alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilfredo ANDUJAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenny ATKINSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-6474

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 12, 2017

Wilfredo Andujar, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Andujar, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Andujar leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Andujar v. Atkinson,*No. 5:14-hc-02126-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2015). 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*
# BOB FILNER

SI si Dis i RIP' I CALIFORNIA

VETFRANS AFFAIRS COMMIFFEE

RANKING MEMBER
'I RANSI'OR'I A i'ION AN!) INFRASTR( ('TURF'

('0MM!) Ti U A I I I IIIN IIICIINA'l 'I'll) 'III \NSI I V1 1111k, SHIRt IS ,\N11 ENS IIIIINMI NI I' IINOMII 

### D,v, I I1PMI NI, 

### PIll! II RI II DIN(,S,

NIl PHI 111,1 NI Y M SN 51,1 MI NI 

# CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


# September 12, 2011 2428 R ss H! RN H IIJSI Doll F B! ii WASHING GIN, DC 205)5 TEl (202) 225 8)145 FAX: (202) 225-907) 33) F 

### SiRoT, SF111 A 

### Cot I \ Vis I A, CAl.!! (IRNIA 9191)) 'I'll (619) 422 5963 I' vx. (619) 422 729))
I 101 A111r'OFI I RI IAI), S iii D IM p IRIAI CS! II'HRNIA 9225! T p i : (760) 355 88))!) FAX: (760) 355 88(12 

### website: www.house.gov/t'ilner



# The Honorable Lisa Jackson Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Jackson: I was recently contacted by Apex Power Group regarding their request for assistance in expediting their Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for The Pio Pico Energy Center. Apex claims that the Environmental Protection Agency is not processing permits in a timely fashion and requests that they be informed on the status of their application. I would appreciate your kind attention to this matter. ff1 can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me or Tony Cruz of my staff at (619) 422-5963.

BOB FILNER Member of Congress

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Doyle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6106

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Decided: July 6, 2017

Richard Doyle Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

*713Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Doyle Hudson 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 Hudson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hudson’s motion for leave to supplement his informal brief. 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*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04730]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that a meeting of the 
Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation (hereinafter the 
Committee) will be held virtually Wednesday, April 6 and Thursday, 
April 7, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST on both days. The 
meeting sessions are open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of VA on the rehabilitation needs of Veterans with disabilities and on 
the administration of VA's Veteran rehabilitation programs. The 
Committee members will continue to receive briefings on employment 
programs and services designed to enhance the delivery of services for 
the rehabilitation potential of Veterans and discuss recommendations to 
be included in the Committee's following annual comprehensive report.
    Although no time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations 
from the public, members of the public may submit written statements 
for review by the Committee to Latrese Thompson, Designated Federal 
Officer, Veterans Benefits Administration (28), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20420, or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92def3e6e0f7e1f7bcc6fafdffe2e1fdfcd2e4f3bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="773b16030512041259231f181a0704181937011659101801">[email protected]</span></a>. In the 
communication, writers must identify themselves and state the 
organization, association, persons or persons they represent.
    For any members of the public who wish to attend virtually, please 
use the Microsoft Teams Meeting link: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_YjZmZmIyZDAtYzFlYi00OGUxLTk3ZTMtNDhmN2IyMWRjMjlk%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22e95f1b23-abaf-45ee-821d-b7ab251ab3bf%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%228252bbc1-b123-48c8-aa1c-6f43c7d548c7%22%7d.
    Or call in (audio only) +1 872-701-0185, 377848130# United States, 
Chicago.
    Phone Conference ID: 377 848 130#.

    Dated: March 2, 2022.
LaTonya L. Small,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-04730 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Larry Felentise RAMBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Heather ROSE; City of Jacksonville; Jacksonville Police Department; John Ervin; Detective Jordan; Jeff Covington; Crystal Caton; Chris Cox; Sergeant Capps; Joseph Cooper; Shelly Partian; K. L. Doyle; Ronnie Dorn; *751Dale Silance; Richard Kellum; H. T. Raney; Timothy Oswalt, Attorney; Samuel S. Popkin; Frank L. Perry, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7614

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 12, 2017

Larry Felentise Rambert, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Felentise Rambert appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, *Rambert v. Rose,*No. 6:15-ct-03316-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 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*
II 

Calendar No. 683 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5889 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 17, 2016 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, Northern 

Mariana Islands, as the ‘‘Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI 

Fallen Military Heroes Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SEGUNDO T. SABLAN AND CNMI FALLEN MILI4 TARY HEROES POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, 

7 Northern Mariana Islands, shall be known and designated 


lotter on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5889 RS

1 as the ‘‘Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military He2 roes Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Segundo T. Sablan 

7 and CNMI Fallen Military Heroes Post Office Building’’. 


lotter on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

lotter on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 683 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5889 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostHeroes Post Office Building’’. ‘‘Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, as the al Service located at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in 

NOVEMBER 17, 2016 

Reported without amendment 


lotter on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6939 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6939

 To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to implement 
       the Migrant Protection Protocols, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2024

Mr. Rosendale (for himself, Mr. Gooden of Texas, Mr. Reschenthaler, Ms. 
Malliotakis, Mr. Harris, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Waltz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
Mr. Burlison, Mr. Baird, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. 
 Biggs, Mr. Perry, Mr. Norman, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Fry, Mr. 
 Carter of Georgia, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Arrington, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Ogles, 
 Mr. Yakym, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr. Collins) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to implement 
       the Migrant Protection Protocols, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Return Excessive Migrants and 
Asylees to International Neighbors in Mexico Act of 2024'' or the 
``REMAIN in Mexico Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall implement the Migrant Protection Protocols in 
accordance with the memorandum of Secretary of Homeland Security 
Nielsen entitled ``Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant 
Protection Protocols'', dated January 25, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bennie Austin MACK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer Charles TURNER, in his official capacity as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in his individual capacity; Travis Elmore, in his official capacity as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in his individual capacity; Charles E. Samuels, Jr., in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in his individual capacity; Joel Coakley, in his official capacity as Warden at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley, West Virginia, and in his individual capacity; David Lemaster, in his official capacity as Executive Director and Camp Administrator at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley, West Virginia, and in his individual capacity; E. Stock, in her official capacity as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6337

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 18, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Bennie A. Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Matthew Charles Lindsay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bennie Austin Mack, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Mack v. Turner,*No. 5:15-cv-03589, 2017 WL 870414 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 2017). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with *654oral 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*
#### Katherine B. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOJ-DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DEA-Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1156

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Katherine B. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United .States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, on Robinson’s claims alleging she was harassed and retaliated against during her federal employment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 25, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on February 2, 2017. Because Robinson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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*
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 67

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize former members of

the Armed Forces who are totally disabled as the result of a serviceconnected disability to travel on military aircraft in the same manner

and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are

entitled to travel on such aircraft.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize former

members of the Armed Forces who are totally disabled

as the result of a service-connected disability to travel

on military aircraft in the same manner and to the

same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces

are entitled to travel on such aircraft.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is amend4 ed by inserting after section 1031 the following new sec5 tion:
2

S 67 IS

1 ‘‘§ 1032. Travel privileges on military aircraft for cer2 tain former members of the armed forces

3 ‘‘A former member of the armed forces who is enti4 tled to compensation from the Veterans’ Administration

5 for a service-connected disability rated total in degree by

6 the Veteran’s Administration is entitled, in the same man7 ner and to the same extent as retired members of the

8 armed forces are entitled to travel on a space-available

9 basis on unscheduled military flights within the continen10 tal United States and on scheduled overseas flights oper11 ated by the Military Airlift Command.’’.

12 SEC. 2. The table of sections, at the beginning of

13 chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is amended

14 by inserting after the item relating to section 1031 the

15 following new item:

‘‘1032. Travel privileges on military aircraft for certain former members of the

armed forces.’’.

Æ
#### Aubrey Maurice GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Commissoner of Internal Revenue, Rebecca Kline, Director of Internal Revenue Service, each in their professional and personal capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15779 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 3, 2017)

Aubrey Maurice Garrett, Pro Se

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Aubrey Garrett appeals *pro se*the *sua sponte*dismissal without prejudice of his complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Garrett, a tax protestor, challenged the authority of the Internal Revenue Service and its employees to impose and collect taxes. We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the *sua sponte*dismissal of a complaint as frivolous. *Hughes v. Lott,*350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). *Pro se*pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and are . construed liberally. *Id.*“A lawsuit is frivolous if the plaintiffs realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.” *Clark v. Ga. Pardons and Paroles Bd.,*915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1984).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it *sua sponte*dismissed Garrett’s complaint. Garrett applied to proceed *in forma pauperis,*so the district court was required to review his complaint and to “dismiss the case ... if ... the action or appeal ... [was] frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We have repeatedly rejected Garrett’s arguments that he was not a “taxpayer” and was immune from prosecution because he is not a citizen of the United States. *See Stoecklin v. Commissioner,*865 F.2d 1221, 1223-24 (11th Cir. 1989); *United States v. Ward,*833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987); *McNair v. Eggers,*788 F.2d 1509, 1510 (11th Cir. 1986). Additionally, as the district court noted, Garrett’s complaint was “virtually unintelligible.” Because Garrett had no realistic chance of success, the district court was required to dismiss his action as frivolous.

*762We AFFIRM the dismissal of Garrett’s complaint.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

               Written Statement of President and Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
              Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

     The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mohegan
Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Authority"), hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Authority for the Quarter
          Ended March 31, 2001 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
          Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

     (b)  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Authority.

                                          /s/ William J. Velardo
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          William J. Velardo
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          November 12, 2002

                                       40
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1056

DAVID CHAVEZ-FLORES,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-1225

DAVID CHAVEZ-FLORES,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 14, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 

Director, JoAnna L. Watson, Office of Immigration Litigation,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

David Chavez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s 

decision denying relief from removal, and denying his motion to 

reconsider. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we 

lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an 

alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an 

aggravated felony or controlled substance offense. We retain

jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or questions of 

law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson v. Holder,

667 F.3d 523, 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 

353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional 

claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not 

authorized by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”). This 

jurisidictional bar extends to our review of the denial of a 

motion to reconsider. Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 390 

(4th Cir. 2012) (dismissing challenge to motion to reconsider 

for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)).

Upon review, we find that the claims raised by 

Chavez-Flores are not sufficiently colorable to invoke this 

court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jian Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 

80, 84 (1st Cir. 2007) (“To trigger our jurisdiction, the 

putative constitutional or legal challenge must be more than a 
4

disguised challenge to factual findings. The underlying 

constitutional or legal question must be colorable; that is, the 

argument advanced must, at the very least, have some potential 

validity.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for review 

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.

PETITIONS DISMISSED