alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Abatement Order filed, December 13, 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00769

- CR

____________ CURTIS JAMES PRITCHA RD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law N o . 8

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1804094



### ABATEMENT ORDER

This is an appeal from a conviction for assault on a family member after a jury trial. On July 17, 2012, appellant was sentenced to one year in the Harris County Jail. Appellant fi led a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. The reporter’s record in this case was due September 17, 2012 , 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The record was not filed,2

and no request for an extension of time to file the record was filed. On September 20, 2012, this court ordered the official court reporter , Sondra Humphrey, to file the record within 30 days. When the court reporter failed to file the record as ordered, this court ordered the court repo rter to file the record within 30 days, and instructed the court reporter that if the record was not filed, the court would order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for failure to file the
record. The record has not been filed wit h the court , and Sondra Humphrey has not filed a response to this court’s order s . The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely as ordered, we issue the following order. We direct the judge of the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 8 to conduct a hearing at which the court rep orter, appellant’s counsel, and counsel for
the State shall participate (a) to determin e the reason for failure to file the record; (b) to establish a date certain when the reporter’s record will be filed, and (c) to make findings as to whether the court reporter should be held in contempt of court for failing to file the reporter’s record t imely as ordered. We order the court to prepare a record, in the form of a reporter’s record, of the hearing. The judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward to this court a supplemental clerk’s reco rd containing the findings and conclusions. The hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with
the clerk of this court on or before January 14, 2013

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s
active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will3

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or
the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. If the court reporter files the record prior to the date set for the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated and the trial court need not hold a hearing.

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7220

SIMON NEWMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AL HAYNES; K.M. WHITE; HARRELL WATTS; HARLEY

G. LAPPIN; USP HAZELTON, and Staff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00091-FPS)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simon Newman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Simon Newman appeals the district court order adopting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without

prejudice Newman’s civil action. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district

court’s reasoning that Newman did not exhaust his administrative

remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2675(a)

(2000). See Newman v. Haynes, No. 5:06-cv-00091-FPS (N.D.W. Va.

July 2, 2007). 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
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8909 

To require the Natural Resources Conservation Service to review the national 

conservation practice standards, taking into consideration climate benefits, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2020 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To require the Natural Resources Conservation Service to 

review the national conservation practice standards, taking into consideration climate benefits, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Climate Agricultural 

5 Conservation Practices Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8909 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATE BENEFITS IN CON2 SERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS. 

3 Section 1242(h) of the Food Security Act of 1985 

4 (16 U.S.C. 3842(h)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

6 (A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read 

7 as follows: 

8 ‘‘(A) not later than 4 years after the date 

9 of enactment of the Climate Agricultural Con10 servation Practices Act, and every 4 years 

11 thereafter, complete a review of each conserva12 tion practice standard, including engineering 

13 design specifications, in effect on the first day 

14 of the 4-year period covered by such review;’’; 

15 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘; 

16 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

17 (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking the 

18 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

19 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(E) evaluate the climate benefits of the 

21 standards.’’; 

22 (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘conserva23 tion innovations and’’ and inserting ‘‘climate bene24 fits, conservation innovations, and’’; and 

25 (3) by adding at the end the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8909 IH

1 ‘‘(5) CLIMATE BENEFIT DEFINED.—In this sub2 section, the term ‘climate benefit’ means— 

3 ‘‘(A) a reduction in agricultural green4 house gas emissions; 

5 ‘‘(B) an increase in carbon sequestration; 

6 or 

7 ‘‘(C) mitigation against, or adaptation to, 

8 increased weather volatility.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felix CANTU-ONTIVEROS, also known as Felix Cantu, also known as Felix Humberto Ontive Cantu, also known as Felix Humberto Cantu, also known as Felix Cantu Ontiveros, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20368 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 23, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Felix Cantu-Ontiveros, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Felix Cantu-Ontiveros has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cantu-Ontiveros has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We- concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R, 42.2. Cantu-Ontiveros’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
# C_2023112EN.01003301.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Bensoussan v EUIPO — Lulu’s Fashion Lounge (LOULOU STUDIO)

(Case T-24/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark LOULOU STUDIO - Earlier international word mark LULU’S - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 112/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ugo Bensoussan (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lulu’s Fashion Lounge LLC (Chico, California, United States) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, K. Dimidjian-Lecompte and K. Henry, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2021 (Case R 480/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ugo Bensoussan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ugo Bensoussan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
# C_2022326EN.01000501.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 26 April 2022 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v P. in W.

(Case C-282/22)

(2022/C 326/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation and defendant at first instance: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Respondent in cassation and applicant at first instance: P. in W.

Questions referred

Does a complex supply made to electric vehicle users at recharging points which encompasses:

| (a) | the provision of recharging devices (including integration of the charger with the vehicle operating system), |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the provision of recharging devices (including integration of the charger with the vehicle operating system),

| (b) | the supply of electricity, within duly adjusted parameters, to the batteries of the electric vehicle, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the supply of electricity, within duly adjusted parameters, to the batteries of the electric vehicle,

| (c) | the necessary technical support for vehicle users, and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the necessary technical support for vehicle users, and

| (d) | the provision of a special platform, website or application whereby users may reserve a particular connector and view their transaction and payment history, and of the option to use an ‘e-wallet’ to pay the balance due for individual recharging sessions






  — | constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) or a supply of services within the meaning of Article 24(1) thereof? |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

the provision of a special platform, website or application whereby users may reserve a particular connector and view their transaction and payment history, and of the option to use an ‘e-wallet’ to pay the balance due for individual recharging sessions

—

constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) or a supply of services within the meaning of Article 24(1) thereof?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
EX‐35.4

 

(logo) LNR

Partners, LLC

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2015 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “Reporting Period”), and of the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liability company

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw 

President

 

Dated: February 23, 2016

 

1601 Washington Avenue ∙ Suite 700 ∙ Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ∙ Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

Schedule I

 

MSBAM 2015-C21

Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C21

 

Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited 

333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 

Attn: Commercial Mortgage Surveillance 

Chicago IL 60606

General Contact

 

Fitch Ratings Inc. 

33 Whitehall Street

Attention: Commercial Mortgaged Surveillance 

New York NY 10004

General Contact

 

Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 

7 World Trade Center

250 Greenwich Street

Attn: Commercial Mortgage Surveillace Group 

New York NY 10007

General Contact

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1221 Avenue of the Americas 

New York NY 10020

James Y. Lee

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 Broadway

New York NY 10036 

Stephen Holmes

 

Morningstar Credit Ratings, LLC 

220 Gibraltar Road, Suite 300 

Attn: CMBS Surveillance 

Horsham PA 19044

General Contact

 

Morningstar Credit Ratings, LLC

1065 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor 

New York NY 10018

General Contact

 

Situs Holdings , LLC 

4665 Southwest Freeway

Houston TX 77027 

Pete Larsen

 

Situs Holdings , LLC

2 Embarcadero, Suite 1300 

San Francisco CA 94111 

Stacey Ciarlanti

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

Trust Administration Group 

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

Columbia MD 21045 

Angela R. Marsh

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

Columbia MD 21045 

Group Notices
# C_2023173EN.01001101.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 20 December 2022 — M.S.G. and Others v Banco Santander, S.A.

(Case C-775/22, Banco Santander)

(2023/C 173/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: M.S.G. and Others

Respondent: Banco Santander, S.A.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Article 34(1)(a) and (b), in relation to those of Article 53(1) and (3), Article 60(2), first subparagraph, points (b) and (c), and Article 64(4)(b), of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that, following the conversion into shares — and the subsequent transfer of those shares, without effective consideration — of subordinated obligations (tier 2 capital instruments) issued by a credit institution that is the subject of a resolution procedure and which were not accrued when that resolution procedure was adopted, persons who purchased those subordinated obligations before the start of such a resolution procedure are precluded from bringing, against that institution or against its successor entity, an action for a declaration of nullity in respect of the subscription contract for those subordinated obligations, seeking the reimbursement of the price paid to subscribe for the subordinated obligations, plus the interest accrued from the date of conclusion of the contract?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

---
No. 11-1477.

#### Mahon *v.*Oelbaum et al.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
ex10a.htm


















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 21 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141756) pertaining to Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 24 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141754) and Amendment No. 238 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08441), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.













/s/ Ernst & Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


April 1, 2014
No. 11-10689.

#### Zackery *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (50)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,848
<PP&E>                                         196,737
<DEPRECIATION>                                (91,039)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,291
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,807
<SALES>                                          8,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,394
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,712
<INCOME-TAX>                                       737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,712
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T QU A V AN LE , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73745 A ge nc yN o. A 027- 754- 294 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Q uaV a n L e , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of V i e tna m , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. O ur j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e rev i ew d e n o v o d u e p ro cess c la im s , a n df

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . Moh am m ed v.



# FI LED JU N 28 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73745 2 G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d is m is s in p a rt a n dd e n yin p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der the B IA ’ s deni al of L e’ s m ot i on t o reopen th e d is c r e tio n a ryd e n ia l o f c a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 592, 601 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . L e ’ s c l a i m tha tthe B I A di d noti s s ue ade c i s i on tha tf ul l ye xpl a i ns the r e a s ons f orde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n i s f or e c l os e d by th is d e te rm in a tio n . Se e id. a t 6 0 3 - 0 4 . L e’ s c on t ent i on thatthe B oard di d n otconsi der the evi dence he subm i tt ed f a i l s be c aus e he ha s not“ ove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on tha tthe B I A di d r e vi e w the re cord. ” Id . a t 6 0 3 . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yvonne Wiley HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-13026 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 28, 2018)

Steven E. Butler, Adam W. Overstreet, U.S. Attorney Service—Southern District of Alabama, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Yvonne Wiley Hall, FCI Tallahassee— Inmate Legal Mail, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Hughes, appointed counsel for Yvonne Hall in this criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hall’s sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is AFFIRMED.