alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2792

___________ Daniel O., a minor, by next friend, * Dan O. and Rhonda O., * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western Missouri State Board of Education; * District of Missouri. Missouri Department of Elementary and * Secondary Education; State School for * [UNPUBLISHED] the Severely Handicapped; Kearney R-1 * School District, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 10, 2000 Filed: April 19, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.-2-

Daniel O., a severely disabled child, is eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1487. Because of his seizures and the associated risk of head injury, Daniel does not attend public school but receives public school instruction in his home for thirty hours per week. Daniel's parents asked his teacher to administer Daniel's medication to him so they could leave home during his instruction. Their request was denied based on the state's requirement that a parent or other qualified adult (besides the teacher) remain in the home during a student's homebound instruction. After exhausting administrative remedies, Daniel's parents brought this action alleging a violation of the IDEA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The district court dismissed Daniel's parents' complaint for failure to state a claim, and Daniel's parents appeal. Having carefully reviewed the case, we agree with the district court's conclusions: the IDEA does not prohibit the state's requirement that a parent or other qualified adult remain in the home during a student's homebound instruction; because Daniel's parents must be present and thus can administer his medication, the IDEA does not require the instructor to administer it; and Daniel's parents cannot show he has been discriminated against in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court thoroughly addressed the issues that Daniel's parents raise on appeal, and we have nothing to add to the district court's analysis. We thus affirm without further discussion. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14676

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00132-CEH-TGW-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RODDY LEONARDO MERO ESPINAL, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(August 15, 2019)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-14676 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 

997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced 

if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 

F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of 

the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).

Case: 18-14676 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:10cr21/LAC

JAMES LEE DEMENTRY,

 Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the

defendant, JAMES LEE DEMENTRY, to the indictment returned against him is hereby

ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24 day of May, 2010. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# C_2010024EN.01000101.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/1

---

2010/C 24/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

OJ C 282, 21.11.2009

OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

OJ C 244, 10.10.2009

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0574 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MALINDA CRAZYMULE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 8, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 28 2022

02/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0574
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the year ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Weisman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 30, 2004

/S/David Weisman_____
David Weisman,
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010090EN.01000202.xml

| 8.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5760 — Lotte Group/Artenius UK Limited)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 90/04

On 19 March 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5760. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5760. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2009157EN.01000601.xml

| 10.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 July 2009

2009/C 157/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3990 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4469 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86060 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,9785 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5119 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0740 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,933 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 275,00 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6997 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3548 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2142 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1625 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7831 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6182 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8426 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2194 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0408 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 787,29 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3330 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5575 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3450 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 193,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9860 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,306 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,5200 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,669 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8025 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8424 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,1450 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3990

JPY

Japanese yen

130,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,4469

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86060

SEK

Swedish krona

10,9785

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5119

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0740

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,933

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

275,00

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6997

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3548

RON

Romanian leu

4,2142

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1625

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7831

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6182

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8426

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2194

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0408

KRW

South Korean won

1 787,29

ZAR

South African rand

11,3330

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5575

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3450

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 193,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9860

PHP

Philippine peso

67,306

RUB

Russian rouble

44,5200

THB

Thai baht

47,669

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8025

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8424

INR

Indian rupee

68,1450

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KELLY WHISBY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv171/RS-MD

JOHN DOE, Lieutenant of

Marianna Federal Prison, et al,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion To Reconsider The Court’s Order Denying Permission To

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8) is denied.

ORDERED on September 3, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*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

March 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40649

Summary Calendar

 

GENE E. DUDLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

N.L. CONNORS, Warden; UNKNOWN RICE, Caseworker; 

MARIA ROSE, Counselor; KATHLEEN HAWKS, Director 

of Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C.; PAUL 

NICHOLAS; JOHN 2-5 DOES; R. ROUT, Mailroom 

Personnel at El Reno Federal Correctional Institute; 

UNKNOWN WILBURN, Officer, Mailroom Personnel; 

RICHARD GOODSEAL, Mailroom Personnel; UNKNOWN 

HENDERSON; Lieutenant, SHU Housing Unit Manager; 

UNKNOWN HAMM, Officer; INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM OFFICER, El Reno Federal Correctional 

Institute Management System Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:00-CV-308

 

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gene E. Dudley, federal prisoner # 10961-045, appeals the
2

dismissal of his civil rights complaint. See Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Dudley filed a purported notice

of appeal from the judgment of dismissal; however, that pleading

did not “clearly evince” an intent to appeal, as the primary relief

requested was reconsideration and Dudley sought to appeal only in

the alternative. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.

1987). The pleading therefore did not constitute a timely notice

of appeal from the judgment dismissing the complaint with

prejudice, and, consequently, we have jurisdiction only to review

the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion, from which he did

file a timely notice of appeal, but our review is only for an abuse

of discretion. See Lancaster v. Presley, 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th

Cir. 1994).

Dudley’s contention that his proceedings were rendered unfair

because the district court failed to consider his objections prior

to adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge is frivolous

given that the district court did ultimately review the objections

and deemed them meritless. Also frivolous is his contention that

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because there was no final

judgment; the district court adjudicated all claims against all

defendants. 

Dudley’s conclusional allegations that the defendants

fraudulently misrepresented whether his claims were exhausted are

an insufficient basis on which to grant Rule 60(b)(3) relief. See
3

Gov’t Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P’ship v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d

767, 772 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, with respect to Dudley’s

argument that his unexhausted claims were erroneously dismissed

with prejudice he has demonstrated no abuse of the district court’s

discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief in that respect. See

Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (abuse

of discretion is standard of review of denial of Rule 60(b)

relief). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   270     
<PP&E>                                               0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     495     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                         269 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       495   
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JENNIFER XU, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09cv187-MP-GRJ

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

This matter is presently scheduled for trial before the undersigned judge

commencing July 30, 2012. Due to conflicting matters that have arisen on the court’s

calendar, the trial in this case will be continued from the current docket date and will be

rescheduled by separate order following a scheduling conference with counsel. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the trial in this case is hereby continued from trial

docket commencing July 30, 2012, and will be rescheduled by separate order.

DONE and ORDERED on this 17th day of July, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00187-MP-GRJ Document 149 Filed 07/17/12 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010085EN.01000102.xml

| 31.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5680 — Faurecia/EMCON Technologies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 85/02

On 6 January 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5680. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5680. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

In re: JEFFREY DICKSTEIN

Misc. Case No.: 3:10mc63/MCR/EMT

_______________________________/

O R D E R

Counsel for Jeffrey Dickstein has filed a Request and Authorization for Transcript

of the June 3, 2010, hearing conducted in the matter of USA v. Hirmer, et al., Case No.

3:08cr79/MCR. The court notes the June 3, 2010, hearing was an ex parte proceeding

and the transcript is therefore filed under seal. In consideration of the relative nature of

that hearing to this matter, counsel for Mr. Dickstein, as well as prosecuting counsel, shall

be permitted to obtain a copy of this sealed transcript and are each charged with the

confidentiality of same.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-mc-00063-MCR -EMT Document 19 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GARY C. QUILLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:10cv404-WS

DAVID W. CLARK, Inspector,

 et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 92)

docketed April 23, 2012. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendants'

motion to dismiss be denied. No objections to the report and recommendation have

been filed.

 The court has reviewed the record and has determined that the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 92) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 89) is DENIED.

3. The clerk shall remand the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

Case 4:10-cv-00404-WS-CAS Document 96 Filed 05/22/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of May , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-00404-WS-CAS Document 96 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 2
# C_2009155EN.01002301.xml

| 8.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/23

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/100-101/09

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2009/C 155/06

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competitions for the recruitment of assistants in the secretarial field (AST 1) with Bulgarian or Romanian citizenship:

| — | EPSO/AST/100/09 — Assistants with Bulgarian citizenship (BG), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/100/09 — Assistants with Bulgarian citizenship (BG),

| — | EPSO/AST/101/09 — Assistants with Romanian citizenship (RO). |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/101/09 — Assistants with Romanian citizenship (RO).

The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 155 A of 8 July 2009 in Bulgarian and Romanian only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7414

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM HAYWOOD HOUCK, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00127-D-2) 

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

William Haywood Houck, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

William Haywood Houck appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction 

of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Houck, No. 7:12-cr-00127-D-2

(E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 28, 2015 & entered Aug. 31, 2015). 

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