alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-30038 Summary Calendar

_______________________

LARRY HARDY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA; CITY OF AMITE, LA; DUNCAN S KEMP, III, District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office for the City of Amite, Louisiana;

DIANNE OSBY; RICHARD P IEYOUB, Attorney General for the State of Louisiana,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas

(95-CV-2437-T)

_________________________________________________________________

August 12, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this appeal, Larry Hardy challenges the district

court’s refusal to grant declaratory and injunctive relief against

the operation of LSA R.S.9:936, the Louisiana Pat ernity Statute.2

Hardy was named in a paternity suit filed in Tangipahoa Parish,

provoking him to institute this action, but the paternity case was

almost immediately dropped, apparently because of mistaken

identity. Hardy nevertheless wished to pursue a challenge to the

statute’s constitutionality and a defamation action aga inst the

appellees including the district attorney and maternal complainant.

Hardy makes no attempt even to argue on appeal that his

challenge to the statute’s constitutionality is not moot. The

paternity case against him was dismissed only sixteen days after he

filed this federal lawsuit, and he was never required to submit to

a blood test. He no longer has any legitimate contest with the

city, county or state authorities re garding the statute. The

district court properly dismissed this part of his case.

Hardy also contends that the district court’s dismissal

of his defamation claim should be reversed and remanded for further

proceedings. We are not certain why the district court dismissed

this claim, inasmuch as Hardy declined to furnish a transcript, and

the district court’s order, contained in the record excerpts,

states that the judge dismi ssed “for reasons enunciated in open

court.” Nevertheless, it appears obvious that the court dismissed

either because Hardy’s allegations of defamation are wholly vague

and conclusional or because the judge believed the state law claim

is now better heard in state court. Either of these grounds is

fully sustainable on appeal. Hardy’s brief to this court makes no

eff ort to explain the facts behind the defamation claim, his3

pleadings in the trial court were similarly sketchy, and there is

no record that he attempted to amend.

For these reasons, the district cou r t’s judgment of

d ismissal, without prejudice as to the defamation claim only, is

AFFIRMED

.
# C_2022084EN.01005201.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/52

---

Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Motel One v EUIPO — Apartment One (APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER.)

(Case T-15/22)

(2022/C 84/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Motel One GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Hartmann, S. Fröhlich and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apartment One GbR (Grasbrunn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER. — Application No 18 009 642

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 564/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
PATRICK J . TOOME Y coMMrneES^ 

PENNSYLVANIA BANKING, HOUSING, AND 

URBAN AFFAIRS 

COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

BUDGET 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

Bnited States Senate 

July 26,2011 

• o : — 

Aloha Ley > 5^^~^ 

Associate Director rr o^2 ^ 

Small Community Air Service Development Program, X-55 -c^ -^3 

U.S. Department of Transportation ^ 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Ley, 

I am pleased to write in support of the Westmoreland County Airport Authority's 

(WCAA) recent request for $200,000 in air-service marketing funding through the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. 

In 2011 the Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Latrobe, Petmsylvania added Spirit 

Airlines to its scheduled service, with flights to Fort Lauderdale and Myrtle Beach. In only 5 

short months more than 30,000 passengers have used the airport, exceeding the numbers 

generally seen in an entire year of service. Passengers using the service hail from all parts of 

Pennsylvania, as well as Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, New York and Maryland. It has truly 

become a regional airport, filling a void in service for that area of Pennsylvania. 

Westmoreland County Airport Authority now seeks to enhance this successful new air 

service that has been breaking records and setting new precedents. They are considering the 

addition of new destinations for low-cost, non-stop direct jet service. To support their effort to 

add new cities to the flight roster, WCAA seeks much needed funds through your Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. 

I am in full support of these efforts and ask that you give all due consideration to their 

grant funding request. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have any questions about 

this request. I can be reached at 610-434-1444. 

Pat Toomey • 

U.S. Senator
#### WENJING YU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70910

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 7, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed March 12, 2018

*778Dennis James Eoffe, Attorney, Law Office of Dennis Eoffe, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Wenjing Yu, a native and citizen of China who alleges persecution on account of her religion, seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

1.Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (explaining substantial evidence standard); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that, for the court to overturn a factual finding, the record must compel a contrary conclusion). For example, Petitioner introduced a fraudulent identification card; the identification card and the household registration card contradicted each other concerning the date when Petitioner began to live at a particular address (1994 versus 1996); and Petitioner testified falsely that she lived in California, even though she had been living in Nevada when she testified about living in California. Those are permissible grounds to disbelieve Petitioner, and we are not compelled to credit her testimony as true. In view of the adverse credibility finding, the BIA permissibly ruled that Petitioner’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail.

2. With respect to Petitioner’s CAT claim, the BIA permissibly concluded that the record evidence other than Petitioner’s disbelieved testimony was insufficient to carry Petitioner’s burden of proof. The country condition evidence does not compel a conclusion that Petitioner would be detained and tortured if she practiced her religion upon returning to China.

3. Finally, we decline to consider Petitioner’s due process claim concerning the report about the authenticity of her identification card. Petitioner expressly withdrew her objection to the report at the agency level, and exhaustion of a claim is mandatory and jurisdictional. Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987).

Petition DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-10745.

#### Heath *v.*Wojtowicz et al.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
SCWC-13-0000022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

EDEN L. PANADO, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant,

vs.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM STATE OF HAWAII,

Respondent/Appellee-Appellee.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0000022; CIV. NO. 12-1-0151-01)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Castagnetti, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant Eden L. Panado’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on March 4, 2014, is

hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding

scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 15, 2014.

Philip W. Miyoshi

for petitioner

David M. Louie,

Patricia Ohara, and

Elmira K.L. Tsang

for respondent 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000022

15-APR-2014

08:51 AM
July 2015

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced on Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2014 18

Table 7. Sales of fossil fuel production from federal and Indian lands by state/area, FY 2003-14

trillion Btu

State 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Alabama 75 57 51 47 40 42 60 88 86 71 46 29

Alaska 61 66 68 52 32 28 27 23 21 19 18 21

Arizona 258 273 280 193 180 162 157 154 164 163 167 158

Arkansas 7 8 10 10 10 11 15 18 14 13 11 11

California 141 125 124 139 146 129 116 115 121 125 121 119

Colorado 785 842 960 906 905 931 846 868 917 952 875 877

Florida 0 - - - - - - - - - - -

Illinois 0 - - - - - - - - - - -

Indiana 0 - - - - - - - - - - -

Kansas 12 11 11 12 10 10 10 9 8 7 7 6

Kentucky 0 - - 6 18 8 4 1 3 5 6 -

Louisiana 225 245 188 164 167 162 146 127 116 111 106 88

Michigan 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1

Mississippi 19 19 18 16 16 17 14 13 13 12 12 10

Montana 612 684 722 661 723 727 662 659 612 576 515 580

Nebraska 0 - 1 2 1 - - - - - - -

Nevada 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2

New Mexico 1,823 1,750 1,696 1,627 1,570 1,474 1,447 1,333 1,339 1,365 1,408 1,403

New York 0 - - - - - - - - - - -

North Dakota 70 92 88 111 121 126 77 83 165 291 387 469

Offshore Gulf 7,570 7,086 6,484 5,289 5,553 5,046 5,235 5,587 4,713 4,078 3,907 3,949

Offshore Pacific 170 156 145 144 138 131 129 123 107 92 98 97

Ohio 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

Oklahoma 56 57 56 57 59 57 60 60 63 63 62 63

Pennsylvania 0 - - - - - - - - - - -

South Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

Texas 119 113 90 87 87 67 64 49 54 76 62 50

Utah 586 637 677 654 621 647 622 632 570 734 733 738

Virginia 0 - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

Washington 4 - - - - - - - - - - -

West Virginia 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 - - -

Wyoming 8,596 8,863 8,813 8,653 9,197 10,198 10,048 9,908 9,665 9,331 8,369 8,270

Total 21,200 21,096 20,493 18,841 19,607 19,984 19,748 19,859 18,760 18,091 16,915 16,944

Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration based on U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue. “ONNR Statistical Information Site” (http://statistics.onrr.gov)
SUBSIDIARIES
                                                           Exhibit 21

1.            GENERAL


              Western Beef, Inc. conducts its retail and wholesale food business
directly and through 19 consolidated wholly-owned subsidiaries and six
consolidated subsidiaries wholly-owned by Quarex Operating Company, Inc., a 100%
subsidiary of the registrant.


2.            OTHER SUBSIDIARIES

Awesome Transportation, Inc.

East Central Meats, Inc.

Quarex New England, Inc.

Western Beef Advertising, Inc.

Western Beef, Administration, Inc. (Formerly known as Western Beef, Inc. (New
York Corporation)

W.B. Packing, Inc.

Sabrina Food Sales, Inc.

Food Warehouse, Inc.


NOTE:

              All corporations listed above were incorporated in New York except
for Quarex-New England, Inc. which was incorporated in Massachusetts.

                                       19
<PAGE>

                            SUBSIDIARIES OF WESTERN BEEF, INC.


WESTERN BEEF              -METROPOLITAN AVENUE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -MORRIS AVENUE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -FOREST AVENUE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -14TH STREET, INC.

W.B. PRODUCE              -METROPOLITAN AVENUE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -MERRICK BLVD., INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -FORT GREENE PLACE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -CANARSIE, INC.

W.B. PRODUCE              -CANARSIE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -173RD STREET, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -ROSEDALE AVENUE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -STEINWAY STREET, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -EMPIRE BLVD., INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -MINEOLA, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -WEST END AVE. INC.
                           (Formerly known as Western Beef-Atlantic Ave. Inc.)

WESTERN BEEF              -ROOSEVELT, INC

WESTERN BEEF              -ROCKAWAY BLVD, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -MYRTLE AVENUE, INC.

QUAREX OPERATING COMPANY, INC.

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF QUAREX OPERATING COMPANY, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -COLLEGE POINT BLVD., INC.
                           (Formerly known as Ranbar Packing, Inc.)

WESTERN BEEF              -EAST ORANGE, N. J., INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -EAST NEW YORK, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -PARK AVENUE, INC.

WESTERN BEEF              -ELMONT, INC.
                           (Formerly known as Quarex-Elmont, Inc.)

WESTERN BEEF SUPERMARKET, INC.

NOTE:

              All corporations listed above were incorporated in New York except
for Western Beef-East Orange, N.J., Inc., which was incorporated in New Jersey.





<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                     CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Western Beef, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the respective
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-80379) of our report dated March 3,
1997, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Western
Beef, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended January 3, 1997.


BDO Seidman, LLP


New York, New York
March 28, 1997
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 41134 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ELIO MARROQUIN

- LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:17

- CR

- 393

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elio Marroq u in

Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Marroquin

- Lopez h a s not filed a response. We have
reviewed counsel’s brief an d the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 9, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-41134 Document: 00514545785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2018No. 17

- 41134

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-41134 Document: 00514545785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2018
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-18-003]

Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Transwestern Pipeline 
Company (Transwestern), tendered for filing to become part of 
Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff the following tariff sheets proposed to 
become effective on April 1, 1997:

Second Revised Volume No. 1

Third Revised Sheet No. 49
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 58
Second Revised Sheet No. 61
Second Revised Sheet No. 62
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 63
Second Revised Sheet No. 63A
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 64
Second Revised Sheet No. 71
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 80
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 80A
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 81A
First Revised Sheet No. 81E
Second Revised Sheet No. 95
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 95A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 95B
Second Revised Sheet No. 95B.1
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 95C
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 95D
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 95E
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 95F
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 95G
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 95H
Second Revised Sheet No. 95I
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 95K
Third Revised Sheet No. 95L
Third Revised Sheet No. 95M-95P

    Transwestern states that the instant filing is to (i) make 
effective changes to the General Terms and Conditions of Transwestern's 
tariff which are necessary to implement Gas Industry Standards Board 
(``GISB'') standards which have been previously approved by the 
Commission on a pro forma basis in Transwestern's compliance proceeding 
in Docket Nos. RP97-18-000 et al., filed on October 1, 1996 and 
December 16, 1996, (ii) incorporate the requirements of Order No. 587-
B, issued January 30, 1997 in Docket No. RM96-1-003, and (iii) include 
references to the GISB definitions, datasets and standards not 
previously incorporated by Transwestern, all as required by the 
February 14 Order.
    Transwestern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Transwestern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make protestant a party to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5754 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
, 

. 

i ..; 

.? :. .y* ; 

: :. : 

. 

: 

:: 

._ 

” OFFICE OF.TfdE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS .~~ 

AUSTIN 

. . GROVER SELLERS 

A,-r.Nwl* GP(LIIM. 

.’ 

. 

. . 

1. 

‘/ 

# 

, 

. . 

: 

_- 

. . 

‘. 

a* 

. . 

‘I 

. 

- . 

. \’ . 

....' ’ 

iioaombla E.'W. Allen E

Dtstrlct Dtstrlct Attorney Attorney 

%2nd %2nd Suiuclal Suiuclal n1etriat 

Pdlfon, rorss 

Dear Sii: 

. . 

.' ._ 

. 

.I. : 

. . 

. 

‘. 

.,.I. 

. . . 

. . 

opicion x0. Q-6742 
.’ 

. 

: 

wt300 br 

rollaa6r 

oon,bo aimc&wd a&n& tho ddfoadant ln.thc &rant he . 

la qooatually fiuod tn Coufity.Courk, for the mstn 

asaasa& icoldont to t&o'~ustioa Court pmoeedioGs. 

Thla has boon done ln.som.lnatunoes wham the 

dofeadant pal&,umolzt proteot." 

Tha &ttaoh& letter OS fnquby”rroi5 tt23 crastloo dr tb 

Prodnot HO‘ q, CornoacTha county, Tolms, in ln.po.r$ aa 

. . 

ArtSole rm~, 

18 e8 fOllOWSI 

Vesnca*s &mot&& Petal. Code, a6 ariumdad, 

%np person xi.0 itrives or ogentcs in cq~toxobil6 

oi any other motor oehtoZs upon.onp gubllo'ra:gd OS 

nighnap in this stctto-, orupon my atreat or~ollcy 

~wltbln tbo 1ltiiEs'oP an fnooxpofnIx-d oity, tom or 

vi-UFL@, while auch,~pdrsou I.6 IatoxioncOc? 01; unilor 

.tfia /nfluence or intosiort~cf: llo,uor, ahnll bs @lirty 

'of Q mfsEemmor, md up02 cocitatlon,~ o!?ellLbo pun- 

- lahed by ocmfinawnt irr t&a Cc?tiiitg~ 30X1far not legs, 

thsn tan (10) d.ays no2 mm thsn two (21 yearn, or 

by n fina or zot 1033 than FiLny r,ollnrs (':stiZII mr 

norpI tbra FI.ve mn~red rallara ~($SOG), ox by both 

BUOb fine 6C.d l.n~r2mrl..3nt.* 

. 

., 

: 
: 
. 

-._

-. 

'.. . . 

'I : '. 

:. 

. .' ,* 

/ . z.- 

*.,- . . 

- ~mmi ?f; F;. Alloo, #alga b . . 

. . 

.:. .* . . 

.,. . “ 

. . . . 

, %a, fiSEUO6 fXOlI3 ‘t&6. f&Otj3 QXt386tltCd 132 J’QUX’ l’Qc;U@t 

tbqt ho exticlning tr~o~~~rae'hi?l~~c~iI w6 know of no px~\ilo~on 

t :’ ; 

._ : 

: ‘~ ~’
#### PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC *v.*KRISTEN JENCKS

(AC 35444)

Lavine, Beach and Alvord, Js.

Argued March 3—

officially released March 25, 2014

Defendant’s appeal from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Windham at Putnam, *Calmar, J.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.