alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

LISHA THOMAS STODDARD, as ) Personal Representative of the Estate ) of MELISSA STODDARD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2712 ) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ) MACHINES, CORP. d/b/a IBM; ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION; and ) CGI TECHNOLOGIES and ) SOLUTIONS, INC. ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed October 23, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen Lee Dakan, Judge. Richard A. Filson of Filson & Penge, P.A., Sarasota, and Howard M. Talenfeld of Talenfeld Law, Plantation, for Appellant. Ricardo A. Gonzalez; Stephanie L. Varela; Julissa Rodriguez; and Brigid F. Cech Samole of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, for Appellee Microsoft Corporation. Hunter G. Norton and Duane A. Daiker of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, Sarasota, for Appellee CGI- 2 -

Technologies and Solutions Inc. Marie A. Borland and David L. Luikart III Of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, For Appellee International Business Machines Corporation.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 MELODY L. GOSLOW, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3
v. No. 35,088 4 CHARLES PEREA, 5 6 Respondent-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Deborah D. Walker, District Judge 9 Melody L. Goslow 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 Pro Se Appellee 12 Simon Kubiak 13 Stephen Lane 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Respondent-Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Chief Judge. 182 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. AFFIRMED. 3 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

_______________________________ 5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7

___________________________________ 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 9 10

___________________________________ 11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 12
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6987

JASON ROWE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOBBY G. COMPTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-173)

Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Rowe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jason Rowe, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order that construed his petition labeled as a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000) action as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and

dismissed the action without prejudice, and the court’s order

denying reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “A substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude Rowe has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:20
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:21
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:22
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:23
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:24
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:25
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:26
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:27
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:28
Case: 1:02-cv-02706 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/28/02 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:29
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30875 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL COOPER , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. NICOLE WALKER; MONA HEYSE; MARK DAVIS; J. TIM MORGAN , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:13

- CV

- 3209

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Cooper, Louisiana prisoner # 391434, appeals the dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

. The district court dismissed the action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Because the district court cited both 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C . § 1915A as authority for its dismissal, our
review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 2, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-30875 Document: 00513064044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2015No. 14

- 30875

2 Cooper fails to address the district court’s determination that no claim is stated in his complaint because his mere disagreement wit h medical officials’ treatment plan is not actionable. Additionally, Cooper fails to address the district court’s conclusion that he presented no factual allegations that would show that the defendants knew of an excessive risk to his health or safety but nevertheless chose to disregard that risk. Because Cooper ’s brief is ina dequate
as to those claims , we dismiss them as frivolous

. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) ; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 ( 5th Cir. 1983) . Cooper’s claim of negligence and
carelessness is an attempt to advance an “indisputably meritless legal theory”
and is thus frivolous. Taylor v . Johnson , 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir. 2001) ; Stewart v. Murphy , 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1 999) ; Howard , 707 F.2d at 220.
We dismiss this frivolous appeal sua sponte

. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. T he dismissal of his complaint by the district court and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996). Cooper is WARNED that if
he receives a third strike he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is unde r imminent dange r of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Cooper’s requested for the appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS ; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED

. Case: 14-30875 Document: 00513064044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,634,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,331,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (46,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,631,025
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,092,911
<PP&E>                                       3,941,574
<DEPRECIATION>                               (784,180)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,522,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,973,174
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    304,366
<COMMON>                                        33,344
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,726,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,211,639
<SALES>                                      3,915,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,312,551
<CGS>                                        2,039,390
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,327,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             206,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                201,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            160,998
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   160,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Robert Fetter, Respondent, v Verizon, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 281]

*1278Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 12, 2011, which rescinded a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and restored the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record.

After claimant sustained work-related injuries in a fall from a utility pole, the employer issued a “Step 1” warning to claimant and directed that he attend a safety compliance program. In response, claimant filed a discrimination complaint against the employer alleging that it violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 by disciplining him following a work-related accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) summarily disposed of the matter and marked the case as “no further action.” The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, finding — insofar as is relevant here — that the WCLJ failed to render “a reasoned oral or written decision upon the contested points” as required by 12 NYCRR 300.5 (a) and restored the matter to the trial calendar for further development of the record. This appeal by the employer ensued.

Inasmuch as the Board’s decision is interlocutory in nature and neither disposes of all the substantive legal issues nor addresses a threshold legal issue that may be dispositive of the underlying claim, it is not the proper subject of an appeal *(see Matter of Dow v Silver Constr. Corp.,*83 AD3d 1270, 1270 [2011]; *Matter of McClam v American Axle & Mfg.,*79 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2010]; *Matter of Carlineo v Snelling & Snelling, LLC,*73 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2010]; *Matter of Rivers v Blue Ridge Farms, Inc.,*36 AD3d 1132, 1133 [2007]). As we previously have observed, “piecemeal review of issues in workers’ compensationf ] cases should be avoided” *(Matter of Sawyer v Orange Motors,*24 AD3d 1117, 1117-1118 [2005]; *accord Matter of Ortiz v Martin Viette Nurseries, Inc.,*82 AD3d 1480, 1480 [2011]; *Matter of Ogbuagu v Ngbadi,*61 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2009]; *Matter of Wilson v Roselli Moving & Stor. Corp.,*37 AD3d 959 [2007]). As the nonfinal decision now before us is reviewable upon an appeal from the Board’s final determination, this appeal must be dismissed *(see Matter of Dow v Silver Constr. Corp.,*83 AD3d at 1271; *Matter of Ortiz v Martin Viette Nurseries, Inc.,*82 AD3d at 1480-1481).

Peters, PJ., Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-887]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Galephar 
Pharmaceutical Research Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Galephar has applied to be registered as an importer of basic 
class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 20, 
2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before September 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 
is notice that on July 23, 2021, Galephar Pharmaceutical Research Inc., 
100 Carr 198 Industrial Park, Juncos, Puerto Rico 00777-3873, applied 
to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of 
controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Drug
          Controlled substance            code           Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydromorphone..........................    9150  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in 
finished dosage form for analytical purpose only. No other activity for 
this drug code is authorized for this registration.
    Approval of permit applications will occur only when the 
registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized 
under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import 
of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished 
dosage forms for commercial sale.

Brian S. Besser,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-17765 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TIMOTHY SCOTT ROMANETTI, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 189 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TIMOTHY SCOTT ROMANETTI, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 190 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: USPLS, LC v. Patrick Gaas and Daniel Shank

Appellate case number: 01-20-00604-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-42530

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

Appellant USPLS, LC has filed a motion for rehearing. It is ordered that the motion 

for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April L. Farris

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Countiss and Farris.

Date: December 13, 2022
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Commodity Protection and Quality Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research
                                    Water Management Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Commodity Protection and Quality Research People & Locations







Athena  Pennebaker
                        Commodity Protection and Quality Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (559) 596-2757
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00530-CV

Dallas City Limits Property Co., L.P., Appellant

v.

Austin Jockey Club, Ltd. and KTAGS Downs 

Holding Company, L.L.C, Appellees

Appealed from the 127th District Court of 

Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2010-16733). 

Opinion delivered by Justice McCally. 

Justices Busby and Donovan also 

participating.

TO THE 127TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on December 10, 2013, the cause upon appeal to revise or 

reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Austin 

Jockey Club, Ltd. and KTAGS Downs Holding Company, L.L.C, signed June 8, 

2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and 

find error in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below 

REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedings in accordance with the 

court's opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellees, Austin Jockey Club, Ltd. and KTAGS Downs Holding Company, 

L.L.C., jointly and severally.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of 

Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, May 08, 2015

.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. C L E ME NT E MOI S E S P UL I DO JA U R E G U I, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 50368 D. C. No . 3 : 0 7 - c r - 0 1 0 9 1 - M LH

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M ar i l y n L . H uf

f , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l5, 2010 ** B e f o r e : R Y M E R , M c K E O W N , an dP A E Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C l em ent e M oi se s P ul i do -J aure gu i appeal s f rom the 57 -m on th sent ence im p o s e df

o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rb e in g ad e p o rte da lie n f o u n din 

# FI LED APR15 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 50368 2 the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f irm , b u t r e m an dto c o rr e c t th e ju d g m e n t. P ul i do- J aur e gui c ont e nds , a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by ap p l yi n g a 1 6 -l ev el en h an cem en tp u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (b )(1 )(A ) b ecau se hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on f

ora s s aul ton af

e de r a l of f i c e r , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 111, d o e s n o t c o n s titu te ac r im e o f v io le n c e . W e a r e p r e c lu d e df r o m r e a c h in g th e m e r its o f P u lid o - J au r e g u i’s c la im s b yth e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . See U ni ted States v. B i bler , 4 9 5 F .3 d6 2 1 , 6 2 3 - 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; s e e al s o U ni te d States v . J

ac obo Ca s tillo , 49 6 F . 3d 94 7, 95 7 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en banc). I n a c c or danc e w i th U

ni ted States v. R i ve ra-San chez , 222 F . 3d 1057, 1062 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , w e r e m an dth e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith in s tru c tio n s th a t it d e le te f r o m th e ju d g m e n t th e in c o rr e c t r e f e r e n c e to § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) . See U ni ted States v. H erre ra-B lan co , 2 3 2 F .3 d7 1 5 , 7 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e m an d in g s u as p o n te to del et e the re fe re nce t o § 13 26 (b)) . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n f o rju d ic ia l n o tic e is d e n ie da s m o o t. A F F IR M E D ; R E M A N D E D to corre ctth e j u d gm en t.