alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered October 27, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01125-CV 

IN RE PRISCILA BRISENO, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-00330-D 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. 

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

 JUSTICE
Appendix 7 Acute Impacts Refined Analysis FiguresRefined Acute Modeling Approach

Initial acute screening risk calculation s were performed with the HEM-3 model. HEM-3 estimates acute (1-hour) impacts at both polar and census block receptors. It is assumed for this short period of time that an exposed individual coul d be located at any off-site location. The lack of readily av ailable detailed property boundary information for many of the facilities evaluated made it difficult to determine whether receptors were

on- or off-site. In the absence of such info rmation, the first ring of polar receptors was placed 100 meters from the plant center for ma ny facilities. However, these polar rings

often transected on-site locati ons, restricting public access to exposures at these levels and thereby overestimating exposures.

The screening approach used by HEM-3 to estimate maximum 1-hour exposures also likely overestimates. To estimate ma ximum 1-hour concentrati ons at each receptor,

HEM-3 sums the maximum concentrations at tributed to each source, regardless of

whether those maximum concentrations occurr ed during the same hour. In other words, HEM-3 assumes that the maximum impact from each source at each receptor occurs at the same time. In actuality, maximum imp acts from different sources may occur at

different times.

This appendix includes the results of refined acute assessments performed for

facilities that exceeded short-term health benchmarks using the HEM-3 approach. The

refinements can address both areas of cons ervatism described above. The simplest refinement is to plot the HE M-3 polar grid results on aerial photographs of the facilities;

This allows the assessment of off-site loca tions that may be accessible to the public ( e.g., roadways and public buildings.). In cases wh ere this refinement results in lower acute

risks no further refinement was conducted. Howeve r, if acute risk sti ll remain at or near

levels of concern a further refinement is conducted. This second refinement includes remodeling with the AERMOD model directly (instead of using HEM) to estimate maximum 1-hour concentrations at each recepto r by pairing individual source impacts in time and space. The AERMOD results are then plotted on aerial photographs as noted above to determine off-site impacts. Modeling with AERMOD also allows the estimation of the frequency of higher impacts at or above the health levels of concern. The attached figures present the estimated hazard quotient values (the modeled 1-hour concentration of a pollutant divided by its sh ort-term health benchmark) at the polar receptors near the facilities. Each set of figures is pref aced with a description of the maximum off-site hazard quotient va lue and where that value occurs.Styrene Butadiene Rubber andLatex Production Facilities:• Figure 1 - NEI13230; maximum offsiteacute HQ for styrene of 0.35 to thesoutheast of facilityFigure 1 – NEI13230 Acute Styrene HQ (REL)
EXHIBIT 21



Deltic Timber Corporation

Subsidiaries of the
Registrant

As of December 31, 2004



|                                      |  |                      
|------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Subsidiaries                          |  | State ofIncorporation
|Deltic Timber Purchasers, Inc.        |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Deltic Southwest Timber Company       |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Deltic Real Estate Investment Company |  | Delaware             
|                                      | 
|Chenal Properties, Inc.               |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Chenal Country Club, Inc.             |  | Arkansas
Order entered September 24 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00029
- CR
JORGE LUIS ALEJANDRO , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. F13
- 58523
- L



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On July 30, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s
brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the
appe al; (2) appellant is represented by court

- appointed counsel J. Daniel Oliphant; (3) Mr. Oliphant’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) Mr. Oliphant will file appellant’s brief by October 3, 2014.
We ORDER appellan t to file his brief by OCTOBER 3, 2014 . Because appellant’s brief is already five months overdue, no further extensions will be granted. If the brief is not filed by the date specified, the Court will utilize the available remedies to obtain appellant’s brief.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to

counsel for all parties.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40498

 

MICHAEL A. CAMPBELL, Individually and on behalf of other

similarly situated former policyholders of John Hancock

Mutual Life Insurance Co.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN HANCOCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ET AL.,

Defendants, 

JOHN HANCOCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY; JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL, JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana

(5:01-CV-48)

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

February 13, 2003

Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:1

AFFIRMED. See Rule 47.6.
# C_2016330EN.01000102.xml

| 8.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8127 — Volvo Car Corporation/Volverk/Volvofinans Bank)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 330/02)

On 29 July 2016, 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 32016M8127. 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 32016M8127. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2088

WARREN CORUM,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

G. L. MENDOZA, Police Officer/Police Department,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00875-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Corum, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren Corum appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for 

failing to comply with the court’s order. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Corum v. Mendoza, No. 

1:16-cv-00875-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2016). 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
From: Yanca, Catherine

To: Yanca, Catherine

Subject: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Date: Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:12:18 PM

Attachments: EPA_Response_to_EO_12866_Comments_Tier_3_2060-AQ86_NPRM - 3_5_2013.doc

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:51 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad

Cc: Charmley, William; Stewart, Lori; Ghanta, Venu; Nickerson, William; Jutras, Nathaniel; Nagelhout,

Peter; Brunner, Christine

Subject: EPA response to 3/5 EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Attached are EPA’s responses to the comments from 3/5. As you requested, we have retained the

redline and strikethrough from the 2/28 package. Our responses are contained in the comment

bubbles, accompanied by some additional text edits.

From: Whiteman, Chad [ mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:25 PM

To: Sargeant, Kathryn

Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Kathryn, Here are the comments in the rule document. Thanks, Chad

From: Whiteman, Chad

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:46 PM

To: Sargeant.Kathryn@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Kathryn,

Attached are additional EO 12866 comments on the preamble. I added all of the comments to

the passback version of the preamble/rule that you passed back to me 2/28. Please keep all of the

redline in the document, in other words do not accept any of the changes made up to this point,

when you passback to us. I’ll try to catch up with you today to discuss.

Thanks,

Chad

From: Whiteman, Chad

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:44 AM

To: Sargeant.Kathryn@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Kathryn,

Attached are additional EO 12866 comments on the RIA and a few overarching policy questions

on the Tier 3 proposed rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). I plan to send other comments on the rule over to

you today.

Regards,

Chad
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

FRANK J. BROWN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 64 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# C_2016156EN.01000101.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 156/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 145, 25.4.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016

OJ C 118, 4.4.2016

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016

OJ C 106, 21.3.2016

OJ C 98, 14.3.2016

OJ C 90, 7.3.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Delta Financial Corporation:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (Nos.
33-15835 and 33-88290) on Form S-8 of Delta Financial  Corporation of our report
dated  February 3, 2003,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Delta
Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
related consolidated  statements of operations,  changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31,
2002,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Delta Financial  Corporation.  Our report contained an explanatory  paragraph
that  described the adoption of a new  accounting  principle as discussed in the
notes to those statements.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Melville, New York
March 19, 2003
Exhibit 21.0**SUBSIDIARIES OF FAMOUS DAVE’S OF AMERICA, INC.**         **Entity** **FEIN** **% of Ownership**Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.  41-1782300   100% D&D of Minnesota, Inc.  41-1856702   100% Famous Dave’s Ribs of Maryland, Inc.  41-1958496   96% Famous Dave’s Ribs, Inc.  41-1884517   100% Famous Dave’s Ribs-U, Inc.  41-1884548   100% FDA Properties, Inc.  36-4379010   100% Lake & Hennepin BBQ and Blues, Inc.  41-1834594   100% Minwood Partners, Inc.  51-0396229   100%
* 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. 97-10377 Conference Calendar

WILLIAM EARL CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus L. WOODS, Warden; KALMANOV, Dr.; EASON, Health Administrator; UGAZ, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:96-CV-240-X

- - - - - - - - - - October 31, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * William Earl Cunningham, Texas prisoner #643591, appeals from the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint as frivolous. Cunningham seeks appointment of counsel on appeal; his motion is DENIED. Cunningham’s motion for emergency medical care also is DENIED. Cunningham contends that prison officials and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, resulting in severeNo. 97-10377 -2- pain in his right eyeball and lower right side, severe headaches, dizziness, mild seizures, and blurred vision in his left eye. He argues that prison officials allowed his left-eye vision to deteriorate to hinder his ability to prosecute the current lawsuit. Cunningham raises his allegation of seizures and his contention that officials were motivated by a desire to hinder his lawsuit for the first time on appeal. Whether Cunningham suffered seizures and whether prison officials were motivated by a desire to hinder his lawsuit are factual issues. Cunningham can show no plain error because the district court did not consider the factual issues he raises the first time on appeal. Robertson v. Plano City of Texas , 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995). Cunningham’s testimony at his hearing pursuant to Spears v.
McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (1985), indicated that Cunningham received treatment for his eye problems and pain in his side and that Cunningham merely disagreed with the treatment he received. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Cunningham’s complaint as frivolous. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Cunningham’s appeal is frivolous and therefore is dismissed. We caution Cunningham that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Cunningham is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments thatNo. 97-10377 -3- are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
# C_2016128EN.01002301.xml

| 12.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/23

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 April 2016

(2016/C 128/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1390 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4424 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80060 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2815 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0877 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3809 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,026 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,07 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2793 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4675 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2240 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5060 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4794 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8321 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6669 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5341 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 306,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,7955 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3709 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4875 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 956,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4307 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,552 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,0574 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,956 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0647 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,1924 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,7055 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1390

JPY

Japanese yen

123,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4424

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80060

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2815

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0877

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3809

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,026

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,07

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2793

RON

Romanian leu

4,4675

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2240

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5060

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4794

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8321

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6669

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5341

KRW

South Korean won

1 306,55

ZAR

South African rand

16,7955

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3709

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4875

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 956,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4307

PHP

Philippine peso

52,552

RUB

Russian rouble

76,0574

THB

Thai baht

39,956

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0647

MXN

Mexican peso

20,1924

INR

Indian rupee

75,7055

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7643

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROHAN ALEXANDER WALTERS, a/k/a Dave, a/k/a Rohan Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,

Chief District Judge. (2:97-cr-00157-2; 2:09-cv-00589)

Submitted: April 5, 2010 Decided: May 11, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rohan Alexander Walters, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rohan Alexander Walters appeals the district court’s 

order denying his petition for writ of audita querela. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Walters, Nos. 2:97-cr-00157-2; 2:09-cv-00589 (S.D. W. 

Va. Aug. 21, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000696

30-NOV-2016

08:30 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2946

CHRISTOPHER BINDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WASHINGTON GAS - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DIVISION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge.

(CA-95-319)

Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Binder, Appellant Pro Se. L. Edward Funk, WASHINGTON

GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his claims under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations

Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968 (West 1984 & Supp. 1995), the Sherman

Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1988), and the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Binder v. Washington Gas, No. CA-95-319 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1250

LESLIE YUENGAL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (4:10-cv-00042-FL)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie Yuengal, Appellant Pro Se. Eskunder Boyd, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Rudolph A. Renfer, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leslie Yuengal appeals the district court’s order 

upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of 

benefits under the Social Security Act. The district court 

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge 

recommended upholding the Commissioner’s decision and advised 

Yuengal that failure to file timely and specific objections to 

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district 

court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Yuengal has waived appellate review by failing to file 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny 

Yuengal’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the 

district court’s judgment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED