alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### OFFICE OF **THE** 

### ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS
**AUSTIN**

# a

Year first and wcond westlone am amvorable in ttli afilrulatlra. ArLielo 4496a, Vernon*0 Annotatd Olrll Statuta8 (3.8. SO0 oi thm 46th Legl~laturo) doea not exempt **tEo** wmUaatwer 

### of beddingfroni affixingthe law 

### lab.1 (8utba 

### a) nad the beddizg **re9cutue** staatp(3oetioa 9) on be44lng 

### uaufaoturndior 

### a 8tate lnstftuubloa or for +.ho 

### United St~tatee

Covermix&. Zha only exoc~tio:m ia the lnw aro glren in %eotlon 11 .w:Iohr-da aa followa: *Sxoeption8. Ssotion 11. The 

### pro9i*loa8 of tkii8 Aot aball a$Ely to all bwldlxq ~~~u.faaWro&, prgairod, ronorated ma/or rold,&tor 

### tba 

## 0metfv8 betshareof;but the 8az!O rhall 

### not ,rpplyto b&ding wkloh has bean **aranaioaturrrsd,** repaired or rsnovatrtl prior tc the sftsotltr **date** 

### hereof.* The **oloaont or**  **state** 

### or iedaralcoatreotdus not Utor the ritwtion. rho dulrl ~urp0~es or the hat were the 

### grottbotion of heelthawl the pmventicm of tho 

### 8prsa46f diauao. WetiQn 6). Both the state ena rodesal grmaawatr are 6Atitiswl to rhare **in t&o**  **berar%t or**  **this 8aaitaq**  **ht.** We reran you to cur'opinion Ho. Cbll98 Ityth8 **Hon. Stzris**  **z7odgrr8, tiail8themt**  **Attoraoy aen6mi,**  **to m.**  oeo. w. 'GOI,

axit zealth crrieer, Austin, Texa8. In the above nwiiberea opfnion it **wa8** 

### held **thnt** 

### *t&oboddingaunpiMttutcrra nd **raaovatce8 rmr8t**  **oomply** tith the law aftar the orreottoo date an4 plnfm She fo**qufred tag**  **md** *dhaeive s%aap **UpOIl all**  **beddlag mamaf6iet**  urod and 

### renoretadGUI recttired

by thn'texd of 

### thin law. In the west they tall to ooayly 

### with the rcrpuiromentd of t!:is Rot, they till ha iuubjoat to 

### the jm&Utfos 

### proride4 in Seotlon 9 of thtr bill.*

### 46

Texas StateBoard of Health.page S
thatyou hare not furnbhad **US** 

### ritb titioient faots to enableu8 to **UldOrSknd** 

### the **sikration.** WO **pruunu** 

### thatyour Bopartmont 

### m the Board of Controlplaoed the order **r0r** 

### the **sWmp8 and**  ontorod into R 

### oontraot oonoa@?ml4umo with tho printeror prlntors. The ?W89mf the oontraot,if **Sny,** 

### wul6 be oontsolllin( u

**‘ tQ**  **~~l*osRont8** or **ro4uQtlon OS**  **oontraot jlriee.**  **fn.tllQ** 

### wazi& ,rr **tiV18.** 

### thatthe SpOiled **8tQUi~8** 

### be ret&t06 ani **8** 

### reoord **or thorn**  be kept,

APPROVEDS~ 18, 1939

ATTORNEYGENERAL OP TEXAS
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned 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 their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008 of Stationmate, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Gavin A. GroundsGavin A. GroundsChief Executive Officer/s/ Gavin A. GroundsGavin A. GroundsChief Financial OfficerDated: Nov. 12, 2008   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Stationmate, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report of Sungro Minerals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:






1.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended February 28, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and




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




Date:           April 19, 2011
By:
/s/ Frederick J. Pucillo, Jr.Name:
Frederick J. Pucillo, Jr.Title:
Chief Executive Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided Sherb & Co., LP and will be retained by Sungro Minerals, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 9, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-13274

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 04-80144-CR-KLR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

QUASON RATRONE GRAY,

a.k.a. Clay, a.k.a. 4 Stroke,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

 (August 9, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Monique A. Brochu, appointed counsel for Quason Ratrone Gray in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals 
2

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Gray’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 593 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit the 

conversion of leadership PAC funds to personal use. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2017 

Mr. CAPUANO (for himself, Mr. JONES, and Mr. PETERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

prohibit the conversion of leadership PAC funds to personal use. 

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 ‘‘Leadership PAC Limi5 tation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CONVERSION OF LEADERSHIP PAC 

7 FUNDS TO PERSONAL USE. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—Section 313(b)(1) of the Federal 

9 Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(1)) 

10 is amended by inserting after ‘‘subsection (a)’’ the folVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:52 Jan 28, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H593.IH H593

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 593 IH

1 lowing: ‘‘or funds of a leadership PAC (as defined in sec2 tion 304(i)(8)(B))’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to elections occur5 ring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.02

                       DeGolyer and MacNaughton
                          One Energy Square
                        Dallas, Texas  75206

                           March 24, 1999




Enron Corp.
1400 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002

Gentlemen:

     We hereby consent to the references to our firm and to
our opinions delivered to Enron Oil & Gas Company (the
Company) regarding our comparison of estimates prepared by
us with those furnished to us by the Company of the proved
oil, condensate, natural gas liquids, and natural gas
reserves of certain selected properties owned by the
Company. The opinions are contained in our letter reports
dated January 17, 1997, January 13, 1998, and January 11,
1999, for estimates as of December 31, 1996, December 31,
1997, and December 31, 1998, respectively. The opinions are
referred to in the section "Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production Properties and Reserves-Reserve Information" and
Note 18 to Enron Corp.'s Consolidated Financial Statements
entitled "Oil and Gas Producing Activities-Oil and Gas
Reserves Information" in Enron Corp.'s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998, to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 26,
1999. DeGolyer and MacNaughton also consents to the
inclusion of our letter report, dated January 11, 1999,
addressed to the Company as an Exhibit (23.03) to Enron
Corp.'s Form 10-K. Additionally, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of such references to our firm
and to our opinions included in Enron Corp.'s Form 10-K in
Enron Corp.'s previously filed Registration Statement Nos.
33-13397, 33-27893, 33-34796, 33-52768, 33-52261, 33-52143,
33-60821, 333-22739, 333-19253, 333-70465, 333-44133,
333-38253, and 333-48193.

                                   Very truly yours,


                                   DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
<PAGE>
 
                                   Exhibit 23
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Template Software, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-24873 and 333-52241) of our
report dated March 17, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Template Software, Inc. as of November 30, 1997 and December 31,
1998, for each of the years ended November 30, 1996 and 1997, for the one month
ended December 31, 1997 and for the year ended December 31, 1998, which report
is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

McLean, VA
March 30, 1999
* 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. 02-30404 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STEVEN W. ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CR-50017-ALL

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Steven W. Arnold appeals from the revocation of his supervised release and his sentence to 24 months’ imprisonment. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the determination that he used and possessed controlled substances in violation of one of the conditions of his supervised release; that the district court erred by failing to consider whether the availability of substance abuse programs warranted an exception to mandatory revocation; and that the district court erred byNo. 02-30404 -2- finding that his drug possession constituted a Grade C violation instead of a Grade B violation and by imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment. Arnold’s arguments are unconvincing. First, Arnold admitted at the revocation hearing that he had used drugs. Arnold’s admission and the laboratory reports were sufficient evidence for the district court to find that he use and possessed illegal substances. See United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 226 (5th Cir. 1995). Second, the district court’s comments at the revocation hearing and the recommendation in the written judgment that Arnold be placed in a facility where he could receive long-term drug treatment constituted an implicit determination that the availability of drug-treatment programs did not warrant an exception to the mandatory revocation requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). Third, because Arnold previously had been convicted of a drug-trafficking offense, his supervised release violation was a Grade B violation, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2), p.s.; see 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), subjecting him to a recommended guideline sentencing range of 18-24 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), p.s. Arnold’s maximum statutory sentence for his supervised release violation was 24 months’ imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3146(b)(1)(A)(ii), 3559(a)(4). The 24-month term imposed on Arnold was within the statutory sentencing range and the sentencing range recommended by the policy statement and therefore was not in violation of lawNo. 02-30404 -3- or plainly unreasonable. United States v. Headrick , 963 F.2d 777, 779 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

TARGA RESOURCES 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PROGRAM 

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Targa Resources Corp. (the “Committee”) has
heretofore adopted the Targa Resources Executive Officer Change in Control Severance Program (the “Plan”), pursuant to which certain eligible executive officers of Targa Resources Corp (the “Company”)
and its affiliates may be eligible for severance benefits following a Qualifying Termination (as such term is defined in the Plan); and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Committee is authorized to amend the Plan in any manner and at any time, subject to
certain restrictions; and 
 WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan to clarify that the definition of “Change in
Control” under the Plan does not include the direct or indirect purchase of Targa Resources Partners LP by the Company or any affiliate. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended effective as of December 3, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) as
follows: 
 1. The first full paragraph following clause (e) of the definition of “Change in Control” in Section 2 of the
Plan shall be deleted, and the following shall be substituted therefor: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Change in Control shall
occur solely by reason of the direct or indirect purchase of the Company, Targa Resources GP LLC, or Targa Resources Partners LP by the Company, Targa Resources GP LLC, Targa Resources Partners LP, or any of their respective affiliates.” 

2. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings attributable to them in the Plan. 

3. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this First Amendment to the Targa
Resources Executive Officer Change in Control Severance Program, to be effective as of December 3, 2015. 
  

			
	TARGA RESOURCES CORP.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jeffrey J. McParland
	Name:	 	Jeffrey J. McParland
	Title:	 	President – Finance and Administration
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Teleconference Meeting of the 

Fernald Work Group

August 10, 2018 

Conference Call Number: 1-866-659-0537

Participant Pass Code: 9933701

11:00 a.m. Eastern Time

Welcome and roll-call 

DISCUSSION

1. Reconstruction of doses associated with raffinate-area exposures (See 

NIOSH July 2018 report) 

2. Reconstruction of Recycled Uranium constituent exposures (See SC&A 

June report, NIOSH July 13 email, and followup NIOSH August 2018 report)

3. Review status of Fernald site profile issues/Plans for August ABRWH meeting 

report

Adjourn
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 Quarterly Report of Atlas Resources Public 18-2008 (A) L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Partnership.





By:
/s/ Freddie M. KotekName:
Freddie M. KotekTitle:
Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
August 13, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DELLA KEATS

,

Respondent Below

, Appellant,

v.

D IVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES,

COLTON ALLRED and KIMMY

ALLRED, & THE OFFICE OF THE

CHILD ADVOCATE

,

Petitioner s Below

, Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No

. 111, 2021

Court Below

– Family Court

of the State of Delaware

File No s . C S20

- 02005

CS17

- 02457

Petition No s

. 20

- 12669

19

- 25887

Submitted : December 8 , 2021

Decided: December 16 , 2021

Befor e VAUGHN

, TRAYNOR

, and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices.

ORDER

On this 16 th day of December

, 202 1

, after careful consideration of all the briefs

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment of the Family Court

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reason s stated in its March 25, 2021

o rder

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is

AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT :

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves

Justice
Enc.

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

1150 Tusculum Ave 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

(513) 533-6825

CHAIRMAN

James M. Melius, M.D., Dr. PH.

 Albany, New York

MEMBERS

Henry Anderson, M.D.

 Madison, Wisconsin

Josie Beach

 Kennewick, Washington 

Bradley P. Clawson

 Rexburg, Idaho

R. William Field, Ph.D. 

 Iowa City, Iowa

David Kotelchuck, Ph.D.

 New York, New York

Richard Lemen, Ph.D.

 Canton, Georgia

James E. Lockey, M.D.

 Cincinnati, Ohio

Wanda I. Munn

 Richland, Washington

John W. Poston, Sr., Ph.D.

 College Station, Texas

David B. Richardson, Ph.D.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D.

 Elysian, Minnesota

Phillip Schofield

 Bosque Farm, New Mexico

Loretta R. Valerio

 Santa Fe, New Mexico

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.

 Lafayette, Indiana

STAFF

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Theodore M. Katz, MPA

 Atlanta, Georgia

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT 

Zaida Burgos

 Atlanta, Georgia

October 20, 2016

The Honorable Sylvia M. Burwell

Secretary 

Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Madam Secretary:

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has 

completed its evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 

00230 concerning workers at Bliss & Laughlin Steel in Buffalo, New York, 

under the statutory requirements established by the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 and 

incorporated into 42 C.F.R. § 83.13.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has 

recommended that individual dose reconstructions are feasible for:

All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any area at the 

Bliss & Laughlin Steel site in Buffalo, New York, during the period 

from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999. 

NIOSH found that it has access to adequate exposure monitoring and 

other information necessary to do individual dose reconstructions with 

sufficient accuracy for members of this group, and therefore a class 

covering this group should not be added to the SEC. The Board concurs 

with this determination.

Based on these considerations and the discussions during the August 9 

and 10, 2016, Board meeting held in Idaho Falls, Idaho, and the Board

teleconference on October 4, 2016, the Board recommends that this class 

not be added to the SEC. 

Enclosed is the documentation from the Board meeting(s) where this SEC 

class was discussed. The documentation includes copies of the petition, 

the NIOSH review thereof, and related materials. If any of these items are 

unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly.

Sincerely,

 

[Signature on File]

James M. Melius, M.D., Dr. PH.

Chairman, ABRWH

Enclosure
Exhibit 10.28


 





 


June 23, 2014


 


To: File


 


Re: Salary
Adjustment—Dr. James A. Hayward


 


In response
to Dr. James A. Hayward's request, his annual salary will be adjusted from $350,000 to $300,000 effective June 21, 2014. This salary
adjustment will be accrued and repaid when Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. reaches $3,000,000 in sales for two (2) consecutive quarters
or the company makes a profit at the end of any fiscal year.


 


Any questions
can be directed to the Executive Director, Human Resources.


 


Sincerely,


 


	/s/ Lawrence C. Kick	 
	Lawrence C. Kick, MA, SPHR	 
	Executive Director, Human Resources	 
	Applied DNA Sciences, Inc.	 


 


50
Health Sciences Drive • Stony Brook, NY 11790 • tel 631 240.8800 • fax 631 240.8900
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7975

WASIM ATA BEY, Erick Sealey,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN R. KYPLINSKI, Superintendent, Virginia Peninsula 

Regional Jail,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,

District Judge. (4:15-cv-00070-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wasim Ata Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Chadwick Johnson, FRITH, 

ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wasim Ata Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny Bey’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED