alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THEA~ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

Honorable Homer Garrison Director Department of i Jr., Austin, f! ublic Safety

exas Dear Mr. Garrison: Opinion No. O-2202 Re: DepartmentalAppro iiriation Act, 1939 -- e8artment of Public afety -- Employees' vocation. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of date April II, 1940, requesting a legal opinion upon the following stated case:

"TheDepartment of Public Safety has four boys employed to work fortyeight hours each week. Two of these employees are carried as -1iuhtwatchmen, one is carried as laborer, and one is carried as a relief telephone operator. They are paid from the Contingent Fund, %in Division, Department of Public Safety. From September 1, 1939, to April 1, 1949, the were paid at the rate of severty-five ( i75;OO) dollars per month. Beginning April 1, 1940, they wil.1

be paid at the rate of three ($3.00)dollars per day from the ContingentFund, Main Division. Each of these four employeeshas been employed by the Department of Public Safety more than six months. Vnder the provisions of the appropriation bill, zro these employees entitled to twelve days vacation?"The boys mentioned by you are entitled to

the t~+$v~e,daypl

yacation specified +n'the',Appropria, ti,& sctr A sic&r to S. B, N,o,427 (the current biennia$ ApproprgationAct) governing your departmentpr,ovi.des:

Y&qa~Qq@t e,mp;loyees sha+l,with, ,outde,ductxon

in sa'lary,

rece%ve'

not exr seeding twekve dzys.3 vacation, exclusive ,ofSundays a,,nd

legal holidays, on wh$,ch State offices are closed, f'or'each State f?scal year6 such vacatio:i period to be r?,:*,-lally

ag eed ~uponby the head of ee:ch departmenq with hi:-: em!.!loyees,

provided, -thatemylpyees beJ.onging to the T,exas ' &~okal~L,@a,rd may have theirvacation at the'Like'

of the meeting 0'1‘ the annual ,encaqmen,t,Provided that nrjemployee g&- q@p 9~sa,&ry is hereby .aqqr;o~r$ated, &a;$~$ Ire$,e$.~e

,corqe,nsat$on

-while:o:n~'

,vnca.& tion unles-.

& @r ,& .h;ls

:*;en.an

&rj&oyee cofthe depa:+ment for fib,! Le'ss than ~six ca@ndajjs $?rAgd..

!' mqntb pre,ceedi@~;the y&z?$bn -Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., -page 3, O-2202

ment for the permitted twelve-days'vacation without deduction in salary. Very truly yours ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

BY Ocie Speer

Assistant
OS-MR APPROVED APRIL 16, 194.0 GERALD L. MANN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE BY BlJB,CHAIFWAN
#### STATE v. JACK LEE NEWELL.

(Filed 12 October, 1966.)

1. Criminal Law § 189—

An appeal from a sentence imposed' npon defendant’s plea of guilty,, voluntarily and understandingly made, presents only tbe face of the record proper for review.

3. Criminal Law § 181—

Where the sentence imposed on defendant’s plea of guilty, understandingly and voluntarily made, is within the statutory maximum, such sentence cannot be considered cruel or unusual in the constitutional sense.

Appeal by defendant from *McLean,*J., April 4, 1966, Regular Criminal Session of MeCkleNbuRG.

Defendant was indicted on a bill containing two counts, the first-charging the forgery of a $65.00 check, a violation of G.S. 14-119, and the second charging the uttering of said forged check, a violation of G.S. 14-120.

Upon arraignment, defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty. A jury was selected, sworn and empaneled, and defendant was placed on trial. During the progress of the trial, defendant, through his said counsel, withdrew his said original pleas and pleaded guilty to both counts in said indictment. The court, after interrogation of defendant in open court, determined that said pleas of guilty were made “freely, understandingly and voluntarily . . . without any undue influence, compulsion or duress, without promise of lenience by the Court or anyone else.”

After inquiry in open court as to defendant’s prior criminal record, the court pronounced separate judgments, imposing on each count a prison sentence of not less than three nor more than five years, the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGal-liard of the State.*

*T. O. Stennett for defendant appellant.*

*301Per Curiam.

Defendant having pleaded guilty, his appeal presents for review only whether error appears on the face of the record proper. *S. v. Darnell,*266 N.C. 640, 146 S.E. 2d 800. Suffice to say, the record proper does not show error.

The record on appeal, prepared by defendant’s court-appointed counsel, contains one assignment of error, namely, that “(t)he Court erred in pronouncing an excessive, cruel and unreasonable punishment.” The sentences are well within the limits prescribed by G.S. 14-119 and G.S. 14-120. Hence, they cannot be considered cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense. *S. v. Bruce, ante,*174, 150 S.E. 2d 216, and cases cited. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-12 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-12 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-12 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar ALVARADO-MANCILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-11373.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jerry V. Beard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cesar Alvarado-Mancilla raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 9-2 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 9-2 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dr. Declan Doogan, Chief Executive Officer of Portage Biotech Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)

the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:

November 9, 2017

 

 

 

/s/ Declan Doogan

By:

Dr. Declan Doogan

Title:

Chief Executive Officer

*This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.* |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 2 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 3 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 4 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 5 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 6 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 7 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 8 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 9 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 10 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 11 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 12 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 13 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 14 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 15 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 16 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 17 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 18 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 19 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 20 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 21 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 22 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 23 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 24 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 25 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 26 of 27
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 27 of 27
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1833 

To transfer a bridge over the Wabash River to the New Harmony River 

Bridge Authority and the New Harmony and Wabash River Bridge 

Authority, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2019 

Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. YOUNG, Ms. DUCKWORTH, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To transfer a bridge over the Wabash River to the New 

Harmony River Bridge Authority and the New Harmony 

and Wabash River Bridge Authority, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restore the Harmony 

5 Way Bridge Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF BRIDGE AND LAND. 

7 Notwithstanding any provision of the Act of April 12, 

8 1941 (55 Stat. 140, chapter 71), not later than 180 days 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1833 IS

1 after the date of enactment of this Act, the White County 

2 Bridge Commission shall convey, without consideration, to 

3 the New Harmony River Bridge Authority and the New 

4 Harmony and Wabash River Bridge Authority, any and 

5 all right, title, and interest of the Commission in and to 

6 the bridge across the Wabash River at or near New Har7 mony, Indiana, the approaches to the bridge, and the land 

8 underneath or adjacent to the bridge and the approaches 

9 to the bridge. 

10 SEC. 3. REPEAL. 

11 The Act of April 12, 1941 (55 Stat. 140, chapter 71), 

12 is repealed effective on the date that the White County 

13 Bridge Commission completes the conveyance described in 

14 section 2. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 41 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15028-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
IIgIHX~ 3

Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 21-4 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
,t Ref; Letterof Credit $1,187,000.00

t

I

\

BankofAmerica"-'1 I

J,nkof A.merica . -,. IIBusiness Banking

SlfIa 2

7j60 Flj7'51.3-Q2-Q W. Flagler. 2nd Roor

M~mj. Fl33144

; \

'I

I

\

\,

I

I

, ff

, I

I

" \

.. I .

"

,

"

June41 2007

~

Miachart LLC

9155 Dadeland Blvd Ste 1418

Mia.mll Florida 33156-2740

"

"

'j ~~

:Mary:L Mcinnis

Business flanking Support Associate

.

!

\

I

The'foilowiOg information is what will be required in order to proceed with a Letter of Credit in the

amount of $1,187,000.00. In order to facilitate the Letter of Credit, we will require a Certificate of

Deposit in the exact amount of the Letter of Credit which serves as collateral for the Lettar

of

Creditto the beneficiary. The Letterof Creditmustbe guaranteedby the principalsofthe I

company. We willalso require several documents to be completed, application for Letter ~f

Credit,assignment of depositfor a cash securedLetterof Credit,LimitedGuaranty, Ce~cate of

CorPorateResolutionfor a cash secured'Letterof Credit. All of these documentswillbe p'~ovided

once we beginthe process and the CertificateofDeposit;$in place. .1/

I

Sho~ldyou requireany addi1;ionalinformationregardingthis matter,pleasefeel free to co~tactme

at 88:8-652-5000,ext 3253. 1

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

l

I

I

I

J

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

,

DearJose Pereira:

"

"

, '

I,

j

I . 1

I

--I,

i,

I

I

.- - - -- - -

\

\ "

I

U.SA " I. , ' . . .NJo'-

Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 21-4 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1447 

To allow the financing by United States persons of sales of agricultural 

commodities to Cuba. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2019 

Mr. BENNET (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. UDALL, Mr. KING, Mr. WARNER, Mr. MORAN, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. 

ENZI, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To allow the financing by United States persons of sales 

of agricultural commodities to Cuba. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Export 

5 Expansion Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINANCING OF SALES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMOD7 ITIES TO CUBA. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law (other than section 908 of the Trade Sanctions 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1447 IS

1 Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 

2 7207), as amended by subsection (c)), a person subject 

3 to the jurisdiction of the United States may provide pay4 ment or financing terms for sales of agricultural commod5 ities to Cuba or an individual or entity in Cuba. 

6 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

7 (1) AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY.—The term 

8 ‘‘agricultural commodity’’ has the meaning given 

9 that term in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade 

10 Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602). 

11 (2) FINANCING.—The term ‘‘financing’’ in12 cludes any loan or extension of credit. 

13 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 908 of the 

14 Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 

15 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7207) is amended— 

16 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘AND

17 FINANCING’’; 

18 (2) by striking subsection (b); 

19 (3) in subsection (a)— 

20 (A) by striking ‘‘PROHIBITION’’ and all 

21 that follows through ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not22 withstanding’’ and inserting ‘‘IN GENERAL.— 

23 Notwithstanding’’; and 

24 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 

25 (3) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively, and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1447 IS

1 by moving those subsections, as so redesig2 nated, 2 ems to the left; and 

3 (4) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ each place it 

4 appears and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-03437-RJS Document 13 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03437-RJS Document 13 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Biomet, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 21, 2009



/S/ JEFFREY R. BINDERJeffrey R. BinderPresident and Chief Executive Officer


August 21, 2009



/S/ DANIEL P. FLORINDaniel P. FlorinSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as
an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
Case 1:07-cv-03375-LAP     Document 4      Filed 07/25/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 20 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 4Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 20 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 4Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 20 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 3 of 4Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 20 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 4 of 4
#### STATE v. JONES

No. 105 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 162.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 December 1974.
#### STATE v. FISHER

No. 79P83.

Case below: 60 N.C. App. 439.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 March 1983.
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent
to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-12670, 333-12672, 333-98425, 333-101452, 333-107975, 333-116596, 333-132251 and 333-153436 on Form S-8 of our reports relating to the consolidated financial statements of O2Micro International Limited and the effectiveness of O2Micro International Limiteds internal control over financial reporting dated April 17, 2009, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of O2Micro International Limited for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE
|Deloitte & Touche    
|Taipei, Taiwan       
|Republic of China    
|                     
|May 12, 2009
**EXHIBIT 23**

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-62566 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-53449 on Form S-8, Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement No. 33-52196 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-104732 on Form S-8 of American Pacific Corporation of our report dated December 18, 2003 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Pacific Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2003.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada

December 18, 2003
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

I, Douglas J. McCutcheon, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Metron TechnologyN.V.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

 

Date: September 10, 2004

 

 
| /s/ DOUGLAS J. McCUTCHEON                          |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Douglas J. McCutcheon                              |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6236

FRANK JOHNSON, a Former Undercover Agent of

the State Attorney's Office of Allegheny

County, Maryland,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

N.T.F. TROOPER KECKLER, Individually and Official Capacity, State Police Officer/Barrack-B;

N.T.F. TROOPER UPDEGRAFFEE, Individually and

Official Capacity, State Police/Barrack-B;

BARRY LEVINE, Individually and Official Capacity as a State Attorney for the State Attorney

Office of Allegheny County, Maryland; KENNETH

LONG, JR., Individually and Official Capacity

as a State Attorney for Washington County,

Maryland; OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY FOR

WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND; OFFICE OF THE

STATE ATTORNEY FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY, MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA95-274-CCB)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Holdsworth Bowen, Assistant

Attorney General, Betty Stemley Sconion, Assistant Attorney General, Pikesville, Maryland; Daniel Karp, Kevin Bock Karpinski,

ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

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

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

court. Johnson v. Keckler, No. CA-95-274-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 11,

1996). 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
Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF     Document 7      Filed 06/25/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. GRACE

No. 120 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 723.

Application by defendant for further review denied 4 January 1979.