alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: OCTOBER 17, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF OFFSHORE FLIGHT SCHOOL, INC. DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0691 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WP910016) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe**atta~**

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1

President Offshore Flight School, Inc., Respondent 100 IolanaPlace, #A Honolulu, HI 96819 TEL: 808-836-8688 ONE COPY

David Glenn Bettencourt, Respondent's Counsel Dillingham Transportation Building, Suite 304 735 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 TEL: 808-521-3491 FAX: 808-521-7749 Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Northwest MountainRegion, ANM-7 1601 Lind Ave., S.W. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-1417 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202.,366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2014-0691 (Civil PenaltyAction)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or

### by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Obed HOYTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6268

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Obed Hoyte, Appellant Pro Se. Jennie L. M. Waering, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Obed Hoyte appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Our review of *123the record confirms that Hoyte sought successive § 2255 relief without authorization from this court, and we therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

We construe Hoyte’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 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 newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact-finder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, or a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1)-(2). Hoyte’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
EX PARTE Fernando TARTT

CR-16-0532

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Joseph L. GARRELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3338

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
##### 



Exhibit 10.71
 
   
    Base Salary (effective August 1, 2006)
    
    $
    350,000Target Incentive at 100% of Plan
    
    $
    250,000Over-Achievement Bonus Opportunity
    
    $
    120,000
  %
    
    %Weight
    
    Performance Metric
    
    Target
    
    Achieve
    
    Payout75%
    
    
    Corporate EBITDA
    
    $
    28,000,000
    *
    
    
    85
    %
    
    
    70
    %90
    %
    
    
    80
    %95
    %
    
    
    90
    %100
    %
    
    
    100
    %25%
    
    
    Corporate Revenue
    
    $
    130,249,000
    
    
    
    90
    %
    
    
    70
    %93
    %
    
    
    80
    %96
    %
    
    
    90
    %100
    %
    
    
    100
    %
 
 *
    
    Excludes accrual for 2007 Executive Incentive Program  www.navisite.com




---



##### 



For example:
    
    Corp EBITDA
$3MM / $4MM
75% x $120,000
    
    = $31MM
= 75%
= $90,000
     
 /s/ Arthur Becker
    
    10/25/06Signed  Arthur Becker
 www.navisite.com
Luke O. PICKENS, Appellant, v. BREVARD POLICE TESTING AND SELECTION CENTER, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2367

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 23, 2018

Luke O. Pickens, Melbourne Beach, pro se.

Clifford R. Repperger, Jr., and Tiffany M. Walters, of GrayRobinson, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Thomas Ricardo AVILA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3856

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Thomas Ricardo Avila, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Lavert ABERNATHY, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0343

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Torry Von ZENON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7754

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 10, 2017

*170Torry Von Zenon, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Torry Von Zenon 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 Zenon 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*
#### Arron Michael LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Charles HOLLADAY, “Doc” Sheriff, Pulaski County Sheriff's Department, Defendant-Appellee Carl Johnson, M.D., Doctor, Pulaski County Jail, Defendant Sarah Speer, Registered Nurse, Pulaski County Jail; Scott Hazel, Sergeant, Pulaski County Jail; Vanessa Lowe, Deputy, Transportation, Pulaski County Jail; Jacob Mitchell, Nurse, Medical Staff, Pulaski County Jail; Jeff Allison, Detective, Pulaski County Deputy; Jackson Bennett, Lieutenant, Pulaski County Deputy; Gary Seibel, Detective; Drew Evans, Detective, Pulaski County Jail; Jackman, Deputy, Transportation, Pulaski County Jail; Stuart, Sergeant, Pulaski County Jail; Elliott, Nurse, Intake/Booking, Pulaski County Jail; Kimberly Stowe, Nurse, Intake/Booking, Pulaski County Jail, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-2202

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 15, 2016

Filed: November 30, 2016

Chet D. Dunlap, Trumann, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Arron Michael Lewis, Pro Se.

Samuel Collins Baber, David M. Fuqua, Fuqua *&*Campbell, Little Rock, AR., for Defendants-Appellees.

Patrick Lee Spivey, Fuqua *&*Campbell, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Charles Holladay, ‘Doc1 Sheriff, Pulaski County Sheriffs Department, Sarah Speer, Registered Nurse, Pulaski County Jail, Scott Hazel, Sergeant, Pulaski County Jail, Vanessa Lowe, Deputy, Transportation, Pulaski County Jail’ Jacob Mitchell, Nurse, Medical Staff, Pulaski County Jail, Jeff Allison, Detective, Pulaski County Deputy, Gary Seibel, Detective, Drew Evans, Detective, Pulaski County Jail, Kimberly Stowe, Nurse, Intake/Booking, Pulaski County Jail.

David A. Littleton, Anderson & Murphy, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant.

Jamie Huffman Jones, Friday *&*El-dredge, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Scott Hazel, Sergeant, Pulaski County Jail.

J. Blake Hendrix, Fuqua *&*Campbell, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Jackson Bennett, Lieutenant, Pulaski County Deputy, Gary Seibel, Detective.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

*905PER CURIAM.

Arron Michael Lewis, appeals, following the entry of final judgment, the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment on certain claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that, for the reasons the district court stated, summary judgment was warranted. See Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review).2 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cava-neau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

. We decline to consider the new matters Lewis raises on appeal. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 59TH DISTRICT COURT OF GRAYSON COU NTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 2 9 th

day of May , 2015 , the cause u pon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

TRACY RAY HASS , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00189

- CR; Trial Court No. 061728

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgmen t of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this be half, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

Tyler, this the 11 th day of December , 2015.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                         187,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               45,890,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,439,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,149,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            54,649,000
<PP&E>                                      14,077,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,632,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,906,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,271,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,514,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,906,000
<SALES>                                     64,419,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            64,419,000
<CGS>                                       54,696,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               63,008,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                86,352
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (2,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,434,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (573,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            861,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 464,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,325,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON , DC 20460 

AUG 3 1 2011 

;)FFICE OF The Honorable Greg Hines AIR t,ND RADIAilON 

Mayor 

City of Rogers 

301 West Chestnut Street 

Rogers, Arkansas 72756 

Dear Mayor Hines: 

Thank you for your letter of August 3, 2011, to Administrator Lisa Jackson, expressing concern over 

potential impacts of the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for FossilFuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, MATS), which was 

published in the Federal Register on May 3, 20 II. The Administrator asked that I respond on her behalf. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carefully analyzed the issue of electric supply, working 

closely with the Department of Energy. Our modeling shows that these proposed standards would result 

in relatively small changes in the average retail price of electricity, primarily due to increased demand 

for natural gas, keeping electricity prices below 1990 levels. This translates into a 1.3 percent increase in 

residential natural gas prices and a consumer electricity price increase of approximately $3-4 per month. 

The proposed standards, which will save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of asthma and 

heart attacks, are both reasonable and achievable, and many sources already are meeting them. Investing 

in pollution control at power plants creates high-quality American jobs in manufacturing steel, cement, 

and other materials needed to build pollution control equipment, and in installing, operating, and 

maintaining that equipment. The EPA estimates this proposed rule will provide employment for 

thousands by supporting 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs. These 

jobs would be distributed nationwide, including in Texas, in proportion to the number of coal-fired units 

that need upgrades. 

The EPA will work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE and other entities whose 

responsibility is to ensure an affordable, reliable supply of electricity, including State Utility 

Commissions, Regional Transmission Organizations, and the National Electric Reliability Council to 

share information and encourage them to begin planning for compliance and reliability as early as 

possible. This will ensure orderly, affordable compliance with the proposed standards. Energy efficiency 

investments that achieve moderate levels of energy demand reduction in compliance strategies can also 

substantially cut total emissions control costs for the power sector. 

Internet Address (URl) • http IIwww epa gov 


Recycled/Recyclable · Ponted With Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Post consumer, Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper 

Again, thank you for your letter. It will be placed in public docket this rulemaking. I 

opportunity to be of and trust the information provided is helpful. 

Sincerely, 

McCarthy 

Administrator
From: Ed Milliken [mailto:emilliken@bowerstonshale.com]

Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 2:08 PM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Subject: RE: Bowerston Hanover Plant

Our plant cannot go above 10 tons per year of HF or HCl at our full capacity. While we have a limit

in our permit on our throughput that would ensure that we never exceed major source levels for

HAP, it is physically impossible for us to reach that throughput limit. Therefore, we believe that we

meet the def inition of a “true area source.”

Ed Milliken

From: Raymond, Gabrielle [ mailto:graymond@rti.org ]

Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:52 AM

To: Ed Milliken

Subject: Bowerston Hanover Plant

Hello Mr. Miliken,

In the current inventory of Brick facilities (see attached page 5), the Bowerston Hanover Plant is

labeled as an Area Source (synthetic) for HAP. Can you confirm if this is accurate?

Thank you,

Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornw allis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541

- 7015

<< EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0125.pdf >>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSVALDO BUENROSTROHERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73029 

Agency No. A092-998-803 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Osvaldo Buenrostro-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro 

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73029 

and review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th 

Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Buenrostro-Hernandez’s

motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than five months after the

order of removal became final, and Buenrostro-Hernandez did not establish

changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the 

filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 

988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant required to produce material evidence with 

motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening 

where Buenrostro-Hernandez has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See

Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions 

denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning 

behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

Buenrostro-Hernandez’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due 

process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error 

to prevail on a due process claim). We rejected as unsupported by the record 

Buenrostro-Hernandez’s contentions that the immigration judge failed to grant a 

motion to reopen. We lack jurisdiction to consider Buenrostro-Hernandez’s 

contentions relating to the immigration judge’s denial of relief under former INA § 
3 17-73029 

212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) because he failed to file a timely petition for review of 

that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not 

later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Singh v. 

INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is “mandatory and 

jurisdictional”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MUSTAFA ANSARI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT,
TRAINING AND REHABILITATION;
SHANNA JUDIE,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 23

- 15718

D.C. No. 2:22

- cv

- 00561

- GMN

- NJK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024 * *

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Mustafa Ansari appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his mandamus action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 . We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the elements of mandamus are

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 30 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 15718

satisfied

. Johnson v. Reilly , 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)

. We may affirm

on any basis supported by the record

. Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59

(9th Cir. 2008)

. W e affirm

.

Denial of Ansari’s petition for writ of mandamus was proper because Ansari

may not seek federal mandamus against a state agency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361

( stating that mandamus relief may be sought against an officer, employee, or

agency of the United States)

. Further, Ansari did not demonstrate a clear and

certain claim to unemployment benefits. S ee Johnson , 349 F.3d at 1154 ( setting

forth the elements for mandamus relief)

.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias

,

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Appellees’ motion to expand the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 14) is

denied as unnecessary

.

AFFIRMED

.