alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
............ ------~~=====--~~ SEGREif A69639 

SEE?Rl!l'f 

NSA OPERATIONS ORDER NATIOIW. SECURITY AOENCY 

I'1tJMBER 109 ( Chan6e 3) Washinston 25, D. c., 2.'.3 June 1955 

CANCELLED WHEN CHANGE IS ENTERED IN BASIC OPmATIONS ORDER 

1 •. Section VII (Distribution), Paragraph 1, add the following: 

e. ASAFE 

2. Section VII (Distribution), D~lete paragraphs 2.a., 2.b., 2.c., 

2.d, and 2.e., and replace with the following: . 11 2. COMINT End-product Reports 

a. End-products will be distributed as appropriate to the 

following authorized recipients through established channels as determined by the Director, NSA and Chief, ASA: 

ARMY 

SSR, AFFE/Eighth Army ASP.PAC EO 3.3(h)(2) SSO, USARPAC ASAFE 

ASA, Washington PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

CoMNAVFE 

CINCPACFLT 

CNO 

NA.V'l 

Am FORCE 

SSO, FF.AF 

SSO, PACAF 

SSO, 5th AF 

USAFSS 

NSA 

NSAPAC 

NSAFE 

GCHQ 

CBNRC 

DSB 

OTHER 

USN-27 

USN-39 

SSO, 13th AF 

SSO, 313th Air Division 

6920th Security Wing 

6925th RSM 

SSR, IIq, FEC 

SSR, CINCPAC 

SSO, Hq SAC 

SSO, Hq ADC 

I~ VI:A OOMINP OIWfff.13lB om.¥ 

SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-14-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 
.. . , .. 

OBORm' 

ITSA OPERATIONS ORDER NUl·IDER 109 (Change 3) 23 June 1955 

b. End-products will. be forwarded to Navy and Air Force recipients listed in paragraph 2.a., above in accordance with NSA Circular 

53-5 (Procedures for the Conduct of Cross-Servicing of COMINT End-products) 

and USA CircuJ.ar 53-2 (Reporting of Significant Ac,ivit~Under Conditions 

of Alert) • Spot reports onJ.y will be forwarded to a ASAFE. 

c. All. spot reports, other than those concerned with recurring 

developments within a local. area, or repetitive and predicted communications changes, will be addressed to SSO, Headquarters, Strategic Air 

Command and SSO, Head.quarters, Air Defense Comm.and in addition to regular 

recipients. The channel to be used in passing this information is via 

the nearest Air Force COMINT unit in the area, with appropriate passing 

instructions. 

BY caitMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CANINE: 

OFl!'ICIAL: 

/;r f {Fau~ M. T. CARDINAL 

Major WAC 

Actg Asst Adj Gen 

DISTRIBUTION 

Special 

ALFRED R. MARCY 

Colonel., US Anrry 

Deputy Director 

Production 

SE€RET 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

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

SE04331A036
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 107669 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK, 

Respondent, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSHUA GOODWIN, 

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016

Before: Peters, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant.

J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Sara E.

Fischer of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington

County (McKeighan, J.), rendered April 24, 2015, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted

assault in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted assault in the

second degree. He was sentenced, as a second felony offender, in

accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to the minimum

prison term of 11⁄2 to 3 years, to run consecutively to the

sentence that he is currently serving. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of

representing defendant on the ground that there are no

nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our

review of the record and counsel's brief, we agree. Accordingly,
-2- 107669 

the judgment is affirmed and counsel's request for leave to

withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980

[1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v

Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Clark and Mulvey, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to

be relieved of assignment granted.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
# C_2014423EN.01000101.xml

| 26.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7430 — Fosun / Club Méditerranée)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 423/01

On 19 November 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7430. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7430. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
;;- --

REF ID:A40019 

~t'-~11oo-4.• I • -'"'t-

&e'h~IilTo-rmatfd:ft:Z D pab,.1 su, an1 ee&-cfl • u1 ti•d_.,J.Qt"orma.t1on- - -- - - - ifi&ll -be-f1n8J!.=t.·mor& tb&li'.'.f10,ooa or impriioned not--m~n 

¥n 7e&r..f _"_Ql' hgtb... -- ... 

Sec. 2. The term "classified intormation" aa uaed herein 

shall, tor the purpoaea or this Act, be construed to mean information segregated, and limited or restricted in d1aaem1nat1on or distribution tor purpoaea or national security, by a 

} United Btatea government agency, and marked with or dea1gnated 

by a markiD.g or designation signifying auoh aegregat1on, limitation, and restriction. The term 11 elaaait1ed procedures and 

methods" as used herein shall be construed accordingly. 

Sec. 3. 'l'he terms "oode", "cipher", and "cryptographic 

•yatem" aa used herein ahall, tor the purposes of this Aot, be 

construed to include in their meaning any method ot secret 

writing and any meohan1c&l or electrical device or method used 

to~ the purpose or d1agu1aing or concealing the contents or the 

ile&n1ng ot communications. The term "cryptographic purposes" 

&a used herein is correspondingly extended in the aoope or its 

mttaning. 

Sec. 4. The term "foreign government" as used herein shall, 

tor the pu~poaea or this Act, be construed to include in its ...... '• I 

-

~·-

= 

-,. 

-

---

..... 

.. 

..... 

-

=.. 

-... 

-

meaning any peraon or persons acting or purporting to act tor , 

or on behalf of any taction 1 party, department, agenc7, bureau, 

-or military foroe or or v1th1n a foreign country, or for or on 

beb< or any government or any person or persona purporting 

2 

-

-· 

-

:!:!"-

-

... @'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-26-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a - -~~ -

f 1 .:r ...... 1 • ' ;. • a t I a I a aw 
--

ilC:!.... .,. __ 

REF ID:A40019 --=-~ _,. - - -;......,. r 

to act aa a government within a tore1gn country, whether or 

not auch government 1a recognized b7 the United States. 

Sec. 5. The tel'Dl "communication intelligence" aa used 

herein shall, tor the purposes ot th1a Act. be eonatrued to ~u.JAOQ,~t..t. mean • t ld ot ~ 

endeav"oi' ~ Vhich ~ includes ~ all 

~ 

clasa1t1ed procedures I\ 

and methods used in the 1nteroept1on of communications. and 

the obtaining ot 1ntormat1on trom auch commun1c&t1ona, by other 

than the intended. rec1p1enta. The terms 11 communicat1on intelligence activities" and 0 commun1cat1on intelligence purposes" 

&• used herein ahall be construed accordingly. 

Sac.. 6 .. ,[\WM phraae "a 

1nformat1o this 

Act, is not eo 

authorized the head or a_ rtment or agency .. /;" ~terllD'lent ~oH 1a expressly &al~ted by the 

o engage ~in ~1c&t1on 1ntell1genoe &ct1v1t1es tor the 

United States. 

Sec. 7. Nothing in th1a Act shall prohibit the flll'nishing. 

upon lawful demand, ot intormation to any regularly constituted 

committee ot the Senate or House of Representatives ot the 

United States or America. or joint committee thereof.
,. 

SUBJECT: 

TO: OPS FROM: AG DATE: Comment No. 4 

AIA 4'1/1'7'/AI 

Reference Comment No. 3 •. Will you please give me your recommendation. 

I concur with Dr. Stukey in leaving document TOP SB:;RET • 

Incl 

n/c 

. 

/fJJf.~~ PAUL S. WILLARD 

Colonel AOC 

Adjutant General 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 08-14-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

TOPSE,~RET 

TOP SECRET CONTROL NO. 57-AG-7 

COPY I OF 5 COPIES 

PAGE 3 . OF _A.Ji PAGES 

3
Order entered September 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00639-CV

VILLAGE CRESTMONT HOUSTON USA, L.L.C. AND WEST CRESTMONT 

HOUSTON USA, L.L.C., Appellants

V.

JOSE J. GAITAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A EC & J REMODELING & PAINTING,

Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-04688

ORDER

Before the Court is Matthew Paul Nickson’s September 21, 2015 motion to withdraw and

for a thirty day extension of the briefing deadline. We GRANT Mr. Nickson’s request to 

withdraw and DIRECT the Clerk to remove him as counsel of record for appellants. Because 

corporations may only appear in this Court through an attorney, we ORDER appellants to notify 

the Court, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, of new counsel’s name, State Bar 

number, mailing and email addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. Until appellants retain 

counsel, all future communications to appellants regarding this appeal shall be sent to their 

authorized agent as follows:

Mr. Abraham Vaknin
99 Roberts Road

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

(914)260-3665.

We GRANT Mr. Nickson’s extension request to the extent we suspend the briefing 

deadline. Once an appearance of counsel is made for appellants, a new deadline will be set for 

appellants’ brief. 

We caution appellants that failure to obtain counsel within the timeframe provided will 

result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice.

 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Exhibit 27.1, Financial Data Sheet
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000351721
<NAME>                        Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,081,986
<SECURITIES>                                       536,199
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,570,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                       161,110
<INVENTORY>                                      3,525,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,098,793
<PP&E>                                           3,652,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,194,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,640,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,025,341
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           435,418
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,822,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,640,389
<SALES>                                          4,595,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,495,238
<CGS>                                            1,360,180
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,359,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (227,532)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  44,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,957,826
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,511,468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,446,358
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,446,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .67
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05527]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]


Arthritis Advisory Committee: Notice of Postponement of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is postponing the 
meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee scheduled for March 17, 
2015. The meeting was announced in the Federal Register of February 10, 
2015 (80 FR 7480). The postponement is due to information requests 
pending with the sponsor of the application. A future meeting date will 
be announced in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie L. Begansky, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#74353537341210155a1c1c075a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0f1f1f3f0d6d4d19ed8d8c39ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>, or FDA Advisory 
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the 
Washington, DC area). Please call the Information Line for up-to-date 
information on this meeting.

    Dated: March 6, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-05527 Filed 3-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2014186EN.01000401.xml

| 18.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7258 — TTC/Scholtz)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 186/04

On 11 June 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7258. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7258. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00262-CR

____________________

WILLIAM MICHAEL SIDNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-04-04064 CR 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

A jury convicted William Michael Sidner of burglary of a habitation and the 

trial court sentenced Sidner to twenty-five years in prison. Sidner’s appellate 

counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record 

and concludes Sidner’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978). Sidner filed a pro se brief in response. 
2

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits 

of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine 

that: (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has 

reviewed the record and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “arguable grounds for 

appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be 

appointed to brief the issues.” Id. 

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have 

independently examined the clerk’s and the reporter’s records, and we agree that 

no arguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order appointment 

of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, according to the judgment, the trial court 

assessed $5,697 in attorney’s fees. The record does not indicate that Sidner has the 

financial resources to enable him to pay attorney’s fees. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 

Ann. arts. 26.04(p), 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2012); see also Roberts v. State, 327 

S.W.3d 880, 883-84 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). Accordingly, we 
3

modify the judgment to delete the $5,697 in attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment as modified.1

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on June 21, 2013

Opinion Delivered September 4, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

 1

Sidner may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary 

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
# C_2014219EN.01000101.xml

| 11.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7233 — Allianz/Going concern of UnipolSai Assicurazioni)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 219/01

On 10 June 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7233. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7233. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1803

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Daniel F. Ramirez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 29, 2007

Filed: September 6, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Daniel F. Ramirez (Ramirez) guilty of conspiring to distribute

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possessing marijuana with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possessing a firearm in

furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district

court1

 imposed a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised

release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. We affirm.
-2-

We conclude the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,

was sufficient to support Ramirez’s convictions, and the district court did not abuse

its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial based on a juror’s failure to

disclose pertinent information during voir dire. See United States v. Ruiz, 446 F.3d

762, 768-70 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 537 (2006) and 127 S. Ct. 1027 (2007).

After reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), we conclude there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed March 12, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00024

- CV

JOHN FOX , Appellant

V.

MECHANTEK CORPORATIO N , Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 14424



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Before the Court is the parties’ March 7, 2019 agreed motion to dismi ss this appeal due to

settlement. W e grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

190024F.P05 /Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOHN FOX, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00024

- CV V.

MECHANTEK CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 14424. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg,
Justices Whitehill and Reichek participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 12 th day of March, 2019.