alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017038EN.01004001.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/40

---

Action brought on 29 November 2016 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)

(Case T-843/16)

(2017/C 038/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Strack and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Digital Print Group O. Schimek GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Foto Paradies’ — European Union trade mark No 10 707 933

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 in Case R 1194/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

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

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RODNEY WAYNE FERRELL )

)

v. ) 3-03-CV-1654-K

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice )

Correctional Institutions Division )

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed this 20th day of December , 2005.

 s/Ed Kinkeade 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01654-K Document 22 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 111
John SKINNER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.

No. 1D17-5265

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

Denied.
# C_2016098EN.01005301.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/53

---

Action brought on 11 January 2016 — Skechers USA France v OHIM — IM Production (Shoes)

(Case T-9/16)

(2016/C 098/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Skechers USA France (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Horn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IM Production SAS (Paris)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design 1 221 584-0023

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 2429/2013-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principles of due process; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principles of due process;

| — | Infringement of Articles 4, 5, 6 and of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 4, 5, 6 and of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00775-CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 3, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 21, 2010, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The 

court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-6566, styled State of Texas v. Jason Miears, pending in 

the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding. However, relator lists

as the respondent the Honorable Sid L. Harle, presiding judge of the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, 

Texas.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31731]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 567 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-976, K2025-975.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31731 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

DAIMEN JOSEPH IRIZARRY, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0116 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-106178-001

The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker

Counsel for Respondent

Shell & Nermyr, P.L.L.C., Chandler

By Charles K. Shell

Counsel for Petitioner

FILED 10-31-2019
STATE v. IRIZARRY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Diane 

M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Daimen Irizarry seeks review of the superior court’s order 

dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s second successive 

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
Valerie PASSLEY, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and Southwest Airlines Co., Appellees.

No. 1D18-1882

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

Valerie Passley, pro se, Appellant.

Norman A. Blessing, General Counsel, and Katie Elisabeth Sabo, Appellate Counsel, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Roberts, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Reshaunte ANGLIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0192

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### T. D. F. Harris, *Appellant,*v. William King et al., *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 9, 1927.

*Leitner <& Leitner,*for Appellant ;

*J. M. Lee*and *Hampton, Bull & Penche,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2016111EN.01002901.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/29

---

Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T-23/16)

(2016/C 111/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Formata’ — Community trade mark No 11 529 427

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 in Case R 102/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action to be well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action to be well founded;

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it dismisses the application for cancellation of Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it dismisses the application for cancellation of Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;

| — | amend the contested decision by cancelling Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision by cancelling Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;

| — | amend the contested decision with regard to the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision with regard to the costs;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Joseph A. COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0982

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 1 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 2 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 3 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 4 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 5 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 6 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 7 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 8 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 9 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 10 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 11 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 12 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 13 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 14 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 15 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 16 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 17 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 18 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 19 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 20 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 21 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 22 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 23 of 24
Case 3:03-cv-00572-P Document 38 Filed 01/15/2004 Page 24 of 24
EXHIBIT 32.0



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 Ocean Shore Holding Co. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned
hereby certify, 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 period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Steven E. Brady                              
|                      |  | Steven E. Brady                                  
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                      | 
|Date: August 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Donald F. Morgenweck                         
|                      |  | Donald F. Morgenweck                             
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
Anthony MCGEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-381

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022472EN.01003401.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — H&H v EUIPO — Giuliani (Swisse)

(Case T-486/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Swisse - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Article 51(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Trade mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - State emblem - Trade mark including badges, emblems or escutcheons - Article 7(1)(b), (g), (h) and (i) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (g), (h) and (i) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Statement of reasons for the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 63(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by EUIPO - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2022/C 472/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. Rose and L. Flascher, Solicitors, and N. Saunders KC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Giuliani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. de Bosio, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 May 2020 (Case R 2185/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 May 2020 (Case R 2185/2019-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 May 2020 (Case R 2185/2019-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd;

| 3. | Orders Giuliani SpA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Giuliani SpA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---
Case 2:03-cv-00357-J Document 14 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 62
Exhibit 23.1





BDO — Pazos, López de Romaña, Rodriguez  S. Civil de R.L.





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-215029) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-129152, No. 333-147448, No. 333-161459, No. 333-168588 and No. 333-183142) of our report dated June 21, 2017 , relating to the financial statements of Perurail S.A., which appears in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Belmond Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2016 .





Pazos, López de Romaña, Rodriguez S. Civil de R.L.


Lima, Peru


June 21, 2017








Countersigned by:/s/ Liliana Córdova MejíaLiliana Córdova MejíaCertified Chartered Public AccountantRegister No. 01-17661
Frederick J. FRAZIER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2760

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Glendon G. Gordon, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, WALLIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q accompanying this statement.



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of XM Satellite Radio Inc. (Inc.), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q of Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Hugh PaneroHugh Panero President and Chief Executive
Officer November 7, 2005/s/ Joseph J. EuteneuerJoseph J. Euteneuer Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer November 7, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Holdings and will be retained by Holdings and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 2, 2015

No. 04-14-00414-CV

Whitney Brewster, in her capacity as Executive Director of the 

Texas Department of Motor Vehicles,

Appellant

v.

Drew ROICKI and Richard Roicki as Successors in Interest to Pinnacle Motors,

Appellees

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

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-06565

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered Appellant’s motion for rehearing; the motion is DENIED. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 49.3.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1525
MICHAEL R. FULLER; NANCY J. HALSTEAD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; NLI/PLC/MACO III, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-421-A) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Fuller, Nancy J. Halstead, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their request for preliminary injunctive relief or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Fuller v. Virginia , No. CA-96-421-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 1, 1996). We dispense withoral 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