alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Craig MISTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORTHINGTON ARMSTRONG VENTURE (Wave), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1186

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Decided: September 14, 2017

Arinderjit Dhali, DHALI PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Theresa M. Connolly, CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Mistier appeals the district court’s order granting Worthington Armstrong Venture’s summary judgment motion on his claims, brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654 (2012) (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2012), and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t §§ 20-606 to 20-609 (West 2014) (MFEPA). We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See *Mistler v. Worthington Armstrong Venture,*No. 1:15-cv-03458-JFM, 2017 WL 491635 (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2017); *see also United States v. Riley,*856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that this court may affirm a district court’s order “on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)), *pet. for cert. filed,*No. 17-5559 (Aug. 7, 2017); *Yashenko v. Harrah’s N.C. Casino Co., LLC,*446 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he FMLA does not require an employee to be restored to his prior job after FMLA leave if he would have been discharged had he not taken leave.”); *Adkins v. Peninsula Reg’l Med. Ctr.,*224 Md.App. 115, 119 A.3d 146, 165 (2015) (“[U]nder both [the MFEPA] and federal law, the employee still must identify a *reasonable*accommodation that could have been possible.”), *aff'd,*448 Md. 197, 137 A.3d 211 (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*
Exhibit 32.02

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

In connection with the Annual Report of SAN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Robert C.
Ogden, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of December 31, 2004 and for the periods then ended.


Date: March 29, 2005
                               /s/ Robert C. Ogden
                               ------------------------------------------------
                                   Robert C. Ogden, Chief Financial Officer and
                                   Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37423

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

RICHARD CAMARILLO

,

Defendant-Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2010 Unpublished Opin ion No. 640

Filed: September 10, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum

period of confinement of two years , for possession of a controlled substance

, dismissed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. La wrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney

General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Richard Camarillo pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

-

2732(c) (1)

. The parties entered into a binding I.C.R. 11 plea agreement. Pursuant to the

agreement and in exchange for Camarillo’s guilty plea, the state dismissed an additional charge,

agreed not to file a habitual violator enhancement, and agreed to recommend a unified sentence

of seven years, with four years fixed. Camarillo waived his right to appeal his sentence provided

that the district court did not exceed the state’s recommendation. The d istrict court sentenced

Camarillo to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years

.

Camarillo appeals.2

We hold that Camarillo’s appellate challenge to the excessiveness of his se ntence has

been waived by his plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1); State v. Rodriguez , 142 Idaho 786, 787,

133 P.3d 1251, 1252 (Ct. App. 2006). Camarillo’s plea agreement contained a clause by which

Camarillo waived his right to appeal his sentence. Acc ordingly, we dismiss Camarillo’s appeal.
#### Jacqueline WARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CMG MORTGAGE, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17505

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Jacqueline Warner, Pro Se

Jason Edward ■ Goldstein, Senior Counsel, Robert M. Dato, Buchalter Nemer, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee CMG Mortgage, Inc.

Rachael H. Berman, Attorney, Raines Feldman LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Ally Bank, Ally Financial, Inc.

Michael Lisko, Markus D. Self, Green *&*Hall, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Orange Coast Title Company

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jacqueline Warner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Harkonen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*800 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Warner’s TILA claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Warner unsuccessfully raised those same claims before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. *See Siegel v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.,*143 F.3d 525, 528-29 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding borrower’s action against lender was barred by the res judicata effect of a related bankruptcy proceeding); *United States v. Coast Wineries,*131 F.2d 643, 648 (9th Cir. 1942) (“[A]n order disallowing a claim in bankruptcy is binding and conclusive on all parties or their privies, and being in the nature of a final judgment, furnishes a basis for a plea of res judicata.”). Contrary to Warner’s contention, the decision in *Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 790, 190 L.Ed.2d 650 (2015), does not affect the res judicata bar.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Warner’s motion for reconsideration because Warner failed to establish any basis for such relief. *See Sch. Dist. No.1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *559*See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Warner’s motions filed on April 8, 2016 and May 4, 2016 are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Gelray M. GAINEY and Antonishia L. Fuller-Gainey, Appellants, v. LARSON COMMUNITIES, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3703

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Phillip W. FIELDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David ROBINSON, Chief Corrections Operations; Harold W. Clarke, Director of the Department of Corrections; Gregory Holloway, Regional Administrator; Tracy Ray, Warden; Rick White, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6231

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: July 18, 2017

*202Phillip W. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion,

PER CURIAM:

Phillip W. Fields appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying his cross-motion for summary judgment in his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ec to 2000cc-5 (2012). Applying a de novo standard of review, *Lawson v. Union Cty. Clerk of Court,*828 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2016); *Henson v. Liggett Grp., Inc.,*61 F.3d 270, 274 (4th Cir. 1995), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Fields v. Robinson,*No. 3:15-cv-00455-HEH, 2017 WL 253955 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2017). 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan HOLNESS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6464

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: September 25, 2017

Ryan Holness, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl L. Crumpton, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*238Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Holness seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a .debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holness 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Steve LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL “PERRY”; Capt. Randall; Ofc. Fish; Ofc. Alewine, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6751

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Steve Lester, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steve Lester appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Lester’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lester v. SCDOC Perry,*No. 4:16-cv-03829-TMC, 2017 WL 2377530 (D.S.C. June 1, 2017). 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*
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0001739 22-NOV-2013 09:54 AM
John Louis ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 13, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* . *See**Whitehead v. State* , 21 So.3d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Damoorgian, Kuntz, JJ., and Fahnestock, Fabienne, Associate Judge, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01671]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Mapping the Gene Regulatory 
Networks Controlling.
    Date: March 25, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2131A, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Assisted 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92e1f9f3fcf6f3e1f3d2fff3fbfebcfcfbfabcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdced6dcd3d9dccedcfdd0dcd4d193d3d4d593dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 24, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-01671 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jamar A. CANNON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward HULL; Phyllis Back, Major; Darryl Turner, Captain of Security; Captain Hickey; D. Lubeke; Officer Stephan; Sergeant Berry; Michelle Lewis, Director of Inmate Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6167

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: July 13, 2017

Jamar A. Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Rodrigue Jurjevieh, Jeff W. Ro-sen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamar A. Cannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Coup.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Cannon seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED*
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business as follows:

# TIME AND DATE: 

Friday, February 11, 2022, from 2:30-3:30 p.m. EST.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's opening remarks; update on Science & Engineering Indicators 2022 reports; discussion of the release and rollout of The State of U.S. Science & Engineering 2022; discussion of socioeconomic barriers to participation in STEM and the Committee's plans to explore this issue.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair,                         *cblair@nsf.gov,*                         703/292-7000. Meeting information, including a link to watch this meeting on YouTube may be found at the National Science Board website                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb.*

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2022-02775 Filed 2-4-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
* 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. 99-41243

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO SANTAMARIA-BORJAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-99-CR-218-1

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

June 14, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro

Santamaria-Borjas has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Santamaria filed a response asking that his appeal be dismissed

because he cannot afford to pursue it, although he is represented

by court-appointed counsel in this appeal.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion to

withdraw is granted, counsel is excused from further
No. 99-41243

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
WILDWOOD VILLAGES, LLC, Quest Industries, LC and Unity Land Management, Appellants, v. Vaughn R. HARRIS, Cheryl M. Harris, Art Spengler, Jerry Neaveill, Connie Neaveill, Terrance Piotrowicz and Suzanne Piotrowicz, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-1215

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11101 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ORLANDO DEMETRIUS WHEAT, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-161-ALL-A

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * In 2000, Orlando Demetrius Wheat was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Wheat appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release

. Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Wheat complains that the 27-month term ofNo. 04-11101 -2- imprisonment imposed for his conviction and the 14-month term of imprisonment imposed for his violation of supervised release exceeded in the aggregate the 33-month total term of imprisonment allowed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for his initial conviction based on the facts alleged in his indictment and admitted by him. Wheat argues as a result that the district court was authorized to impose no more than a six-month term of imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release unless the facts pertaining to his release violations were alleged in an indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Wheat contends that the alleged Booker violation in his case cannot be cured by application of Booker ’s remedial advisory guidelines system because his initial sentence is final and because it would violate due process and ex post facto laws. Wheat’s arguments lack merit. See United States v. Alfaro-Hernandez , 453 F.3d 280, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hinson , 429 F.3d 114, 116-19 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006)
. The 14-month term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of Wheat’s supervised release did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, Wheat’s sentence upon revocation was neither “unreasonable” nor “plainly unreasonable.”
See Hinson , 429 F.3d at 120.
AFFIRMED.