alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1389 6
D. C. Docket N o. 05-00153 CR-C -S UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us BRENDA McC ALL, D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma (M ay 2 7, 200 8) Before DU BIN A and BARK ET T, Circuit Judges, and SCH LE SIN GE R,* D istrict Judg e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ *Honora ble Har vey E. Schlesing er, U nited States District J udg e for the Middle District of Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M: A f ed er al ind ic tm en t c ha rg ed A ppe llant, Br en daMc Ca ll (“ Mc Ca ll” ), w ith thr ee c ri m es : t w o c ount s of a idi ng and a

be tti ng the dis tr ibu tio n of pseudo ephedrine with knowledge that it would be used to m anufacture
m etha m phe ta m ine – on e fo r anA pr il 10, 200 3 sa le , a nd anot he r fo r anA pr il 17, 20 03 sal e –

an d o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to m an uf act ur e m et ha m

ph et am in e. A j ury found McCall not gui lty on the consp iracy

charge and the April 10 charge, but foun d her guiltyof the April 17, 2003 s ale. The issues presented on appeal are : (1 ) W he the r the G ove rn m en t pr es en te d su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce f

or ar ea sona

ble j ur y to co nc lud e tha t M cC al l kn ewthe pse udoe phe dr ine she sol d on A pr il 17 would be used to m anufacture m etham phetam ine; (2 ) W he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ch ar gin g th e j ur

y w ith a“ de lib er at e ign or an ce ” ins tr

uc tio n; and (3 ) W he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n ina dm itt ing the te sti m ony of I nve sti ga tor

T ony H el m s.

“ W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to de ny am oti on f

or j udgm en t of acquittal based on su fficiency of the evidence de novo.” U nit ed Sta tes v . D ulc io , 441 F. 3d 1 269, 127 6 ( 11t h C ir
. 200 6)
. I n de te rm ini ng w he the r the G ove rn m en t3

pr es en te d su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce , the c ourt “ m ust r ev ie w the e vid en ce in the li ght
m ost f av or ab le to the [ G ] ove rn m en t a nd draw a ll re as ona ble f ac tua l i nf er en ce s in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict.” Id

. “ W here an appellant has ob j ected to a j ury ins tr uc tio n a t t ri al , w e re vie w the c ourt’ s de ci sio n to use tha t i nst ru ct ionf or abuse of discretion.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . D ea n , 48 7 F .3d 84 0, 8 47 (11 th Cir .20 07 ), ce rt. denied , 128 S. Ct. 1444 (2008). W e re view f or abuse of discretion the district
co ur t’s ad m is si on of e vi de nc e. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . M

arag h , 174 F
. 3d 1 202, 120 4 (11th Cir.1999). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e co nc lud e tha t t he re is no m er it to any of the argum ents McCall m akes in this app eal and, accordingly , w e af firm her
co nvi ct ion
. AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
#                                                                         USS Augusta to Commission in Eastport, Maine                                                                    

##### by Courtesy Story

22 August 2023

                USS Augusta (LCS 34)            

                USS Augusta (LCS 34)            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: CNSP

VIRIN: 230822-N-N0831-0001

Tags:
**CNSP LATEST NEWS**LCS 34 LATEST NEWS**USS Augusta
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 9-18 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 9-18 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 29 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 29 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 29 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 29 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 29 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 29 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 29 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 21 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 25 of 25
LinkedInTwitterFacebook

USFA Stories

# Workplace Fire Safety

Prevent workplace fires!

Share these safety tips to keep workers safe and businesses open.

## A fire in an office or store can be devastating to a community.

### In addition to potential deaths and property loss, people may lose their jobs, and the community may lose a vital service provided by the business.

### Uncertainty caused by natural disasters or other events like COVID‐19 can also make the economic effect of a fire on a business much worse.

Some businesses may have a hard time recovering financially from a fire after being shut down for several weeks or months due to disasters or other events.

## There were **16,500 office and store fires** in the United States in 2020 that caused **$932 million** in direct property damage.

## Cooking is the leading cause of office and store fires.

## Modern building design and fire codes protect most offices and stores from fire.

### However, there are important fire safety practices that employees and employers should follow to help prevent workplace fires, keep workers safe, and keep offices and stores open.

### Many causes of office and store fires are the same as those for home fires. Prevention and escape planning recommendations are similar.

## Employees should:

                  - Check for damaged or overloaded electrical outlets, cords and cables.
                  - Keep anything that can burn away from electrical equipment.
                  - Never leave portable heating devices unattended.
                  - Keep workspace and equipment clean, dry and well ventilated.
                  - Plan and practice multiple escape routes in case one is blocked.
                  - Ensure windows can be opened and screens can be removed.
                  - Remove any obstacles from exits.

## Employers need to prepare for emergencies.

                  - Ensure that all fire protection features are properly designed, installed and maintained.
                  - Post clear fire escape plans on every level of a building.
                  - Teach employees about exit locations, escape routes and fire protection equipment.
                  - Check the condition of fire ladders and escapes.
                  - Conduct regular emergency drills.

## If there is a fire, building workers should:

                  - Call 911.
                  - Notify co-workers of the fire.
                  - Never use the elevator. Walk — don’t run — down the stairs.

## If workers can't evacuate, they should:

                  - Seal door gaps with jackets.
                  - Wait at the window.
                  - Remain calm.

For more information on fire safety in a variety of workplaces, visit www.osha.gov

**********

TopBuilt with **Shorthand**
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 772 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for full benefits 

for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2009 

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide 

for full benefits for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FULL BENEFITS FOR DISABLED WIDOWS AND 

4 WIDOWERS WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENE6 FITS.—Section 202(e) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 402(e)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘has at9 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 772 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘after at2 taining age 50 if she was entitled before such mar3 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en4 titled’’; and 

5 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘after at6 taining age 50’’. 

7 (b) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOWER’S INSURANCE BENE8 FITS.—Section 202(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)) is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘has at11 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’; 

12 (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘after at13 taining age 50 if he was entitled before such mar14 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en15 titled’’; and 

16 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘after at17 taining age 50’’. 

18 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS. 

19 Section 202(q) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

20 402(q)) is amended— 

21 (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘age 50’’ 

22 and inserting ‘‘age 60’’; and 

23 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

24 paragraph: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 772 IH

1 ‘‘(12) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

2 section, there shall be no reduction under this subsection 

3 in the widow’s or widower’s insurance benefit of an indi4 vidual for any month in which such individual is under 

5 a disability (as defined in section 223(d)); and none of 

6 the provisions of this subsection shall apply with respect 

7 to such benefit even though such benefit may have been 

8 so reduced prior to the onset of such disability.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REDETERMINATION OF BEN10 EFITS. 

11 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

12 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

13 II of the Social Security Act for months after the month 

14 in which this Act is enacted. The Commissioner of Social 

15 Security (without the necessity of any application there16 for) shall redetermine the amount of any widow’s or wid17 ower’s insurance benefit which is payable for the month 

18 in which this Act is enacted in order to reflect such 

19 amendments as provided in the preceding sentence. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-05421-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 15.1**

RAIT Financial Trust 

Cira Centre 

2929 Arch Street, 17th Floor 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim consolidatedfinancial information of RAIT Financial Trust and subsidiaries for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report dated November 9, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed noopinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2009 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements of RAIT Financial Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 333-152351, effective on August 6, 2008; File No. 333-149340, effective on March 13,2008; File No. 333-144603, effective on July 16, 2007 and post effective amendment effective April 25, 2008; File No. 333-139948, effective on January 12, 2007; File No. 333-139889, effective on January 10, 2007),Form S-4 (File No. 333-162878, filed on November 4, 2009) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-151627, effective June 13, 2008; File No. 333-125480, effective on June 3, 2005; File No. 333-100766, effective onOctober 25, 2002; and File No. 333-67452, effective on August 14, 2001). 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

November 9, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1296

JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MAYOR MCKINLEY L. PRICE, DDS, In his individual capacity, as a person 

acting under color of state law; CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS VIRGINIA, In its 

individual capacity as a person, acting under color of state law; FORMER CHIEF 

OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS MR. RICHARD W. MYERS, 

In his individual capacity as a person, acting under color of state law; CITY OF 

NEWPORT NEWS VIRGINIA POLICE OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOE, In their 

individual capacities as persons, acting under color of state law; CITY OF 

HAMPTON VIRGINIA, In its individual capacity as a person, acting under color 

of state law; CHIEF OF POLICE MR. TERRY L. SULT FOR THE CITY OF 

HAMPTON VIRGINIA, In his individual capacity, as a person acting under color 

of state law; CITY OF HAMPTON VIRGINIA POLICE TECHNICAL POLICE 

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE(S), In their individual capacities, as persons 

acting under color of state law; CITY OF HAMPTON VIRGINIA POLICE 

OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOE(S), In their individual capacities as persons acting 

under color of state law; FBI AGENT MRS./MS. KATHERINE ANDREWS, 

Former special agent in charge of the Newport News field office, in her individual 

capacity, as a person acting under color of federal and state law; FBI NEWPORT 

NEWS FIELD OFFICE JOHN/JANE DOE(S) TECHNICAL AND FIELD 

AGENT(S), In their individual capacities, as persons acting under color of federal 

and state law,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:18-cv-00001-AWA-DEM)
2

Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 18, 2018

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John M. Dickson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil

complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Dickson v. Price, No. 4:18-cv-00001-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 

2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60052 Summary Calendar RICHARD DONALD LAWLER Plaintiff-Appellant
v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LUTHER THAXTON, Individually and in his Official Capacity Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:06-CV-579 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Richard Donald Lawler, Mississippi prisoner # 54271, filed the instant § 1983 toseek redress for alleged acts ofextortion committed by a prison official. Lawler failed to properly and timely effect service, and the district court dismissed his suit for want of prosecution. Lawler appeals that dismissal. He argues that the dismissal of his suit was improper because his pro se status has resulted in several barriers to service and that the district court should have aided him in his attempts to serve the defendants. Lawler has not shown that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 15, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60052

2 the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. SeeSystemsSigns Supplies v. United States Dep’t ofJustice , 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir. 1990). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       4,595,386
<SECURITIES>                                12,165,948
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,780,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (73,526)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,278,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,498,487
<PP&E>                                       3,097,289
<DEPRECIATION>                               (879,457)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,121,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,215,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,246
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,899,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,121,918
<SALES>                                      8,742,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,742,419
<CGS>                                        4,957,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,550,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (234,475)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,469,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                   534,095
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            934,983
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   934,983
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11020]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as 
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants
Provex Lines Inc., 6581 NW. 82nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33166, Officer: Jose 
Arteaga, President, (Qualifying Individual)
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants
Legend Express Co., 960 E. 12th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021, 
Officers: Gila Morad, President, Julito A. Pascua, Vice President of 
Sales, (Qualifying Individual).

    Dated: April 27, 2001.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11020 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1213

_____________________________

ANDREW A. CLEGG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Kathleen Dekker, Judge.

April 11, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

JAY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Greg Caracci, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jason W. Rodriguez, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### DANIEL K. COX *v.*ELIZABETH AIKEN ET AL.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17399.

*Thomas P. Clifford III,*assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.

Decided March 23, 2005

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 587 (AC 25102), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss?”
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1126
JOHN BEDNAREK, Petitioner, versus CERES CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-458) Submitted: August 3, 1999 Decided: September 8, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael C. Eisenstein, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Andrew M. Battista, Towson, Maryland, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Bednarek seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of longshore benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C.A. § 901-950 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’sdecision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the Board. See Bednarek v. Ceres Corp. , BRB No. 94-458 (B.R.B. Jan. 16, 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