alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Exhibit contains summary financial information
extracted from NS Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for the three
and nine month periods ended June 27, 1998, included in the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such condensed consolidated
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000745026
<NAME> NS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,781
<SECURITIES>                                    67,283
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                       702
<INVENTORY>                                     69,762
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,448
<PP&E>                                         301,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                 167,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 431,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,530
<BONDS>                                         76,193
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       280,359
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   431,161
<SALES>                                        344,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               344,181
<CGS>                                          300,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  300,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,942
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,462
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20694

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALVIRA RIOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-42-ALL

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alvira Rios, former

federal prisoner # 13646-074, has moved for leave to withdraw and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Rios has not filed a response. 

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits federal

court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See
No. 04-20694

-2-

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy

requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury

other than the now-ended incarceration or parole -- some

‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the

suit is to be maintained.” Id.

Rios has served the sentence that was imposed upon the

revocation of her supervised release. The order revoking Rios’s

term of supervised release imposed no further term of supervised

release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this

court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary. 

MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Federal Register: January 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 2860-2861]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ja02-43]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITIES FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 22, 2002.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

[[Page 2861]]


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-1628 Filed 1-17-02; 2:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Team Rule Name Required Rulemaking CEA Section No.

I

Registration of Swap Dealers ("SDs") 

and Major Swap Participants ("MSPs") 731 4s(a)-(c)

II

Further definition of swap entity terms -

Joint with Securities and Exchange 

Commission ("SEC")

712(d), 721(a), 721(c) 1a(18), (32),(33), (42), (43), (47) and (49)

III

Business Conduct Standards ("BCS")-

SDs and MSPs with Counterparties 731 4s(h)

IV

BCS-Firewall Policies by Futures 

Commission Merchants ("FCMs") and 

Introducing Brokers ("IBs"); Chief 

Compliance Officer for FCMs

732 4d(c)-(d)

IV

BCS-Duties of SDs and MSPs; 

Firewall Policies by SDs and MSPs; 

SD and MSP Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Daily Trading 

Records Requirements; Confirmation, 

Portfolio Reconciliation, and Portfolio 

Compression Requirements; Swap 

Trading Relationship Documentation; 

Documentation for SDs and MSPs 

relating to Title II (210(c)(8)); Annual 

Report by Chief Compliance Officers 

of SDs and MSPs

731 CEA 4s(f) – Reporting and Recordkeeping

CEA 4s(g) – Daily Trading Records

CEA 4s(i) – Documentation Standards

CEA 4s(j) – Duties

CEA 4s(j)(5) – Conflicts of Interest for SDs 

& MSPs

CEA - 4s(k)(3) - Annual Report 

Requirement

V Capital 731 4s(e)

V Margin 731 4s(e)

VI

Treatment of Securities in a Portfolio 

Margining Account 713(c) 20(c)

VII Annual Report by DCO Chief 

Compliance Officers 725(b) 5b(i)

VII Process for Review of Swaps for 

Mandatory Clearing 723(a)(3) 2(h)(2)-(3)

IX Conflict of Interest (180 days) - DCOs, 

DCMs, SEFs 726, 725(d) none

XI End-User Exception to Mandatory 

Clearing 723(a)(3) 2(h)(7)

XIII SEFs 733 5h

XVI Swap Data Repositories 728 21

XVI

Swap data recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for preenactment and transition swaps

723, 729 2(h)(5), 4r(a)(2)(A), 4r(a)(2)(C)
Team Rule Name Required Rulemaking CEA Section No.

XVII Swap Data Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 727, 728, 729 2(a)(13)(G), 21(b), 4r

XVIII Real-Time Reporting 727 2(a)(13)(A)-(E)

XIX Agricultural Commodity Definition 723(c)(3) none

XIX Agricultural Swaps and Commodity 

Options 723(c)(3) none

XXI

Further definition of swap product 

terms - Joint with SEC 712(a)(8), 712(d), 721(c) 1a(42) and 1a(47)

XXIII Antimanipulation 753(a) 6(c)

XXV Whistleblower Provisions 748 23

XXVI Large Trader Reporting 730 4t
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the State Energy Advisory 
Board. (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: July 12, 2001 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and July 13, 2001 from 
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

ADDRESSES: West Coast Grand Hotel, 1415 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 
98101, Phone: (206) 971-8000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Raup, Office of Planning, 
Budget, and Outreach, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC 20585, Telephone (202) 586-
2214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: To make 
recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives and programmatic and 
administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's 
responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs 
Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda:

<bullet> STEAB Committee updates
<bullet> STEAB Annual Report
<bullet> STEAB Budget Committee Meeting
<bullet> Natural Gas Discussion
<bullet> Pacific Northwest Energy Situation Discussion

<bullet> Public Comment Period
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact William J. Raup at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral 
presentations must be received five days prior to the meeting; 
reasonable provision will be made to include the statements in the 
agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a 
fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 13, 2001.
Belinda Hood,
Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-15398 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
JUNNE KYOO KOH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6344.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

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

E9-24381. txt 

Please Do Not Reply This Email. 

Public comments on Notice of Intent, Pursuant to the Authority in section 2(h)(7) of 

the commodity Exchange Act and commission Rule 36.3(c)(3), To undertake a 

Determination whether the AECO Financial Basis contract, offered for Trading on the 

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., Performs a significant Price Discovery Function:======== 

Title: Notice of Intent, Pursuant to the Authority in section 2(h)(7) of the 

commodity Exchange Act and commission Rule 36.3(c)(3), To undertake a Determination 

whether the AECO Financial Basis contract, offered for Trading on the 

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., Performs a Significant Price Discovery Function 

FR Document Number: E9-24381 

Legacy Document ID: 

RIN: null 

Publish Date: Fri Oct 09 00:00:00 EDT 2009 

submitter Info: 

first_name 

last_name 

addressl 

city 

country 

us_state 

zip 

company 

I 1 ike this 

· eocft'C Rete\'1 ·" t\on Qecotdssec 

;1/ir/rJy 

Page 1 

I'> 

c:::> 

~ 

~ 

z 

~ 

c:: 

("\.) 

0 

:D 

::3 

co 

en 

0) 

0 

"'T1 

"'T1 

C) 

rn 

0 

"'T1 

-t (") :x:· rn7'1 

m:-1 

....,~ 

C) 

::0 

~ > 

::0 

~
Michael HUMPHREY, petitioner, v. Stuart SHERMAN, Warden.

No. 16-5753.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that effective June 25, 2001, the Commission will begin making both Commission and Delegated orders, including orders issued by the administrative law judges, public electronically on a continuous basis on the Commission's Issuance Posting System (CIPS).

Currently the Office of the Secretary regularly posts copies of notices and orders daily at 10:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on bulletin boards outside of the Public Reference Room. Since June 21, 2000, the Commission has made notices public electronically on CIPS on a continuous basis during regular business hours. However, orders are not added to CIPS until after the paper copy is posted on a bulletin board.

In order to provide orders to the public in a more timely manner, effective June 25, 2001, orders will be added to CIPS on a continuous basis during regular business hours instead of awaiting the paper posting times. The Secretary will continue to post paper copies of orders and notices at 10:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 4:30 p.m., or later, and when necessary after 5 p.m. See CFR 385.2007(b)(2000).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15099  Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Rakesh Singh SAROY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71689.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.*

Filed March 2, 2012.

Kuldip Dhariwal, Esquire, Law Office Kuldip Dhariwal, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

*622Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *622*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rakesh Singh Saroy, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under *8*U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies between Saroy’s testimony and asylum application regarding Saroy’s participation in political activities, as well as internal inconsistencies in his testimony regarding when he changed his name from Rakesh Kumar to Rakesh Singh. *See id.*at 1043; *Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (credible establishment of applicant’s identity is a key element of the asylum claim). The IJ reasonably rejected his explanations for the inconsistencies. *See Rivera v. Mukasey,*508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Saroy’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah,*348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Saroy’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence the agency should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Desmond George HIBBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L. KELLY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-7729.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 15, 2012.

Decided: March 20, 2012.

Desmond George Hibbert, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*175PER CURIAM:

Desmond George Hibbert seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable, or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hibbert 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.*
‘

FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCT 31 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13619 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 6 - 0 0 0 4 1 - C R - 7 - HL U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s L Y N D O N W I L L I A M S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ 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 M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 31, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L y ndon W i l l i a m s , af

e de r a l pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the de ni a l of h i s p o s t - j u d g me n tmo t i o n t o mo d i f yo rr e d u c e s e n t e n c e , f

i l e dp u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S. C.2

§ 3582( c ) ( 2) , a nd f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s § 3582 m ot i on , w hi ch he styl ed as a F ed. R . C i v. P . 59 (e ) m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd ju d g m e n t. A s aprel i m i narym att er , w e r ej ec tthe go vernm ent ’ s argum entthatw e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to d e c id e th is ap p e a l d u e to W illiam s ’s f a ilu r e to p e r f

e c t atim e ly appe a l of the de ni a l of

hi s § 3582 m ot i on. W e r e m a nde d W i l l i a m s ’ s c a s e t o the d istrict co u rt fo r a d eter m in atio n o f e x cu sab le n eg lect o r g o o dca u se fo r W il li am s’s u n ti m ely f

il in g o f h is n o ti ce o f ap p ea l, an dth e d istrict co u rt fo u n dth at W il li am s’s f a i l ur e t o f

i l e at i m e l ynot i c e of

appe a l w a s the r e s ul tof e xc us abl e ne gl e c ta nd gr a nt e d the m ot i on f

ore xt e ns i on of

t i m e . A c c or di ngl y , w e pr oc e e d t o c ons i de rthe m e r its o f th e W illia m s ’s ap p e a l. W i l l i a m s a r gue s tha tU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , pr ovi de d gr ounds f orr e duc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e unde r18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) because B oo ker hel d thatthe m andat ory s ent enci ng gu i del i nes w e r e unc ons t i tut i ona l . H ow e ve r , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M or e no, 421 F . 3d 1217, 1220 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 16 43 (200 6), w e hel d thatbecause B oo ker i s aS upr e m e C ourtde c i s i on a nd notar e tr oa c t i ve l yappl i c abl e gui de l i ne a m e n d m e n t c r e a te d b yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n , B o o k e ris in ap p lic ab le to § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n s .3

H avi ng re vi ew ed the re cord, w e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. A F F I R M E D .
Israel ORNELAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6427.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 17, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00554

- CR

Marcus Degrazia, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUST ICES PEMBERTON AND G OODWIN
AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed

the re cord and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 17, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00555

- CR

Marcus Degrazia, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUST ICES PEMBERTON AND G OODWIN
AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed

the re cord and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 17, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00556

- CR

Marcus Degrazia, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUST ICES PEMBERTON AND G OODWIN
AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed

the re cord and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.