alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO.: 5:17-CV-00381

ASCENSION LAW GROUP

PAMELA TSAO (SBN: 266734)

17802 Irvine Blvd

Suite 117

Tustin, CA92780

PH: 714.783.4220

FAX: 888.505.1033

Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff NGOC LAM CHE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NGOC LAM CHE, an individual

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAN JOSE/EVERGREEN COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION, a 

California Corporation; IMWALLE 

PROPERTIES, INC, a California Corporation, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00381

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 5:17-cv-00381-BLF Document 44-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO.: 5:17-CV-00381

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, and GOOD CAUSE 

APPEARING THEREFORE,

Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a seven-page opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 

Administrative Relief to Extend the Mediation Deadline or Compel Compliance with General Order 

No. 56-4 is hereby GRANTED. 

Dated: _________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

. 

Case 5:17-cv-00381-BLF Document 44-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 2
*E-FILED - 9/29/05*

xxxxxxx 10:30 am

Case 5:05-cv-01934-RMW   Document 17   Filed 09/29/05   Page 1 of 2

9/29/05

/s/ Ronald M. Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01934-RMW   Document 17   Filed 09/29/05   Page 2 of 2
Ari Johan ALEXANDER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1171

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Case No. DA 23-0156

________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD GLEN KEMMER

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County

Cause No. DP-19-197

The Honorable Donald L. Harris, Presiding.

________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING DEADLINES FOR RESPONSE BRIEFS

________________________________________________________________

Travis Kemmer, in his capacity as an heir of the Estate, has filed an 

Unopposed Motion to set certain deadlines for the parties’ respective Response 

Briefs. For good cause showing, it is hereby ordered the parties shall file their 

respective response brief on or before the following dates:

Intervenor Travis Kemmer, individually June 9, 2023

Intervenor Travis Kemmer, as PR June 9, 2023

Appellees Ronda Gilge and Collette Cole June 26, 2023

DATED this ___day of May, 2023.

__________________________________

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2023

05/23/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0156
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSSELL AINSWORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE

Re: Dkt. No. 40

On July 10, 2017, Defendants Russell Ainsworth, Daniel Bornstein, Joel Feldman, Bruce 

Goldstone, Hayden Manager LLC, Michael Kanovitz, Jon Loevy, Dianne Murphy, Ashley 

Peterson, SRG 414 Lessor LLC, SRG Manager LLC, Richard Silverstein, Silverstein Realty 

Group LLC, Andrew Thayer filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 35.) Defendants, however, did 

not notice the motion for the proper hearing date under the Local Rules, so the date was continued. 

(Dkt. No. 36.) Plaintiff did not realize that the briefing schedule was not affected, and failed to 

file a timely opposition, which was due on July 24, 2017. (Dkt. No. 40.) On July 26, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed a request for a fifteen-day extension pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11. Defendants 

did not file an opposition.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff does not appear to have first sought to obtain a stipulation 

with opposing counsel for an extension of time, as required by the Civil Local Rules. See Civil 

L.R. 7-11(a). Plaintiff is advised that, going forward, he must familiarize himself with the Civil 

Local Rules, and comply with same.

Notwithstanding, since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will give him an extension, 

but not the fifteen days requested, because the Court must have the briefing well in advance of the 

August 31, 2017 hearing date. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART AND 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DENIED IN PART, such that Plaintiff shall file his opposition on or before August 7, 2017. 

Defendants’ reply shall be filed on or before August 14, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge
James LAWSON v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., et al.

NO. 2019-CC-0633

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.
Form of Certificate for Series A Preferred Stock



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

			
	NUMBER	 	SHARES
	      001	 	6,514    

 ALARION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
 FIXED RATE CUMULATIVE
PERPETUAL PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES A 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
 is the owner of: 
 Six Thousand
Five Hundred and Fourteen 
 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF FIXED RATE CUMULATIVE PERPETUAL PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES A

 $1,000 LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE PER SHARE 
 $0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE 
 The shares represented by this Certificate are transferable only on the stock transfer
books of Alarion Financial Services, Inc. by the holder of record hereof, or by his duly authorized attorney or legal representative, upon the surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate, and the shares represented hereby, are
issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and the Certificate Of The Designation, Preferences, Rights And Limitations Of Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A of Alarion Financial
Services, Inc., and any amendments thereto (copies of which are on file with the Corporate Secretary of Alarion Financial Services, Inc. and the Secretary of State of the State of Florida), to all of which provisions the holder by acceptance hereof
assents. Alarion Financial Services, Inc., will furnish the holder hereof a full statement of such information on request and without charge. The shares evidenced by this Certificate are not of an insurable type and are not insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Alarion Financial Services, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be executed by the signature of
its duly authorized officers and has caused its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed. 
 Dated: January 23, 2009 
 SEAL 
  

					
	  
	 		 	  

	President	 		 	Chairman of the Board
Gregory W. GOETZ, Appellant, v. Amy CARROLL, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3207

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMIE LYNN SILVONEK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 131 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of February , 20 20

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal,

treated as a Petition for Review, is DENIED.
| 1) | such      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 such Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bridge      Capital Holdings. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 5, 2009 | /s/ Thomas A. Sa                   |   |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Thomas      A. Sa                  |   |
|                        | Executive      Vice President      |   |
|                        | Chief      Financial Officer       |   |
|                        | (Principal      Financial Officer) |   |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin MACIAS-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20305.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 23, 2004.

Mitchel Neurock, US Attorney’s Office, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Martin Macias-Cruz (Macias) appeals from his illegal reentry conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). A prior panel of this court considered Macias’s appeal and issued an opinion affirming the judgment of the district court. *United States v. Macias-Cruz,*82 Fed.Appx. 380, 381 (5th Cir.2003) (unpublished). That opinion was vacated on January 7, 2004, when the prior panel granted rehearing. *United States v. Macias-Cruz,*84 Fed.Appx. 462 (5th Cir.2004) (unpublished), vacating 82 Fed-Appx. 380.

Macias-Cruz challenges his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing that the underlying 1998 deportation order was fundamentally unfair and deprived him of administrative and judicial review. He argues that he was actually prejudiced by the 1998 deportation proceeding because the immigration judge ordered him deported based on the mistaken belief that his 1994 assault conviction was an “aggravated felony.”

Because Macias-Cruz did not raise this issue in the district court, our review is for *203plain error. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). In order to collaterally challenge a prior deportation order in a criminal proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, the alien must “establish that (1) the prior hearing was fundamentally unfair; (2) the hearing effectively eliminated the right of the alien to challenge the hearing by means of judicial review of the order; and (3) the procedural deficiencies caused the alien actual prejudice.” *See United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 813 F.3d*225, 229 (2002), *cert. denied,*537 U.S. 1135, 123 S.Ct. 922, 154 L.Ed.2d 827 (2003); *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (setting forth requirements for challenge to validity of a deportation order in a criminal proceeding, including, *inter alia,*the requirement that the “alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order”).

Macias-Cruz has not made the requisite showing for challenging the validity of his prior deportation order. *See Lopez-Ortiz,*313 F.3d at 229; 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). Thus, he has not demonstrated plain error with respect to his challenge to his criminal conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 on the ground that his 1998 deportation order violated due process. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
STIP. AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE PLEADING C05-

01934 HRL C-05-01934 HRL 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625) 

NORA FRIMANN, Chief Trial Attorney (93249) 

ROBERT BURCHFIEL, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (112318) 

Office of the City Attorney 

151 West Mission Street 

San Jose, California 95110 

Telephone: (408) 277-4454 

E-Mail Address: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

OFFICER HERNANDEZ, OFFICER ESTRADA, 

THOMAS WHEATLEY, CITY OF SAN JOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ALFREDO BARAJAS; MARCO 

HERNANDEZ, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 v. 

OFFICER HERNANDEZ, BADGE NO. 

2538, individually and in his capacity as a 

San José police officer; OFFICER 

ESTRADA, BADGE NO. 1978, individually 

and in his capacity as a San José police 

officer; JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE, 

individually and in their capacities as police 

officers for the City of San José, the identify 

and number of whom are unknown to 

plaintiff; THOMAS WHEATLEY, individually 

and in his capacity as acting chief of police 

for the City of San José; CITY OF 

SAN JOSE; LA CUMBRE ENTERPRISES, 

INC. D.B.A. CLUB CARIBE, DOES 1 

through 50, 

 Defendant(s). 

Case Number: C-05-01934 RMW

STIPULATION AND 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their 

respective counsel, that the time for Defendants to file their responsive pleadings to the 

*E-FILED - 6/28/05*

Case 5:05-cv-01934-RMW Document 10 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 2
STIP. AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE PLEADING C05-

01934 HRL C-05-01934 HRL 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Complaint, on file herein, otherwise set for June 7, 2005, shall be extended up to and 

including July 7, 2005. 

Dated: 6/13/2005 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney 

By: ______//____________________ ROBERT BURCHFIEL 

Senior Deputy City Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: 6/13/2005 LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY BOSKOVICH 

By: ________//__________________ ANTHONY BOSKOVICH 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

O R D E R

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are 

hereby granted an extension of time to file their responsive pleading to the Complaint, on 

tile herein, up and to including July 7, 2005. 

Dated: _______________ 2005 

 

RONALD M. WHYTE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

June 17

/s/ Ronald M. Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01934-RMW Document 10 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BISCOTTI INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-mc-80010-KAW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 14

On February 3, 2017, Petitioner Biscotti, Inc. filed an administrative motion to file under 

seal. (Dkt. No. 14.) Petitioner sought to file under seal exhibits that were identified by 

Respondent Twitch as being "highly sensitive and proprietary." (Id. at 2.) Per Local Rule 79-5(e), 

when "the Submitting Party is seeking to file under seal a document designated as confidential by 

the opposing party . . . (1) [w]ithin 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under 

Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

establishing that all of the designated material is sealable."

As of February 15, 2017, Respondent has not filed the required declaration. Accordingly, 

Respondent is ordered, on or before February 21, 2017, to: (1) file the required declaration 

establishing that the designated material is sealable, and (2) respond to this order to show cause by 

explaining why it did not file a timely declaration. Failure to complete both tasks by February 21, 

2017 will result in this Court denying Petitioner's motion to file under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-mc-80010-KAW Document 16 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION UNDERSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of theundersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofGTA-IB, LLC.

 
| Date: August 21, 2006 |  /s/ W. Bradley Blair, II   |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                  | W. Bradley Blair, II             |
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |                                  |
| Date: August 21, 2006 |  /s/ Scott D. Peters             |   |
|                  | Scott D. Peters                       |
|                  | Secretary and Chief Financial Officer |
|                       |                                       |        |  |

 

----
CHIEF JUSTICE

 CAROLYN WRIGHT

JUSTICES

 JIM MOSELEY

 DAVID L. BRIDGES

 MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

 KERRY P. FITZGERALD

 MOLLY FRANCIS

 DOUGLAS S. LANG

 ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

 ROBERT M. FILLMORE

 LANA MYERS

 DAVID EVANS

 DAVID LEWIS

 ADA BROWN

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 712-3400

LISA MATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712-3450

lisa.matz@5th.txcourts.gov

GAYLE HUMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR

(214) 712-3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

FACSIMILE

(214) 745-1083

INTERNET

HTTP://5TH.TXCOURTS.GOV

May 19, 2014

Bruce Cameron Kimberly Duncan

Attorney at Law Frank Crowley Courts 

2309 Boll St. 133 N. Riverfront Blvd Ste. 19

Dallas, Texas 75204 Dallas, Texas 75027

Re: James Riley V. The State of Texas: 05-13-00900-CR, 05-13-00901-CR F-1140796-S and 

F-1140798-S 

Dear Attorneys:

Enclosed is a corrected Memorandum Opinion issued May 8, 2014. Both trial court cause numbers 

are now indicated on the Opinion. 

Please replace your previous copy with the enclosed.

Sincerely,

Lisa Matz

Clerk of the Court

cc: Andy Chatham

Gary Fitzsimmons
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Certification
      of Chief Financial 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 the Quarterly Report of VirtualScopics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Molly
      Henderson ,
      as
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002 to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
                Company.




Date: August
      12, 2008




/s/
                Molly Henderson


Molly
      Henderson


Chief
      Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance





This
      Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
EX PARTE Calvin MAYS

1161110 (CR-16-0779)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Joshua M. COUNCIL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4651

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING HUAWEI’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING HUAWEI’S 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1436

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on Huawei’s motion to seal as 

follows:

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

Jian Xin Ding Deposition 224:5-7, 226:1-3 GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1442 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7118

LARRY PRESTON COOKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES PARRISH, Chief; PAUL COX, Lieutenant; WILLIE IRVIN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-663-2) Submitted: October 9, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Preston Cooke, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Larry Preston Cooke appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel and affirm the dismissal on the reasoning of the district court. See Cooke v. Parrish , No. CA-98-663-2 (E.D. Va. June 30, 1998). 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