alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Amy R. Mounts VARNEY, on behalf of Bobby B. Mounts (deceased), Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-2024.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 31, 2004.

Decided May 12, 2004.

Wolodymyr Cybriwsky, Prestonsburg, Kentucky, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Eric P. Kressman, Supervisory Attorney, Robert W. Kosman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Kelly R. Curry, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Amy R. Mounts Varney* appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Varney v. Barnhart,*No. CA-02-134 (S.D.W. Va. June 23, 2003). 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*

*

 Varney initiated this action on behalf of her deceased father, Bobby B. Mounts, after the Commissioner denied Mounts' claim for disability insurance benefits.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF INDIANA, INC., petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF the INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, et al.

No. 12-1159.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
USDC IN/ND case 1:00-cr-00034-WCL-RBC document 148 filed 06/06/05 page 1 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 1:00-cr-00034-WCL-RBC document 148 filed 06/06/05 page 2 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 1:00-cr-00034-WCL-RBC document 148 filed 06/06/05 page 3 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 1:00-cr-00034-WCL-RBC document 148 filed 06/06/05 page 4 of 4
Hope JACKSON-FORSYTHE and Edwardo M. Forsythe, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9037.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
LAW DEBENTURE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, et al., petitioners, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.

No. 12-847.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Michael A. CASALE.

No. D-2715.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Michael A. Casale, of Fairfield, New Jersey, is suspended from the practice of *2847law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Ethan BOOK, petitioner, v. Kimberly PARKS, et al.

No. 12-1250.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT HOLLAND, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 2:13-cv-00491

)

CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Proceed on

Appeal in Forma Pauperis, filed by pro se Plaintiff, Robert

Holland, on December 22, 2014 (DE #120). The Court notes that the

caption states “United States District Court for the Seventh

Circuit Hammond Division,” but because the caption includes the

instant case number and was filed with this Court, the Court

presumes Holland indeed meant to file this motion with the district

court. 

In this case, Holland indicates he is appealing multiple

orders (DE ##103, 115, 87, 104, 89, 84, 68, 94, 86, and 111). “An

appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court

certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). As explained in all of the Court orders, with

special emphasis on DE #103 which is a 31-page opinion finding the

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 123 filed 12/23/14 page 1 of 2
allegations of the complaint did not plausibly and sufficiently

plead legal claims under RICO, Holland’s claims were properly

dismissed. In the present motion, Holland does not raise any

arguable basis for overturning the Court’s dismissal of his case,

and instead simply lists issues he made previously during this case

regarding the merits of his claims. This appeal is not taken in

good faith because no “reasonable person could suppose that the

appeal has some merit.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th

Cir. 2000). 

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (DE #120) is DENIED.

DATED: December 23, 2014 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 123 filed 12/23/14 page 2 of 2
Mark Dennis VADNAIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9622.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11967]



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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee will 
meet on June 7, 1995, in Tumwater, Washington, at the Tyee Motor Inn, 
near Interstate 5 at Exit No. 102. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and 
continue until 4:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to provide 
Advisory Committee members information on Gifford Pinchot National 
Forest land and resource management programs, and their relationships 
to the President's Northwest Forest Plan.
    Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Approval of previous 
meeting minutes; (2) Advisory Committee updates on agency/interest 
activities; (3) Forest presentation of 1996 program of work; (4) 
Advisory Committee discussions on program of work; (5) Public Open 
Forum; (6) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presentation on ``Jobs-in-
the-Woods'' program; and (7) Status report on Cispus Adaptive 
Management Area Strategy.
    All Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee meetings are 
open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The 
``open forum'' provides opportunity for the public to bring issues, 
concerns, and discussion topics to the Advisory Committee. The ``open 
forum'' is scheduled near the conclusion of this meeting. Interested 
speakers will need to register at the door. The committee welcomes the 
public's written comments on committee business at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Mark Maggiora, Public Affairs Officer, at (360) 750-5007, or 
write Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 6926 
E. Fourth Plain Blvd., PO Box 8944, Vancouver, WA 98668.

    Dated: May 10, 1995.
Richard Stem,
Resources Staff Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11967 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12642]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00420]


ITT Automotive Body Systems Division, Roscommon, MI; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), the 
Department of Labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance on May 1, 1995, applicable to all workers at the 
subject firm. The notice will soon be published in the Federal 
Register.
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. Findings show workers of 
ITT Automotive, Body Systems Division, produced tire winches (spare 
tire holders) and other automotive components. The workers are 
separately identifiable. Only those workers of ITT's Body Systems 
Division producing tire winches were adversely affected by the shift in 
production to a company affiliate facility in Mexico. Accordingly, the 
Department is amending the certification to properly reflect the 
correct worker group.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-00420 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of ITT Automotive, Body Systems Division, Roscommon, 
Michigan engaged in the production of tire winches who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 23, 
1994 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA Section 250 of the Trade 
Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of May 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-12642 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
In re Kyle Aubrey BELL, petitioner.

No. 12-9400.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
H. R. 1463

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, 

in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s 

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The building and structure described in subsection (b) shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s Building’’. 

(b) DESCRIPTION.—The building and structure to be designated 

under subsection (a) is that portion of the Federal building located 

at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, that is attached 

to the Federal building’s main tower structure, described as AWing in the architectural plans, and currently occupied by the 

Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of 

Virginia, Alexandria Division. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the building and structure 

described in section 1(b) shall be deemed to be a reference to 

the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s Building’’. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 

be necessary for appropriate identifying designations to be affixed 

to the building and structure described in section 1(b) and for 
H. R. 1463—2

an appropriate plaque reflecting the designation and honoring Justin W. Williams and his service to the Nation to be affixed to 

or displayed in such building and structure.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH DISTRICT, AT AMARILLO

No. 07-15-00309-CV

In the Matter of the Marriage of Tami Lynn Buck and Benjamen Andrew Buck and In the

Interest of A.H.B. and A.P.B., Children

(No. 4882H IN 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY)

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

Motion fee

Statewide efiling fee

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

Filing

Indigent $10.00

$20.00

$50.00

$100.00

$25.00 E-PAID

DISM

- NOT

PAID

DISM

- NOT

PAID

DISM

- NOT

PAID

DISM

- NOT

PAID Timothy D Salley

Balance of costs owing to the Seventh Court of Appeals, Amarillo, Texas: $195.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per

the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, VIVIAN LONG, CLERK OF THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of

the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears

of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand

and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the

Seventh District of Texas on December 4, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
Christopher GILBERTSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7187.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00219-CR

DAMION DEWAYNE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-0340X

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O RDER

Our review of the court reporter’s record and clerk’s record in this case indicates that 

both such records contain “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a birth date, 

a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense was 

committed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(3). Both records include the name of a person who was a 

minor at the time the offense was committed. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders 

otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, 

must not contain sensitive data.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in 

paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because 

the court reporter’s record and clerk’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk of this 

Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(f), to seal the electronically filed reporter’s 

record and clerk’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: February 4, 2015
Robert Leon MERTENS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9102.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CAROLYN MALONEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No: 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN

-vs- )

)

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING )

PHARMACY, INC., ET al. )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record:

I, the undersigned, state that I have read the Standards of Professional Conduct within the 

Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Indiana pursuant to N.D.Ind.L.R. 83.5 (g) and Appendix B of this court and will 

faithfully adhere to them. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 

correct.

Please enter my appearance as counsel for plaintiff Carolyn Maloney.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney

Douglas A. Mulvaney, # 10263-20

Stutsman & Mulvaney

1300 Cassopolis Street

P.O. Box 1337

Elkhart, IN 46515

(574) 266-8500

dmulvaney@smspilawyers.com

case 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN document 14 filed 01/15/13 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 15, 2013, a true and complete copy of the above and 

foregoing was served on: 

Dina M. Cox

Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

Robert M. Baker, IV

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Ste. 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney

Douglas A. Mulvaney

case 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN document 14 filed 01/15/13 page 2 of 2
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10389

Conference Calendar

__________________

FLOYD LEE SMITH, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS,

DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95CV00223

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Floyd L. Smith filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against Dallas County and the Dallas County

Sheriff's Department. An in forma pauperis complaint may be

dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in fact and

law. A § 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). 
No. 95-10389

-2-

The first inquiry is whether Smith was deprived of a right

secured by the Constitution. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137,

145-48 (1979) ( § 1983 does not impose liability for duties of

care arising out of tort law). The negligent act of an official

that causes loss or injury will not state a claim under § 1983. 

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (addressing claim

of convicted prisoner). 

Smith's allegation that he slipped jumping down from his

bunk because the floor was wet from a leak in the roof does not

suggest anything more than negligence. Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d

707, 712 (5th Cir. 1995) (prisoner's allegation that leaking air

conditioning unit made floor wet, resulting in prisoner slipping

and damaging a ring is "a garden-variety negligence claim"). 

Assuming Smith was a pretrial detainee, and thus giving him

the benefit of a higher standard of care, he was entitled to

reasonable medical care unless the failure to provide such care

was reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. 

Colle v. Brazos County, Tex., 981 F.2d 237, 244 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The morning following the fall, Smith was taken to Parkland

Hospital where he was x-rayed, examined by a doctor, and referred

to a bone specialist. The specialist informed him that his elbow

was fractured and that there was nothing that could be done. 

Smith apparently believes that he should have been given a sling. 

A prisoner's disagreement with his medical treatment will not

support a § 1983 claim. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321

(5th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11228]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

First Bankshares, Inc., et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; 
and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than June 1, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. First Bankshares, Inc., Longwood, Florida; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First 
National Bank of Central Florida, Longwood, Florida.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
    1. First Dakota Financial Corporation Employee Stock Ownership 
Plan, Yankton, South Dakota; to become a bank holding company by 
acquiring 26.08 percent of the voting shares of First Dakota Financial 
Corporation, Yankton, South Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire 
First Dakota National Bank, Yankton, South Dakota.
    2. Norwest Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Valley-Hi Investment Company, San 
Antonio, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire Valley-Hi National Bank, 
San Antonio, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 2, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-11228 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arbor Entech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark Shefts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.


                                        /S/ MARK SHEFTS
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mark Shefts
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        November  30, 2006
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00527-CV

IN RE William B. OZER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 28, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 19, 2010, relator William B. Ozer filed a petition for writ of mandamus. However,

in order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show the trial court clearly abused its

discretion and relator has no adequate remedy at law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d

124, 135 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). The court has

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

because relator has failed to address whether he has an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly,

1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CI-18567, styled William B. Ozer v. Todd Gold, et al.,

pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Janet Littlejohn presiding.
04-10-00527-CV

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

-2-