alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AGENDA

Government-to-Government Consultations

July 18, 2014

9:00 am – 3:30 pm (Mountain Time Zone)

Meeting Location: EPA Region 8 Office – RA Conference Room

 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129

Attendees: EPA R8 Tribes, EPA Region 8 Staff, EPA Headquarters Staff

9:00 am – 10:30 am  Introductions

 Overview of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) & Open Discussion 

 of Issues

Topic: ANPR – Managing Emissions: Oil & Natural Gas Production in Indian 

 Country

10:30 am – 10:45 am Break*

10:45 am – 12:00 pm  Continuation of Discussion

 Topic: ANPR – Managing Emissions: Oil & Natural Gas Production in Indian 

 Country

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch Break*

1:00 pm – 2:00 pm  Introductions

 Overview of Proposed Rule & Open Discussion of Issues

Topic: Proposed Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New

 Source Performance Standards

2:00 pm – 2:30 pm Break*

2:30 pm – 3:30 pm  Introductions

 Overview of Proposed Rule & Open Discussion of Issues

Topic: Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

 Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

3:30 pm Meeting Adjourned

*Important Information

If you need to exit the building during breaks, you will be required to pass through security screening upon 

return each time. If you are leaving for the day, please remember to sign out and turn in your temporary visitor 

badge to the reception desk in the main lobby. This process allows us to maintain accountability of all personnel inside 

the Regional Headquarters facility in the event of an emergency situation or evacuation.
No. 09-9004.

#### Gregory Jones, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1020, 130 S. Ct. 1916,

176 L. Ed. 2d 388,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2358.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 332 Fed. Appx. 801.
No. 09-9671.

#### Trevin Nunnally, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1083, 130 S. Ct. 2129,

176 L. Ed. 2d 750,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3264.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.J.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.A.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 598 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: F.E.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.A.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 599 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 600 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
% Food exposure

% Once daily oral exposure, dose from cpfs SS F13_49 foodonly exp distribution.csv 30th percentile

% Female adult, Body weight set to 72.9 kg

% Cecilia Tan

% August 24, 2015

prepare @clear @all

% Setting model parameters

start @NoCallback

use human_parameters_MRP

use preg_female_parameters

BWSW=1;% Set to 1 if BWT is provided

BWST=72.9;% Initial BW in kg

PREG=0;

TSTOP= 1008; % Exposure duration in hrs (350 days)

%Single daily oral exposure

DT = xlsRead("Food.xls", "30p", "A1:A43"); % Dosing Times

DORAL=xlsRead("Food.xls", "30p", "B1:B43"); % Dose in ug/kg

prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy

start@nocallback

mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6]; %conc unit = ug/L

save mytable @file='food_30.txt' @format=ascii
# C_2017109EN.01000501.xml

| 7.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/5

---

Special Report No 2/2017

‘The Commission’s negotiation of 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements and programmes in Cohesion: spending more targeted on Europe 2020 priorities, but increasingly complex arrangements to measure performance’

(2017/C 109/05)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 2/2017 ‘The Commission’s negotiation of 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements and programmes in Cohesion: spending more targeted on Europe 2020 priorities, but increasingly complex arrangements to measure performance’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---
SERVED: September 16,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MESA AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

DMS No. FAA-2013-0614 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On July 10, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a 

Complaint. Respondent Mesa Airlines, Inc. ("Respondent") had on July 3, 2013 requested a 

hearing. On September 13, 2013, Respondent withdrew its Request for Hearing, citing 

settlement. 

14 C.F .R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, having been read 

and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby granted; and 
2 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

rflMC~JJ Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
3 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Christopher Pappaioanou, Vice President 

and General Counsel 

Mesa Air Group 

410 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

TEL: 602-685-4000 

FAX: 602-685-4350 

Robert C. Cohn, Respondent's Counsel 

Patrick R. Rizzi, Respondent 's Counsel 

Hogan Lovells US LLP 

Columbia Square 

555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

TEL: 202-637-4999/5659 

FAX: 202-637-5910 

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com 

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com 

ONE COPY 

Theodore P. Byrne, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7112 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0614 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 
4 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: COMPLAINT FOR

COMMON LAW WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY AND FOR SEAN NELSON ROBINSON,

Petitioner

v.

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE MICHAEL D'AMORE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 123 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of February , 202 4

, the “Complaint for Common Law Writ

of Mandamus” is DENIED. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist

from the caption.
# C_2017428EN.01000601.xml

| 13.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8727 — CGE/EDPR/TrustWind/DGE/Repsol/WindPlus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 428/02)

On 5 December 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8727. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8727. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 11-5858.

#### Aaron Bruns, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1159, 132 S. Ct. 1091,

181 L. Ed. 2d 982,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 714.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 U.S. App. D.C. 189, 641 F.3d 555.
No. 11-7398.

#### Danielle Biton, Petitioner v. United Airlines, et al.

565 U.S. 1164, 132 S. Ct. 1109,

181 L. Ed. 2d 992,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 859.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4894 

To provide for certain access to national crime information databases by 

schools and educational agencies for employment purposes, with respect 

to individuals who work with children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2006 

Mr. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for certain access to national crime information 

databases by schools and educational agencies for employment purposes, with respect to individuals who work 

with children. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACCESS TO NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION 

4 DATABASES BY SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL 

5 AGENCIES FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General of the 

7 United States shall, upon request of the chief executive 

8 officer of a State, conduct fingerprint-based checks of the 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4894 IH 

1 national crime information databases (as defined in sec2 tion 534(f)(3)(A) of title 28, United States Code, as redes3 ignated under subsection (e)), pursuant to a request sub4 mitted by a private elementary school, private secondary 

5 school, local educational agency, or State educational 

6 agency in that State, on individuals employed by, under 

7 consideration for employment by, or volunteering for the 

8 school or agency in a position which the individual would 

9 work with or around children. Where possible, the check 

10 shall include a fingerprint-based check of State criminal 

11 history databases. The Attorney General and the States 

12 may charge any applicable fees for these checks. 

13 (b) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.—An individual 

14 having information derived as a result of a check under 

15 subsection (a) may release that information only to an ap16 propriate officer of a private elementary school, private 

17 secondary school, local educational agency, or State edu18 cational agency, or to any person authorized by law to re19 ceive that information. 

20 (c) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—An individual who know21 ingly exceeds the authority in subsection (a), or knowingly 

22 releases information in violation of subsection (b), shall 

23 be imprisoned not more than 10 years or fined under title 

24 18, United States Code, or both. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4894 IH 

1 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘ele2 mentary school’’, ‘‘local educational agency’’, ‘‘secondary 

3 school’’, and ‘‘State educational agency’’, have the mean4 ings given to those terms in section 9101 of the Elemen5 tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

6 7801). 

7 (e) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 534 of title 

8 28, United States Code, as amended by section 905(a) of 

9 the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 

10 Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. Law 109–162), is fur11 ther amended by redesignating the second subsection (e) 

12 as subsection (f). 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 09-715.

#### William Smith, Petitioner v. Alvin Friedman, et al.

559 U.S. 971, 130 S. Ct. 1690,

176 L. Ed. 2d 181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2052,

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 168 Md. App. 767, 168 Md. App. 777.
No. 09-9279.

#### Fred Ray, Jr., Petitioner v. Missouri.

559 U.S. 1077, 130 S. Ct. 2112,

176 L. Ed. 2d 739,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3413,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 09-9201.

#### Eric Charles Jordan, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1024, 130 S. Ct. 1929,

176 L. Ed. 2d 396,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2466.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 335 Fed. Appx. 690.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AFV Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Suzanne Herring, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Suzanne Herring                              			

Suzanne Herring |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | February			20, 2007 |
|--------|---------------------|
No. 09-8006.

#### Manuel Santos, Petitioner v. Massachusetts.

559 U.S. 948, 130 S. Ct. 1525,

176 L. Ed. 2d 127,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1267.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.

*128Same case below, 454 Mass. 245, 909 N.E.2d 1.
No. 09-8626.

#### In re Earnest C. Woods, II, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1004, 130 S. Ct. 1897,

176 L. Ed. 2d 405,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2400.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
EXHIBIT 12.1

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

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Healthcare
Technologies Ltd. on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Moshe Reuveni, Chief Executive Officer of Healthcare Technologies
Ltd., certify (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Healthcare
Technologies Ltd.

                                                    HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

                                                    By: /s/ Moshe Reuveni
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Moshe Reuveni
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

Date:  October 30, 2006
Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- KENNETH MARTIN CHANDLER, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-03-392

Done in open Court this 5th day of February, 2016.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2016.

DECISION - APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

On October 29, 2015, the Defendant was revoked in Cause No. DC-03-392 and sentenced to the Montana State Prison for five (5) years; in companion case Cause No. DC-10-134, the Defendant was sentenced to the Montana State Prison for a consecutive term of three (3) years. Both of these sentences are to run concurrent to his Federal Sentence of 70 months in a U.S. Bureau of Prisons filed on Sept. 3, 2015. Defendant was given credit for three hundred ninety-four (394) days time served.

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was scheduled to be heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Jennifer Streano of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, Defense Counsel informed the Division that the Defendant no longer wanted to have his sentence reviewed in Cause No. DC-03-392. Defendant was present and confirmed that to the Division.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the Defendant’s Application for Review of Sentence is hereby deemed withdrawn. All matters in the above-named case before the Division are concluded.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. John Warner, Member.
No. 09-689.

#### Mark J. Hunsberger, et ux., Petitioners v. J. A. Wood, Deputy Sheriff, Botetourt County, Virginia.

559 U.S. 1088, 130 S. Ct. 2142,

176 L. Ed. 2d 759,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3163.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 938, 130 S. Ct. 1523, 176 L. Ed. 2d 113, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1416.
Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement between Comcast Corp & David L. Cohen



 Exhibit 10.20 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 31st day of December, 2010, is between COMCAST CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company”), and DAVID L. COHEN (“Employee”). 

BACKGROUND 

WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2005, as amended (the “Agreement”), that
sets forth the terms and conditions of Employee’s employment with the Company, and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to
further amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions contained herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound hereby, agree as follows: 
 1. Subparagraph 2(ii) of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
by the following: “(ii) December 31, 2011.” 
 2. Subparagraph 5(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the
following year and amount thereto: “Year – 2011; Amount - $1,000,000.” 
 3. Except as modified hereby, the
Agreement shall continue unmodified and in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and
delivered this Amendment No. 3 as of the date first-above written. 
  

			
	COMCAST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	       /s/ Arthur R. Block

	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	              /s/ David L.
Cohen

	David L. Cohen
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 12, 2019

No. 04-19-00458-CV

Frederick Stanton DUNCAN,

Appellant

v.

Shanna Nicole DUNCAN,

Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-18794

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 28, 2019, which states that “Appellant is 

presumed indigent and may proceed without paying costs under Rule 20.1,” see TEX. R. APP. P.

20.1, but the notice of appeal did not include a copy of a statement of inability to afform payment 

of court costs, and the very limited record before us also contains no such statement. 

On August 8, 2019, the Bexar County District Clerk notified this court that Appellant has

not paid the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and Appellant is not entitled to a free clerk’s 

record.

We ORDER Appellant to provide written proof to this court within TEN DAYS of the 

date of this order that (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay 

the clerk’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. See id.

If Appellant fails to respond as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See id. R. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
No. 09-9274.

#### Eiad Barghout, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 1096, 130 S. Ct. 2379,

176 L. Ed. 2d 774,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3577.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1415

BRYAN CHAD MCGILTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, a

foreign corporation; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

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

District Judge. (CA-02-117-5)

Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: October 29, 2004

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew M. Price, SMITH, PRICE, PANGBURN, Wheeling, West Virginia,

for Appellant. Avrum Levicoff, Ryan J. King, BROWN & LEVICOFF,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Charles S. Cassis, Julie C. Foster,

FROST, BROWN, TODD, L.L.C., Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Chad McGilton appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment for Appellees in McGilton’s tort action.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See McGilton v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., No. CA-02-

117-5 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 26, 2004). 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