alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 25, 2014

d1117

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2014

148400

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148400

COA: 317595

Wayne CC: 12-005176-FC

MIGUEL VALENTINO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 26, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00026-CV 

JESSICA MANFRE, Appellant 

V. 

JOSEPH PAUL MANFRE, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-19280 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By orders dated April 4, 2018 and May 8, 2018, 

we granted appellant’s motions for extension of time to file her brief. In our May 8, 2018 order, 

we extended the time to file appellant’s brief until June 4, 2018 and expressly cautioned appellant 

that failure to file her brief by June 4, 2018 might result in the dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not filed her brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

180026F.P05 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JESSICA MANFRE, Appellant 

No. 05-18-00026-CV V. 

JOSEPH PAUL MANFRE, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-19280. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Evans and Brown participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered September 26, 2018.
1 FTC’S JAN. 28, 2019 LIST OF WITNESSES

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

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

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096 

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Va. Bar No. 75870 

Joseph R. Baker, D.C. Bar No. 490802 

Wesley G. Carson, D.C. Bar No. 1009899 

Elizabeth A. Gillen, Cal. Bar No. 260667 

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490 

Mark J. Woodward, D.C. Bar No. 479537 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax) 

jmilici@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S LIST OF 

WITNESSES FOR TRIAL DAY 10, 

JANUARY 28, 2019 

Courtroom: 7, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission submits the following list of rebuttal witnesses it 

intends to call live and by videotaped or stenographically recorded deposition on Monday, 

January 28, 2019 (Trial Day 10). 

1. Professor Carl Shapiro, FTC economic expert (live) 

2. Injung Lee, Samsung (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

3. Yooseok Kim, Samsung (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

4. Seungho Ahn, Samsung (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1433 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 2
 2 FTC’S JAN. 28, 2019 LIST OF WITNESSES

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

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

5. Jianxin (Jason) Ding, Huawei (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

6. Nanfen (Nancy) Yu, Huawei (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

7. Richard Blaylock, counsel for ZTE (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

8. John Grubbs, Blackberry (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

9. Derek Aberle, former Qualcomm (by videotaped deposition and recorded 

investigational hearing read into the record) (time permitting)* 

10. Jeff Altman, former Qualcomm (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting)* 

* All designated deposition clips are short. The FTC will present the testimony only if time 

permits. 

Dated: January 24, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 /s/ Jennifer Milici 

Jennifer Milici 

J. Alexander Ansaldo 

Joseph R. Baker 

Wesley G. Carson 

Elizabeth A. Gillen 

Daniel Matheson 

Mark J. Woodward 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax) 

jmilici@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1433 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1

              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, David Oman, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elite Artz,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

       (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

       (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

       (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

       (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

       (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.



                                /s/ David Oman
Date: May 8, 2006            ___________________________________________
                                David Oman, Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1426** 

SUSAN HESTER

- CARRILLO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. HONORABLE ANN KORBEL

- ALBRIGHT; ANNE HURWITZ, Senior Court Evaluator Visitation Supervision Program; LEWIS NORDAN, Therapist II; ISIAH LEGGETT, Montgomery County Executive; CHRIS KUNZ, Attorney , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 00012

- PWG )

Submitted : June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

Susan Hester

- Carrillo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Susan Hester

- Carrillo appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint for lack of jurisdiction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons sta ted by the district court. See Hester

- Carrillo v. Korbel

- Albright , No. 8:15

-

cv - 00012

- PWG (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2015). We deny Hester

- Carrillo’s motion for transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin Dale DAIGLE

NO. 2019-KK-0823

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7007

GARY W. SKEEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director, SCDC; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-98-233-18-AJ) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary W. Skeen, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Gary W. Skeen appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Skeen v. South Carolina , No. CA-98-233-18-AJ (D.S.C. June 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Anthen JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0897

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of PDC 2004-A Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) 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 certify 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 Registrant.
 
 /s/ Richard W. McCullough

May 14, 2010Richard W. McCulloughChief Executive OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner/s/ Gysle R. Shellum

May 14, 2010Gysle R. ShellumChief Financial OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner
 
 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 by the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned executive officer of TD Banknorth Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifiesthat the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.         /s/ Bharat B. Masrani       Name: Bharat B. Masrani  Title: President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 8, 2007Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to TD Banknorth Inc. and will be retained by TD Banknorth Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00610-CV

PETER KRUMP

v.

JONATHAN GONZALEZ

On Appeal from the

347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2018-FAM-2786-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 31, 2019
Ruth P. LAW, Appellant, v. David M. CANDLER, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-2180

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 62 3 . W ENDI CLI FTON v

. ERI N MCALI STER.

W en d i Cl i ft on s u ed Eri n M cAl i s t er fo r s p eci fi c p erfo rm an ce of a paren t i n g
ag reem en t t h at s h e h ad ex ecu t ed wi t h M cAl is t er, h er fo rm er sam e-s ex p art n er. Th e

t ri al co urt d i s m i s s ed t h e act i o n fo r fai l u re t o s tat e a cl ai m

. Cl i ft o n fi l ed an ap p l i cat i o n f o r d i s c ret i o n ary ap p eal
, wh i ch we d en i ed

. See Cas e N o

. A1 6 D0 0 7 5 (d en i e d
No v em b er 3
, 20 1 5 ). Cl i ft o n al s o fi l ed a n o t i ce o f a p p eal
, res u l t i n g i n t h e i n s t an t
d i rect ap p eal

. W e tra n s f

e r r e d t h e cas e t o t h e Su p rem e Co urt b ecau s e t h e i s s u es o n
ap p eal ap p eared t o fal l wi th i n th at Co u rt ’ s s ub ject m at t er ju ri s d ict i on

. T h e Su p rem e Co u rt , h o wev er, ret u rn ed th e cas e t o u s , co n cl u di n g th at i t s s u b ject m at t er j u ri s d i ct i o n

was n ot i m

p l i cat ed , an d we rei n s t at ed t h e ap p eal

. Ou r d en i al of Cl i ft o n ’ s d i s cret i on ary ap p l i cat i o n was a d eci s i o n o n t h e m eri t s ,

an d t he d oct ri n e o f res ju di cat a b ars an y s ub s eq u en t ap p eal s fro m t h e s am e o rd er. See
Ho o k v. Ber

g en , 2 8 6 G a. Ap p

. 2 5 8
, 2 6 1 (1 ) (6 4 9 SE2 d 3 1 3) (2 0 07 ); No r t hwes t S o ci al
& Ci vi c C l u b v

. F

r an kl i n , 27 6 Ga. 8 5 9
, 86 0 (5 8 3 SE2 d 8 5 8 ) (2 0 03 ). Fo r t h es e

reas on s , we l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n o ver t h i s d i rect ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. January 30, 2017

01/30/2017
Herbert RAPPAPORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3465

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Sherman Taylor MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2963

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00517

- CR

EX PARTE V.G.

On Appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR07003875

- F(1)

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 4, 2021
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SHARP MEXICAN PARTNERS, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

V.

ALBERTSON’S INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO.

§

§ 3:05-CV-1280-K

§

§

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Sharp Mexican Partners, L.P. (“Sharp”) moves to remand this action to state court,

County Court at Law No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas from which it was removed. Defendant

Albertson’s, Inc. (“Albertson’s”) originally removed this case to federal court based on diversity

jurisdiction. Under the federal diversity statute, district courts have original jurisdiction over all

civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(2). 

Because the parties stipulate that Sharp’s damages do not exceed $75,000, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, Sharp’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED, and this action is

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01280-K Document 9 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 75
- 2 -

REMANDED to the County Court at Law No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas. 

SO ORDERED. 

Signed September 9 , 2005.

s/ Ed Kinkeade 

ED KINKEADE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01280-K Document 9 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 76
Exhibit 31.1

              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, David Cartisano, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elite Artz,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

       (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

       (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

       (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

       (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

       (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.



                                /s/ David Cartisano
Date: November 8, 2005          ____________________________________________
                                David Cartisano, Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6844

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIKUEL TYRONE GASKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District

Judge. (CR-90-283-H, CA-95-3930-H)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mikuel Tyrone Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. John Vincent Geise, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Gaskins, Nos. CR-90-283-H, CA-95-3930-H (D.

Md. Apr. 30, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL

338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We deny the motion for

oral argument and dispense with argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The

motion for bail is denied.

AFFIRMED