alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7433

RUSSELL KELSCOE HARDEN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:16

- cv - 01381

- TDC )

Submitted : July 23, 2020 Decided: July 27, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Russell Kelscoe Harden, Appellant Pro Se. Jer Welter, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in th is circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Russell Kelscoe Harden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfie s this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural gro unds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Harden’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dism iss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.46


Loan Contract







The Loan Contract is made between and by Dalian TOFA New Materials Development Co., Ltd (as “TOFA”) and Mr. Liu Pijia







Mr. Liu applies for loan for personal reason. His application has been approved by TOFA board. Two parties hereto agree as follow:








	
1.

	
Mr. Liu may borrow from TOFA in tranches, limited to accumulative amounts RMB 8,000,000 only (Say: EIGHT MILLION)








	
2.

	
Maturity term lasts (1) one year; or (2) one month as of the date TOFA requires for repayment








	
3.

	
TOFA agrees the loan herein is interest free.








	
4.

	
The contract is made in duplicate, one for each, and in full force upon two parties’ signatures and seals.












Dalian TOFA New Materials Development Co., Ltd


Signature: Seal of the corporation in lieu of physical signature








	
Mr. Liu Pijia

	 
	
Signature:/s/ Liu Pijia

	 
	  	 
	
Date: June 1st 2009
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Ricky Gee Hing Ang, Chief Executive Officer of Sun New Media, Inc., certify that1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sun New Media, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e)and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report was being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        /s/ Ricky Gee Hing Ang   Ricky Gee Hing Ang, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Director  Date: September 5, 2006
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 pane l unani 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 ar 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 MI C HA E L E DWAR D S L AT ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. P A R T ID A JO R G E , i n thei r i nd i vi du al c ap a c i t i e s ; Q U I N N RO SS, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 56442 D . C. N o . 5 : 1 0 - c v - 0 1 0 7 1 - U A - J CG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A udr e yB . C ol l i ns , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i chae l E dw ar d S l at on , a f eder alpri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s orderdenyi ng hi m l eave t o p roce ed i n form a pauperi s i n h i s a ct i on un der B i ve ns v. Si

x U nkno w n N

am ed A gent

s of FederalB ureau o

f N arcot i cs , 4 0 3 U . S. 

# FI LED NO V 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56442 2 388 ( 1971) , a l l e gi ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o hi s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f oran abus e of

di s c r e t i on, O ’ L oughl i n v . D oe , 9 2 0 F. 2 d6 1 4 , 6 1 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 0 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g S lato n le a v e to pr oc e e d i n f

orm apaupe r i s be c aus e S l a t on’ s pr opos e d c om pl a i ntf a i l e d t o a l l e ge p r o p e r lyth a t d e f

e n d an ts k n e w o f

an dd is r e g ar d e dan e x c e s s iv e r is kto h is h e a lth w i th r e gar d t o the di e ta va i l abl e t o S l a t on. Se e i d. a t616- 17; s e e al s o T oguc hi v. Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( to s ta te ac la im f o rd e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence , i nm at e m ustal l ege thatdefe nd antkn ew of and d i sr egar ded “ ‘ an e xc e s s i ve r i s k t o i nm a t e he a l th’ ” ; m e r e di s a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n i nm a t e and ph ys i ci an re gardi ng course of tre atm entdo es no tconst i tut e del i berat e i nd i ff er ence ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . AF F I RME D.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1983 

JOHN CURRIE COLVIN, d/b/a VINO'S, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

VS. 

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF 

MONTANA, LIQUOR DIVISION, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Custer 

Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Terry J. Hanson, Miles City, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Michael G. Garrity, Helena, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on briefs: February 3, 1983 

Decided: April 7, 1983 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Petitioner, John Currie Colvin, appeals an order of the 

Custer County District Court which upheld a decision of the 

State Tax Appeal Board denying his application for a beer 

license in Miles City. Beer licenses in Montana cities are 

issued on a quota basis specified in section 16-4-105, MCA. 

Miles City then had eight beer licenses, and it had a 

population according to the census of 9,602 people. Under 

0 ,) 

the statute, section 16-4-105/((a) (iii) , a city must reach a. 

population of 10,000 before a ninth beer license can issue. 

Colvin was, therefore, properly denied his application for a 

beer license. We affirm. 

About one year ago, petitioner applied to the Liquor 

Division of the Department of Revenue for a beer license. 

The application was denied because the quota for beer 

licenses in Miles City had been filled. The State Tax Appeal 

Board affirmed this decision, an appeal to the District Court 

resulted in another affirmance, and the appeal here results 

in the final affirmance. 

Colvin makes several arguments concerning section 

16-4-105, but each argument rests on an erroneous assumption 

that the statute is not clear on its face. Subsection 

(a) (ii), clearly provides that a city of 2,000 people is 

entitled to four retail beer licenses. Further, subsection 

(a)(iii) provides that two more licenses can issue if the 

city population has reached. 4,000. This same subsection also 

provides that one license can issue for each 2,000 population 

beyond the 4,000. 
Based on this statute, when the population reached 

2,000, Miles City was entitled to four licenses; when the 

population reached 4,000, Miles City was entitled to six 

licenses; when the population of Miles City reached 6,000, 

Miles City was entitled to seven licenses; when the 

population reached 8,000, Miles City was entitled to eight 

licenses; and finally, when the population of Miles City 

reaches 10,000, Miles City is entitled to nine beer licenses. 

At the time petitioner had applied for the beer license, the 

population, according to a stipulation based on the census 

figures, was 9,602. Petitioner, therefore, was not entitled 

to a beer license, for the ninth license could not issue 

until the population had reached 10,000. 

The decision of the District Court is affirmed. 

We Concur:
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 3, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

CAROL A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-3175 v. D. Kansas CLAY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHNSON COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; WYANDOTTE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. (D.C. No. 2:10-CV-02658-EFM-JPO)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.On December 8, 2010, plaintiff-appellant Carol A. Williams filed a complaint in federal district court alleging she was the victim of identity theft. Williams sought to have her “name clear[ed] and exsponged [sic].” Upon motion of Defendants, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding Williams had failed to demonstrate that the claims asserted against Defendants arose under federal law. The court further concluded Williams had failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and her complaint failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See28 U.S.C. § 1332; Laughlin v. Kmart Corp. , 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that the requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be affirmatively established in the pleading of the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction). The district court also concluded the Johnson County Police Department and the Wyandotte County Police Department are both subordinate governmental entities that lack the capacity to sue or be sued. See Hopkins v. State , 702 P.2d 311, 316 (Kan. 1985); Mays v. Wyandotte Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t , 419 F. App’x 794, 795 n.2 (10th Cir. 2011) (“The Wyandotte County Sheriff’s Department lacks capacity to be sued in its own name.”). This court reviews the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de

novo. See U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani , 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999). Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by Williams in her appellate brief, we conclude the district court did not err when it
-2-dismissed Williams’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Order dated June 8, 2011, we affirmthe dismissal of Williams’s complaint. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge

-3-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7509

JOHN D. STRASSINI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JORGE PALACIO,

Plaintiff,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-00-547-5-H)

Submitted: April 6, 2001 Decided: April 20, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Strassini, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John D. Strassini appeals the district court’s order construing his claim as one for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2000) and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Strassini, No. CA-00-547-5-H (E.D.N.C.

Oct. 3, 2000). We grant Strassini’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST To evaluate compliancewith 

### 40 CFR 51, Appendix 

### V Key: C 

### = Complete I 

### = Incomplete NIA 

### = NotApplicable To Rule 0 

### = Material Missing Submittal Date District Name Date Reviewed EPA Reviewer July 10,2008 Maricopa, Arizona October 23,2008 C.G. Allen 

# 1 (b) Evidence of adoption 

## lxlxlxlxl

RULE

### # ADMINISTRA'I'IVE MATERIALS (per Appendix

### V, Section 2.1) 310.01 314 300 (a) Submittal letter from Governorldesignee (c) StateIDistrict legal authority to adopt (dl)Copy of actual rulelplan 

# I (f) Copy of public notice 310 

### X X
(d2) Rule changes indicated by underlinelcross-out (e) Proof that action met procedural requirements (g) Certificationthathearingfulfilledpublicnotice 

# 1 X

# I X 

# 1 X

# I X

# 1 X X 

# 1 (h) Public comments & agency response 

### X

X X X X X

(c) Rulelplan emissions impact 

### X X X --- (d) Attainment, PSD& other required demonstration N/A N/A N/A N/A 

### X X

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix 

### V, Section 2.2) 

# 1 (e) Modelingsupport as appropriate 

### X X

(a) Regulated pollutants identified (b) Affected sources & attainment status identified 

### X X X X



# 1 (i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy 

# I N/A 

# I N/A 

# I N/A 

# I N/A 

# I X

X X
(f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions (g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements



### Notes: X --- 

### X

X X OVERALL COMPLE'TENESS 

### X X

X X 

### C X

X X 

### C X X C CEPA Region9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST To evaluate compliancewith 40 CFR 51, Appendix 

### V Key: C 

### = Complete 

### I 

### = Incomplete NIA 

### = NotApplicable To Rule 

### 0 

### = Material Missing Submittal Date District Name Date Reviewed EPA Reviewer July l0,2008/January 17,2009 Maricopa,Arizona October 23,2008 C.G. Allen 

# 1 (b) Evidence of adoption (3rd P26 RULE

### # ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (perAppendix 

### V, Section 2.1) 316 

### X (a) Submittal letter from Governor/designee (c) StateIDistrict legal authority to adopt (dl) Copy of actual rule/plan 

# I (f) Copy of public notice App C

(d2) Rulechanges indicated by underline/cross-out (e) Proof that action met procedural requirements 

### X X X X

X X (g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice (h) Public comments 

### & agency response 

# 1 (c) Rule/planemissions impact 

### X X

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix 

### V, Section2.2) 

### X X X X X X (a) Regulated pollutants identified 

# 1 (e) Modeling support as appropriate 

# I N/A 

# 1 N/A 

# I N/A 

# / X X

(d) Attainment, PSD 

### & other required demonstration 

# 1 (f) Relianceon continuous emission reductions 

# 1 X 

# I X 

# 1 X 

# I X X X X X

- N/A 

### X (b) Affected sources 

### & attainment status identified

-- (g) Evidenceof limits 

### & other needed requirements (i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy


### Notes: X --- 

### X X N/A

OVERALL COMPLETENESS 

### X N/A


### X N/A

C - 

### X N/A - 

### X N/A C C
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 78 (Friday, April 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 18752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9422]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11705 and <greek-i>11706]


Minnesota Disaster Number MN-00021

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Minnesota 
(FEMA-1830-DR), dated 04/09/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/16/2009 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 04/14/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/08/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/09/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Minnesota, dated 04/09/2009, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties:
    Grant, Lake, Mahnomen, Otter Tail, Pennington, Red Lake, Roseau, 
Wadena.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-9422 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8557]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13342-000]


Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

April 8, 2009.
    On December 9, 2008, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Berlin Lake Hydroelectric 
Project, to be located on the Mahoning River, in Portage and Mahoning 
Counties, Ohio.
    The proposed Berlin Lake Project would be located at: (1) The 
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Berlin Lake Dam, which is 663.5 
feet long and 96 feet high; and (2) an existing 5,500-acre reservoir 
with a water surface elevation of 1,032 feet mean sea level.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse 
containing one or more turbine/generators with a total installed 
capacity of 2.5 megawatts; (2) a new 90-inch-diameter, 250-foot-long 
penstock; (3) a new 0.5-mile-long, 12.5-kilovolt transmission line; and 
(4) appurtenant facilities. The Berlin Lake Project would have an 
estimated average annual generation of 12,155 megawatts-hours, which 
would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. Marra Jr., Managing Partner, 
31300 Solon Rd., Suite 12, Solon, Ohio 44139, (440) 498-1000.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer, (202) 502-8969.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13342) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-8557 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Order issued October ~ 0 ,2012

In The No. 05-12-00650-CV STARCO IMPEX, INC. D/BIA WHOLESALE OUTLET, Appellant
VO KATALYST BEVERAGE CORPORATION, Appelle~



### ORDER We GRANT appellant’s October 23, 2012 third unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellant on October 23, 2012 filed as of the date of this order.