305 -2- offense report and deprived him of due process by having him placed on restriction without being found guilty of a major infraction; that Davis and Dixon were responsible for placing him near a prison gang; that prisoner “Pony” was liable for spearing him and that “Pony” and other gang members conspired with Davis; and that defendants D.W. Price and Sylvia Tapia deprived him of adequate medical care, covered up the attack by “Pony,” and conspired against him. Belle failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations. Accordingly, our review is for plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn. , 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Belle has failed to brief his contentions that the district court erred by failing to allow him to engage in discovery (with the exception of his claim concerning depositions regarding Dixon’s alleged policy of allowing black inmates to be attacked); that Davis retaliated against him; that the 24-hour deprivation of food, recreation, and showers violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause; that inadequate ventilation in his cell violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause; that Davis wrote a false offense report and deprived him of due process; that Davis was responsible for his placement near the prison gang; that Tapia covered up the attack by “Pony”; or that Price covered up the attack and failed to protect him. We do not consider those contentions. See Andrews v. Collins , 21 F.3d 612, 632 (5th Cir. 1994). Regarding Belle’s remaining procedural contentions, we haveNo. 98-40305 -3- reviewed his brief and the record and we find Belle’s contentions frivolous. Regarding Belle’s remaining substantive contentions, we have reviewed Belle’s brief and the record and we find Belle’s contentions frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss Belle’s appeal essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Belle v. Davis , No. C-97-CV-251 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 26, 1997). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:02-cr-00324-HMH; 8:05-cv-01494-HMH) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s oral order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and motions for access to court reporter’s records, discovery, and for appointment of counsel in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson has not made the requisite showing as his action is a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Williamson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340- 3 - F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Williamson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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