alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE:

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS,

& ELECTIRC COMPANY

Debtors,

CaseNo.l9-30088-DM& I9-30089-DM

Chapter 11

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF

ATTORNEY

PRO HACE VICE

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF

ATTORNEY PRO HACE VICE

DAVID P. MATTHEWS, whose business address and telephone number is MATTHEWS &

ASSOCIATES, 2905 Sackett St, Houston, TX 77098. Tel; 713-522-5250 and who is an active member in

good standing ofthe bar of Texas, having applied in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the

Northern District ofCalifornia on apro hoc vice, representing Terry Hodges, as Next Friend of Jane Doe, and

other victims ofthe 2018 Camp Fire.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and conditions of

Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearancepro hac vice. Serviceof papers upon

and communication with co-counsel designated in the application will constitute notice to the represented party.

All future filings in this action are subject to the Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures

adopted by the United States BankruptcyCourt for the Northern District of California.

Dated:

Dennis Montali

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Signed and Filed: February 6, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 335 Filed: 02/06/19 Entered: 02/06/19 15:05:23 Page 1 of 1
Deny and Opinion Filed December 11, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01382-CV IN RE TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES AND LHP HOSPITAL GROUP, INC., Relators Original Proceeding from the 59th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV-15-0119 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Franci s, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Francis In this petition for writ of mandamus relators Texas Health Resources and LHP Hospital Group request that the Court orde r the trial court to vacate its November 9, 2015 order that permits a two-hour deposition of Barclay Berdan, the Chief Executive Officer of Texas Health Resources. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We conclude relators have not established a righ t to relief. We deny the petition.

151382F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
Exhibit F

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4688-8 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 16:05:12 Page 1

of 3
Northern California fires

Fires Lake

pacific gas & electric co

Paradise Fire

Mission Fire

The Camp Fire

Paradise California

Northern CA wildfires

camp campfire

Paradise CA 

Keyword Search Terms

California wildfires

California fires

CA fires

CA wildfires

PG&E bankruptcy

Camp fire survivors

Paradise wildfire

Mission wildfire

Wildfires Lake

Atlas Fire

Fires Nevada county

Pacific Gas bankruptcy

Fires Napa

in paradise california

PG&E

Camp Fire

pge

Pg and e

Northern California Wildfires

pacific gas

Ghostship

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4688-8 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 16:05:12 Pag

of 3
Keyword Search Terms

Wildfires Nevada county

Lobo Fire

Oakmont Fire

California fires support group

Lobo wildfire

Oakmont wildfire

Wildfires Sonoma

Butte County campfire

Atlas wildfire

Wildfires Napa

Paradise Strong

Fires Sonoma

Redwood Fire

Butte wildfire

Wildfires Butte

Redwood wildfire

Fires Butte

Butte Fire

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4688-8 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 16:05:12 Pag

of 3
Office of the Clerk 

United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California

If you have any questions, please contact me DW 

)LOLQJ)HH3DLG 1RW3DLG

Edward Emmons, Clerk

United States Bankruptcy Court

'HSXW\&OHUN

%\

)HH:DLYHG

Edward J. EmmonsClerk of Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Mail Box 36099

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (415) 268-2300

0DUN%%XVE\, Clerk of Court

United States District Court 

Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16WK Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

5H 7UDQVPLWWDO RI 1RWLFH RI $SSHDOWR 'LVWULFW&RXUW

'HDU&OHUN

7KHIROORZLQJ GRFXPHQWVDUH HOHFWURQLFDOO\WUDQVPLWWHGWR\RXUFRXUWIRUWKHDERYHUHIHUHQFHG

PDWWHU

'RFNHW5HSRUW

)HH:DLYHU3HQGLQJ

April 10, 2023

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. 19-30088-DM, Judge 

Dennis Montali

(415) 268-2353

Notice of Appeal and Election - Dkt. #13662

Court Certificate of Mailing - Dkt. 13363

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration by Spiro Jannings - Dkt. #13646

298.00

/s/ Monica Tartaglia

Monica Tartaglia,

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13664 Filed: 04/10/23 Entered: 04/10/23 16:04:48 Page 1

of 1
A95A0048, A95A0049.

#### PEMBROKE STATE BANK et al. v. WARNELL et al.; and vice versa.

(474 SE2d 770)

Decided August 22, 1996.

*Glover & Davis, J. Littleton Glover, Jr., Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Melissa C. Duffey,*for appellants.

*Adams & Ellis, Laura W. Adams, Ronald C. Berry, Tracy A. O’Connell,*for appellees.

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

On certiorari of *Pembroke State Bank v. Warnell,*218 Ga. App. 98 (461 SE2d 231), the Supreme Court held: *“Under the facts in this case,*the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the principles of *Brumbelow*[v. *Northern Propane Gas Co.,*251 Ga. 674 (308 SE2d 544)].” (Emphasis supplied.) *Pembroke State Bank v. Warnell,*266 Ga. 819, 821 (471 SE2d 187). The judgment of the trial court is thus affirmed in part and reversed in part, in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court which was specifically and expressly limited to “the facts in this case.”

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*Johnson and Smith, JJ, concur.*
EXHIBIT E 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3401-5 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 08:35:04 Page 1

of 3
650 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

Email: admin@kellerbenvenutti.com

Billing Statement No. 052019A

Date: 08/06/2019

Due Upon Receipt

PG&E Corporation

Attn: Janet Loduca

77 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Statement of Account

Outstanding Balance New Charges Total Balance

$13,824.57 + $31,394.43 = $45,219.00

00138-31 PG&E

Chapter 11 representation- Expenses

Type Date Description Quantity Rate Fees and

Expenses

Total

Expense 06/04/2019 E102 Outside printing: Clear Discovery Invoice Nos. 1108, 1109, 1112, 1113, 1129, 1130,

1132, and 1147 (April and May 9 omnibus hearings).

1.00 $17,741.53 $17,741.53

Expense 06/05/2019 E116 Trial transcripts: eScriber Invoice Nos. 244692, 244688, 243078, 243086, and 242833

(all April hearings).

1.00 $2,619.65 $2,619.65

Expense 06/05/2019 E116 Trial transcripts: eScribers Invoice No. 252310 (May 22 omnibus hearing transcript). 1.00 $907.50 $907.50

Expense 06/11/2019 E109 Local travel: Uber from Court to office for omnibus hearing (TK and PB). 1.00 $11.64 $11.64

Expense 06/11/2019 E109 Local travel: Lyft from office to Court for omnibus hearing (PB). 1.00 $15.86 $15.86

Expense 06/11/2019 E107 Delivery services/messengers: Nationwide Invoice No. 357800. 1.00 $529.40 $529.40

Expense 06/12/2019 E116 Trial transcripts: eScribers Invoice No. 255851 (June 11 omnibus hearing hearing

transcript).

1.00 $175.45 $175.45

Expense 06/18/2019 E112 Court fees: PERA adversary proceeding filing fee. 1.00 $350.00 $350.00

Expense 06/26/2019 E105 Telephone: Alix Partners Court Call for June 26 omnibus hearing. 1.00 $155.00 $155.00

Expense 06/26/2019 E102 Outside printing: Clear Discovery Invoice No. 1191 (June 26 omnibus hearing). 1.00 $7,142.70 $7,142.70

Expense 06/28/2019 E116 Trial transcripts: eScribers Invoice Nos. 259400 (June 26 Herndon AP hearing

transcript) and 259449 (June 26 omnibus hearing transcript).

1.00 $1,609.30 $1,609.30

Expense 06/28/2019 E107 Delivery services/messengers: Nationwide Invoice No. 158198. 1.00 $136.40 $136.40

Time Keeper Position Time Rate Fees and Expenses

Total

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3401-5 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 08:35:04 Page 2

of 3
Fees and Expenses Subtotal $31,394.43

Fees and Expenses Total $31,394.43

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3401-5 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 08:35:04 Page 3

of 3
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 TransAct Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Roderick c. Bartlett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Roderick C. Bartlett Roderick C. Bartlett Chief Executive Officer Date: February 18, 2014
#### MINNIE SOUTHARD v. J. O. SOUTHARD.

(Filed 26 June, 1935.)

Divorce E a — Court need not find facts supporting order for alimony pendente lite when complaint alleges facts sufficient to suppoi't order.

Where the complaint alleges facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff! to alimony *pendente lite*under C. S., 1667, it is not error for the court to grant plaintiff’s motion therefor and refuse to find the facts upon which the order is based, since it will be presumed that the court found the facts as alleged in the complaint for the purposes of the hearing.

*393Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*at February Term, 1935, of RocKINgham.

Affirmed.

This is an action for alimony without divorce. 0. S., 1667.

The action was begun in the Superior Court of Rockingham County on 14 November, 1934, and was heard at the February Term, 1935, of said court on plaintiff’s motion that pending the trial of the issues raised by the pleadings the defendant be ordered by the court to pay to plaintiff reasonable sums for her support, *pendente lite,*and for her counsel fees.

From an order that he pay to plaintiff, out of his earnings, the sum of $3.50 per week for her support until the further order of the court, and the sum of $25.00 as her counsel fees, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the refusal of the court to find the facts on which the order was made, and the signing of the order.

*D. F. Mayberry and Hunter K. Perm for plaintiff.*

*Sharp <& Sharp for defendant.*

Pee CueiaM.

It is alleged in the complaint, and admitted in the answer, that the plaintiff and the defendant were married to each other on or about 25 January, 1913; that they lived together as husband and wife until 17 September, 1934, and that they are now living separate and apart from each other.

It is further alleged in the complaint that on or about 17 September, 1934, the defendant, without cause or justification, abandoned the plaintiff, and has since failed and refused to provide for her support. This allegation is denied in the answer. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff, without cause or justification, abandoned him on or about 17 September, 1934, and has since refused to return to'his home or to live with him.

By virtue of the provisions of C. S., 1667, pending the trial of the issue raised by the pleadings, on the facts alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to an order of the court that defendant pay to her, out of his earnings, a reasonable sum for her support, *pendente lite,*and for her counsel'fees.

There was no error in the refusal of the court to find the facts on which the order was made. *Price v. Price,*188 N. C., 640, 123 S. E., 264. The presumption is that the court, for the purposes of the hearing, found that defendant had wrongfully abandoned the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint. *Byerly v. Byerly,*194 N. C., 532, 140 S. E., 158. The order is

Affirmed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 19 2000

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 99-12216

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 96-02399-CV-TWT-1

DANIEL WEBSTER and 

PEGGY WEBSTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants,

WEBSTER GREEN THUMB COMPANY,

and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

versus

FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,

Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,

MIKE KENN; MICHAEL HIGHTOWER, et al.,

Defendants-Cross-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(July 19, 2000)

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA and HILL, Circuit Judges.
 1 We decline to address appellants’ challenge to the scope of the injunction. The argument

was not presented to the district court; rather, it was raised for the first time on appeal.

2

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of the opinion of the

district court published at 51 F.Supp.2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 1999).

AFFIRMED.1
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 Cytta Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended  September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Campbell,  Chief Financial
Officer of the Company,  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 Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 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.


/s/ Gary Campbell
----------------------------------
Name:  Gary Campbell
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  January 12, 2011
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3848 Filed: 09/09/19 Entered: 09/09/19 15:46:24 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3848 Filed: 09/09/19 Entered: 09/09/19 15:46:24 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3848 Filed: 09/09/19 Entered: 09/09/19 15:46:24 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3848 Filed: 09/09/19 Entered: 09/09/19 15:46:24 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3848 Filed: 09/09/19 Entered: 09/09/19 15:46:24 Page 5 of

5
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008

 

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGEACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14578

 

 

HCW PENSION REAL ESTATE FUNDLIMITED PARTNERSHIP 

(Exact name of registrant issuer as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes __ No   X_
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              BRE PROPERTIES, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                       State of Jurisdiction
----                                                       ---------------------
<S>                                                        <C>
Wholly owned subsidiaries:
  BRE Hacienda del Rio, Inc. .............................      Delaware
  BRE Fountain Plaza, Inc. ...............................      Delaware
  BRE Camino Seco, Inc. ..................................      Delaware
  BRE Colonia del Rio, Inc. ..............................      Delaware
  BRE Springhill, Inc. ...................................      Delaware
  BRE Oracle Village Inc. ................................      Delaware
  BRE Builders, Inc. .....................................      Delaware

Other subsidiaries:
  Pinnacle at Bothell, LLC................................      Delaware
  BRE Pinnacle at Bothell, LLC............................      Delaware
  Pinnacle at Blue Ravine.................................      Delaware
  BRE Pinnacle at Blue Ravine.............................      Delaware
  BRE Property Investors LLC..............................      Delaware
  Cambridge Park LLC......................................      California
  BRE/Alliance Services, Inc .............................      Maryland
  BRE Properties of Colorado, LLC.........................      Delaware
  Pinnacle at Queen Creek, LLC............................      Delaware
  Merdian Apartments, LLC.................................      Delaware
  Pinnacle Galleria, LLC..................................      Delaware
  Stone Creek Communities, LLC............................      Delaware
  CREA/BRE MacArthur, LLC.................................      Deleware

Indirect subsidiaries:
  ITCR Villa Verde Limited Partnership....................      Texas
  Palm Shadows LLC........................................      California
  Riverview LLC...........................................      California
  Vallejo Highlands Associates L.P. ......................      California
  Vallejo Somerset L.P. ..................................      Texas
  Woodlake Holdings LLC...................................      Arizona
</TABLE>
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





I,
Robert C. Salipante, principal executive officer of Sun Life Assurance Company
of Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March
31, 2008, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Robert C.
      SalipanteRobert
      C. SalipantePresident(principal
      executive officer)May
      15, 2008
[663 NE2d 318, 639 NYS2d 1006]

#### In the Matter of Douglas K. Murphy, Appellant, v Village of Dolgeville et al., Respondents.

Argued November 30,1995;

decided December 27, 1995

*884APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Philip V. Córtese,*Amsterdam, for appellant.

*Mark R. Rose, Village Attorney*of Village of Dolgeville, Little Falls, for Village of Dolgeville and another, respondents.

*Barbara J. Samel,*Albany, for New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, *amicus curiae.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

General Municipal Law § 207-m provides that "whenever the base salary of the permanent full-time police officer * * * who is the highest ranking subordinate to the head of the police department in such unit, is increased, the salary of the permanent full-time head of the police department shall be increased by at least the same dollar amount.” Petitioner, the Chief of Police of the Village of Dolgeville, has received pay increases each time the base salary of the highest ranking subordinate *position*in his department, Patrolman Grade I, was increased even though that position was vacant when the salary increases were instituted. The position has since been filled by Officer Scott Stefanec who rose through the ranks of the department from Patrolman Recruit to Patrolman Grade I, and is now the petitioner’s highest ranking subordinate. Petitioner argues here that General Municipal Law § 207-m mandates that he receive an additional pay increase equal to the sum of those received by Stefanec as he rose through the ranks. We disagree.

The purpose of General Municipal Law § 207-m is to prevent the compression of salaries as between police department heads who are not members of negotiating units, and their subordinates who are *(see,*Bill Jacket, L 1977, ch 827, Mem Supporting A 7913; 1986 Opns St Comp No. 86-23; 1984 Opns St Comp No. 84-20). The problem of salary compression does not arise from an individual’s rise through the ranks and consequent increase in pay pursuant to a set pay scale but rather from an increase in the pay scale itself whereby the base salary for the highest ranking subordinate position becomes equal to or *885greater than that of the department head. Thus, section 207-m is best interpreted to require that the head of the department receive a salary increase whenever the base salary of the highest ranking subordinate *position*is increased, whether or not the position itself is filled. Accordingly, petitioner has received all that he was entitled to under the General Municipal Law, and his petition was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7174

ADAM CLAYTON PUGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF JOHN INGRAM; CAPTAIN DAVIS; CAPTAIN EVANS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03027-FL)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adam Clayton Pugh, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adam Clayton Pugh appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Pugh v. Ingram, No. 5:12-

ct-03027-FL (E.D.N.C. July 3, 2012). We deny Pugh’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 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