alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         9,805
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         181
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    22,768
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         155,120
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           157,193
<LOANS>                                        288,400
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 501,550
<DEPOSITS>                                     428,809
<SHORT-TERM>                                   3,106
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,899
<LONG-TERM>                                    34,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       260
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 501,550
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                23,572
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              11,629
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               35,201
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             15,961
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             18,041
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          17,160
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                10,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,814
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     4,343
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,343
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.66
<LOANS-NON>                                    4,112
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               988
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2,622
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  19
<RECOVERIES>                                   44
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2,767
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           2,767
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        2,267
        


</TABLE>
No. 09-8914.

#### Bruce Earl Ward, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Interim Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

559 U.S. 1051, 130 S. Ct. 2367,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3002.

176 L. Ed. 2d 566,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 577 F.3d 925.
Concurring statement issued May 22, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-16-00336-CR

LOUIS R. CLEMONS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1396258

CONCURRING STATEMENT

I concur in the court’s ruling, denying appellant Louis R. Clemons’s motion 

to recall and reissue our mandate. The requested relief would not have the effect of 

reinstating our plenary power over the appeal, nor would it trigger a new opportunity 

for Clemons to file petition for discretionary review, as his motion suggests. See
2

TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1 (expiration of plenary power of court of appeals); TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.2 (time to file PDR). Rather, as the court’s order correctly suggests, the 

appropriate procedure is for Clemons to file a post-conviction application for a writ 

of habeas corpus in the trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07; Ex parte 

Valdez, 489 S.W.3d 462, 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Rodriguez v. Court of 

Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial Dist., 769 S.W.2d 554, 558–59 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1989).

I respectfully suggest to future reviewing courts that if Clemons applies for 

permission to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review, such relief should 

be granted in light of our court’s confession of administrative errors that,

unfortunately, significantly impaired his opportunity and ability to exercise his 

postjudgment procedural rights to seek rehearing in the court of appeals and 

discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.1, 

48.4; see also Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (in 

circumstances of “a breakdown in the system” impairing applicant’s right to exercise 

the statutory right to file a PDR, granting permission to file out-of-time PDR without 

a determination that counsel rendered ineffective assistance). 

Michael Massengale

Justice
3

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Massengale.

Justice Massengale, concurring in the denial of the motion.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. as Assignee of SAUVEUR CABROUET, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered January 9, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. </p><br>For the reasons stated in <i>Tam Med. Supply Corp. as Assignee of Sauveur Cabrouet v 21st Century Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2015 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-385 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.<p>Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: March 23, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### JAKE LEWIS RAMSEY v. PARKLAND CHEVROLET COMPANY.

(Filed 30 September, 1942.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Johnston, Special Judge,*at March Term, 1942, of BuNcombe.

Affirmed.

*W. K. McLean for plaintiff.*

*Chas. G. Lee, Jr., for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

This was an action to recover damages for fraud and deceit in the sale of an automobile.. Plaintiff alleged that defendant sold him a used ear represented as a 1935 Model when in fact the motor was a 1933 Model. Plaintiff drove the car eight or nine thousand miles during the following ten months before instituting this action. At the close of plaintiffs evidence judgment of nonsuit was entered. An examination of the record leads to the conclusion that there was a failure of proof of the. *scienter,*one of the essential elements of actionable fraud. *Electric Co. v. Morrison,*194 N. C., 316, 139 S. E., 455; *Hill v. Snider,*217 N. C., 437, 8 S. E. (2d), 202.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 2066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-542]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-80-002]


Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma v. American 
Electric Power Company, Inc., American Electric Power Service 
Corporation, and Public Service Company of Oklahoma; Notice of Filing

January 7, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2008, American Electric Power 
Service Corporation submitted an amendment to the West Agreement in 
compliance with the Commission's November 26, 2008 Order on Complaint, 
125 FERC ] 61,237 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a3c3f283935141613141f290f0a0a15080e3a1c1f0819541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="64222136272b0a080d0a01371114140b161024020116074a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-542 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Chemicals of Concern Not In DRAS Database

Chemical Specific Inputs for

2-Hexanone (591-78-6)

Parameter Reference and Explanation Value

Chemical/Physical Properties

MW (g/mole) CRC Handbook (2008-2009) 100.158

Tm (K) CRC Handbook (2008-2009) 217.65

Vp (atm) Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals. 

1997. CRC Press 1.53E-04

S (mg/l)

Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals. 

1997. CRC Press 1.75E+04

H (atm•m3/mol) Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals. 

1997. CRC Press 8.74E-07

Da (cm2/s) 8.10E-02

Dw (cm2/s) 1.03E-05

Kow (unitless) Hansch, C et al. (1995) 1.38E+00

Koc (ml/g) ND

Kds (cm3/g) ND

Kdsw (l/kg) ND

Dermal Exposure Factors

Kp (cm/hr) ND

t ND

t

* ND

B ND

Biotransfer Factors for Animals

BCFfish

(l/kg FW tissue) ND

BCFfish (l/kg FW) ND
Parameter Reference and Explanation Value

Health Benchmarks

RfD (mg/kg/day) U.S. EPA. IRIS Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone 

(External Review Draft) 2008. 2.00E-01

Oral CSF (mg/kg/day)

-1 ND

RfC (mg/m3)

U.S. EPA. IRIS Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone 

(External Review Draft) 2008. 2.00E-01

Inhalation CSF

(mg/kg/day)-1 ND

MCL ND

Aquatic TRV (μg/l) ND

Dilution/Attenuation Factors

DAF for LF DRAS MEK & MIBK Value 1.54E+01

DRAS for SI DRAS MEK & MIBK Value 3.18E+00

Note: NA = Not Applicable

 ND = No Data Available
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5460 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 

Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed in the State of Arizona. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2006 

Mr. KOLBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 

the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study 

of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed in the State of Arizona. 

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 ‘‘Sierra Vista Subwater5 shed Feasibility Study Authorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED STUDY. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the 

8 Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and 

9 in cooperation with the Upper San Pedro Partnership, 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5460 IH

1 may conduct a feasibility study of water augmentation al2 ternatives to identify one or more alternatives for project 

3 implementation and construction, including a detailed 

4 analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 

5 1969, that is likely to balance water use within the Sierra 

6 Vista Subwatershed, including Fort Huachuca, in the 

7 State of Arizona, with the needs of the San Pedro Ripar8 ian National Conservation Area. 

9 (b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF RESULTS.—The Sec10 retary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Rec11 lamation, shall make available to the public, upon request, 

12 the results of the feasibility study authorized under sub13 section (a), and shall promptly publish in the Federal Reg14 ister a notice of the availability of those results. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Paulette EAKER, Appellant.

No. ED 105326

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Filed: February 20, 2018

Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Casey A. Taylor, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J. and Philip M. Hess, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Paulette L. Eaker appeals her convictions by a Marion County jury of voluntary manslaughter and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident arising out of Eaker causing the death of her boyfriend William Horstman ("Victim") by striking him with her SUV. Eaker's sole point on appeal is the trial court abused its discretion in allowing evidence Eaker had come close to striking Victim with her vehicle about six months before Victim's death. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130816 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

TZVIH TINMAN, a minor, by his next friend(s) Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, ILENE TINMAN and/or MICHAEL TINMAN, Justices on behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 130816 

 COA: 268448 
 Wayne CC: 99-932051-CK

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
 MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the 

Court of Appeals. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Jesus ESPINOZA-VALENZUELA

No. 225P10-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

Jesus Espinoza Valenzuela, For Valenzuela, Jesus Espinoza

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th of May 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of May 2019 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
Daleron M. MONROE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80128

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: March 6, 2018

Casey A. Taylor, for Appellant.

Karen L. Kramer, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Daleron Monroe appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief after a hearing. He presents two points on appeal. First, he claims a reasonably competent attorney would have requested disqualification of the Cole County Prosecutor's Office or of a particular prosecutor.

*54Second, he claims the trial court erred in finding that a particular prosecutor did not represent the State of Missouri at the guilty plea hearing. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
ex10-16.htm


    Exhibit
10.16

    


    CAMERON
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

    SEVENTH
AMENDMENT

    TO
THE

    2005
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

    


    


    


    WHEREAS, CAMERON INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE
PLAN (the “Plan”); and

    


    WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend
the Plan in certain respects:

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be
amended as follows, effective May 13, 2009:

    


    
      	
              1.  

            	
               The
      number “23,804,100” shall be substituted for the number “15,054,100” in
      the first sentence of Section 3.1 of the
Plan.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.  

            	
              As
      amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and
      reaffirmed.

            


    

    


    


    


            APPROVED:

    


           /s/ William C.
Lemmer                                  


            William C.
Lemmer

            Senior Vice
President, General Counsel

                and
Secretary

    


     

        Date:  May
13, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Figueroa, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 579]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 27,1995 *(People v Figueroa,*213 AD2d 669 [1995]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 13, 1991, an amended judgment of the same court rendered March 13, 1991, and an order of the same court dated January 27, 1992.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 as of and for the periods covered in the
Report.



|                  |  |     |  |                          
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------
|Date: May 6, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert A. Schriesheim
|                  |  |     |  | Robert A. Schriesheim    
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered
filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
# Greg Stella, Alpine Geophysics

February 2 5 , 2016

Estimated Ozone Contribution from U.S. Anthropogenic

Emissions

(3 pages)

# 2017 CSAPR MDA8 DVs without

IC/BC and Can/ Mex Contributions

No monitor with dv greater than 66 ppb

Only 11 monitors with dv greater than 60 ppb

Data source: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015

- 11/2017_ozone_contributions_transport_noda.xlsxModeled % Ozone from TransportAggregate of 60ppb+ Modeled Days713**Date Domain Ozone Transport Ozone Obs**06_01_2012 38.39 24.62 6606_02_2012 47.92 21.25 4106_04_2012 28.23 32.01 4006_05_2012 41.00 24.37 5706_06_2012 51.44 19.97 7006_07_2012 50.39 13.06 5706_08_2012 52.92 10.85 4806_09_2012 58.47 12.63 5106_10_2012 42.21 18.55 4206_13_2012 48.76 16.86 3906_17_2012 41.42 24.45 5306_18_2012 41.06 19.79 4106_22_2012 38.01 23.37 5006_24_2012 47.28 15.99 4706_25_2012 50.96 15.83 6006_26_2012 61.64 11.44 6906_27_2012 80.56 11.32 9506_28_2012 57.41 16.37 5506_29_2012 47.08 22.34 49**Aldine - Daily Modeled Contribution TCEQ 2012 Modeling Platform** **Alpine Generated OSAT Results (60 pbb Threshold) Transport Ozone** **Date Domain Ozone Transport Ozone Obs**06_01_2012 60.9% 39.1% 6606_02_2012 69.3% 30.7% 4106_04_2012 46.9% 53.1% 4006_05_2012 62.7% 37.3% 5706_06_2012 72.0% 28.0% 7006_07_2012 79.4% 20.6% 5706_08_2012 83.0% 17.0% 4806_09_2012 82.2% 17.8% 5106_10_2012 69.5% 30.5% 4206_13_2012 74.3% 25.7% 3906_17_2012 62.9% 37.1% 5306_18_2012 67.5% 32.5% 4106_22_2012 61.9% 38.1% 5006_24_2012 74.7% 25.3% 4706_25_2012 76.3% 23.7% 6006_26_2012 84.3% 15.7% 6906_27_2012 87.7% 12.3% 9506_28_2012 77.8% 22.2% 5506_29_2012 67.8% 32.2% 49**Modeled Relative Contribution (%) Modeled Ozone Concentrations (ppb)** 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Transport OzoneDomain Ozone0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00Transport OzoneDomain OzoneObs
Lonnie SNELLING, Appellant, v. Patrick J. KENNY, et al., Respondents.

No. ED 105619

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: December 26, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 1, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Lonnie Snelling, 1518-79th Street, St. Louis, MO 63130.

For Respondent: Matthew S. Chase, 231 South Bemiston Ave. Suite 800, Clayton, MO 63105, Kara Dyan Krawzik, 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800, St. Louis, MO 63105.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Lonnie Snelling ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's March 2, 2017 judgment granting Appellant's motion to set aside the judgment entered in favor of J.D. Haynes ("Respondent") and dismissing all claims against Respondent with prejudice, and the trial court's May 27, 2014 judgment dismissing Appellant's Second Amended Petition.

After review of Appellant's brief and the record on appeal, we find no error of law. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).