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

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

ADAM D. ROSSI

Assistant U.S. Attorney

State Bar No. 028042

United States Courthouse

405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: 520-620-7300

Email: adam.rossi2@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States America,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Charles Burton Foster,

 Defendant.

CR 17-01791-TUC-JGZ (LAB)

MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOW COMES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its 

attorneys, Elizabeth A. Strange, First Assistant United States Attorney for the District of 

Arizona, and Adam D. Rossi, Assistant United States Attorney, and hereby moves the 

Court to dismiss the indictment issued November 22, 2017 without prejudice for the abovecaptioned defendant; and, in support thereof, states that in the interest of justice the 

indictment should be dismissed.

Defense counsel has been notified and has no objection.

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of September, 2018.

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/Adam D. Rossi

ADAM D. ROSSI

Assistant United States Attorney
H. Res. 43 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 13, 2009. 

Whereas the King Holiday and Service Act, a law designating 

Martin Luther King Day as a national day of volunteer 

service, was signed into law in 1994; 

Whereas millions of Americans have been inspired by the life 

and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to serve their 

neighbors and communities every third Monday of January; 

Whereas serving one’s community for the betterment of every 

individual speaks to the high character, transformative 

world view, and everyday practice of Dr. Martin Luther 

King, Jr.; 

Whereas the efforts of national service volunteers have been 

a steadfast foundation of our Nation’s infrastructure, 

supporting not only individuals and families in need, but 

acting in response to national catastrophes and natural 

disasters; 

Whereas citizens have the opportunity to participate in thousands of already scheduled events all across the country, 

as well as create and implement a community service 

project where they identify the need; 

Whereas the Corporation for National and Community Service, is working with the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center 
2 

•HRES 43 EH 

for Nonviolent Social Change, and thousands of other 

nonprofit, community, national service, and education organizations across the country to encourage Americans to 

serve on this holiday and throughout the year; and 

Whereas leaders at the Federal, State and local level are 

planning to use the Martin Luther King Day and Inauguration Day to rally our Nation to commit to serve and 

to make an ongoing commitment to service: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) encourages all Americans to pay tribute to the 

life and works of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. through 

participation in community service projects on Martin 

Luther King Day; 

(2) recognizes the inherent value of community 

service and volunteerism in the creation of civil society 

and as a means of non-violent community progress consistent with the works of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; 

(3) recognizes the benefits of the collaborative work 

by the many organizations that promote, facilitate, and 

carry out needed service projects nationwide; 

(4) encourages its members and colleagues to urge 

their constituents, both in congressional districts and 

those visiting the District of Columbia on Inauguration 

Day, to participate in community service projects; and 

(5) acknowledges that by serving one’s country, 

one’s community and one’s neighbor our Nation makes 
3 

•HRES 43 EH 

progress in civility, equality, and unity consistent with 

the values and life’s work of Dr. Martin Luther King, 

Jr. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of TransAsia Lawyers, PRC Counsel

March 8, 2007

Sohu.com Inc.

Level 12, Sohu.com Internet Plaza

No. 1 Unit Zhongguancun East Road, Haidian District

Beijing 100084

Peoples Republic of China

Dear Sirs,

Annual Report on Form 10-K for Year Ended December 31, 2006

We hereby consent to the references to our firm under the heading Government Regulation and Legal Uncertainties in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Very truly yours,



|             
|-------------
|/s/ Philip Qu
|Philip Qu    
|Partner
Case 4:17-mj-00341-RCC-JR Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:17-mj-00341-RCC-JR Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 2 of 2
Presidential Documents

21045

Federal Register

Vol. 61, No. 90

Wednesday, May 8, 1996

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 6892 of May 6, 1996

Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 1996

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Our national character has been enhanced by citizens who maintain and

honor cultural values and customs brought from other lands. Americans

of Asian and Pacific Islander ancestry have long been a part of that tradition,

enriching the fabric of our society with their unique talents and abilities.

This month provides a welcome opportunity to recognize these gifts and

to celebrate the daily contributions that Asian and Pacific Americans make

to our country’s progress.

Every sector of American life has benefited from the extraordinary leadership

of those who trace their roots back to Asia and the Pacific Island region.

In the arts and sciences, the business world, law, academia, and government,

these remarkable individuals have expanded our horizons, achieving exceptional success and demonstrating a dedicated belief in equal opportunity.

Asian and Pacific Americans have worked to overcome challenges, often

in the face of discrimination and prejudice, and have successfully embraced

the opportunities of the American Dream.

As we stand on the threshold of the 21st century, ready to compete in

the global marketplace and strengthen our partnerships with the nations

of the Pacific Rim, let us draw on the strengths added by Asian and Pacific

Americans and applaud their proud legacy of service and dedication to

this country.

To honor the accomplishments of Asian and Pacific Americans and to recognize their many contributions to our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law

102–450, has designated the month of May as ‘‘Asian/Pacific American

Heritage Month.’’

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, do hereby proclaim May 1996 as Asian/Pacific American Heritage

Month. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this occasion

with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of

May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-six, and of

the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and

[FR Doc. 96–11721

Filed 5–7–96; 10:44 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

twentieth.

œ–
-1-

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

Jason D. Lamm (018454)

Law Office of Jason Lamm

6245 North 24th Pkwy, Ste. 208

Phoenix, AZ 85016-2030

Tel: (602) 222-9237

Fax: (602) 222-2299

Email: jlamm@cyberlawaz.com

David J. Don (016462)

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. DON, PLLC

301 E. Bethany Home Rd., Suite B-100

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Tel: 480-948-1212

Fax: 480-696-7756

Email: david@azcivilrights.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Leslie A. Merritt, Jr.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leslie A Merritt, Jr., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

State of Arizona, et. al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV17-4540-PHX-DGC

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Leslie A Merritt, Jr., through counsel undersigned, hereby gives 

notice, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1), that he voluntarily agrees to dismiss this 

action with prejudice against Defendant Edward Leiter and Defendant Vanessa 

Losicco only. Neither of these parties has filed an Answer or Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Each side will bear his or her own costs. 

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 41 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 3
-2-

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

DATED this 6th day of February 2018.

Law Offices of David J Don, PLLC and

Law Offices of Jason Lamm

By: s/David J. Don

David J. Don

Jason D. Lamm

Attorneys for Plaintiff Leslie A. Merritt, 

Jr.

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 41 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 3
-3-

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 6th day of February 2018, I electronically 

transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system 

for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF 

registrants:

Clerk of the Court

United States District Court, District of Arizona

Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse

401 W. Washington St.

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Michele Iafrate, Esq.

Renee J. Waters, Esq.

Iafrate & Associates

649 North Second Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

miafrate@iafratelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County and William Montgomery

Edward F. Novak, Esq.

Melissa Ho, Esq.

Jonathan G. Brinson, Esq.

Polsinelli PC

One East Washington Street, Suite 1200

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Email: enovak@polsinelli.com; mho@polsinelli.com, jbrinson@polsinelli.com

Attorneys for Defendant State of Arizona, Heston Silbert, Christopher Kalkowski, 

Frank Milstead, Ken Hunter, Kelly M. Heape, Jennifer Pinnow, Anthony Falcone

Daniel P. Struck, Esq.

Nick Acedo, Esq.

Ashlee Hesman, Esq.

STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC

3100 W. Ray Road, Ste 300

Chandler AZ 85226

Email: dstruck@strucklove.com; NAcedo@strucklove.com;

ahesman@strucklove.com

Attorneys for Defendants Edward Leiter

Vanessa Losicco

By: /s/David J. Don

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 41 Filed 02/06/18 Page 3 of 3
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 9 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12288]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-31,799]


Pabst Brewing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter of March 28, 1996, the petitioners, Brewery Workers Local 
9, UAW (Amalgamated) AFL-CIO, requested administrative reconsideration 
of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance for workers of 
the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on February 27, 1996, 
and published in the Federal Register on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11224).
    The Union presents evidence that the Department's analysis of U.S. 
imports of beer was incomplete.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 29th day of April 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-12288 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
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

Paula L. Zecchini, AZ Bar No. 031880

COZEN O’CONNOR

999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone: (206) 340-1000

Facsimile: (206) 621-8783

E-mail: pzecchini@cozen.com 

Attorneys for Defendant

DOMAINS BY PROXY, LLC, erroneously

sued as DOMAINS BY PROXY, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LARRY G. PHILPOT, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOMAINS BY PROXY, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-mc-00069-DGC

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Case 2:17-mc-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 3
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

1

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Paula L. Zecchini of the law firm of Cozen 

O’Connor is hereby entering an appearance on behalf of Defendant Domains by Proxy, 

LLC erroneously sued as Domains By Proxy, Inc. Request is made upon all parties and 

the Court to serve all notices and pleadings on the undersigned as counsel for Defendant.

Dated: February 26, 2018 COZEN O’CONNOR 

Paula L. Zecchini

By: s/ Paula L. Zecchini 

Paula L. Zecchini

Attorneys for Defendant

DOMAINS BY PROXY, LLC erroneously

sued as DOMAINS BY PROXY, INC.

Case 2:17-mc-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 02/26/18 Page 2 of 3
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

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 

State of Arizona, that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system on February 26, 2018. On that same date, I served 

a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by First Class United States Mail on:

Larry G. Philpot

8125 Halyard Way

Indianapolis, IN 46236

Pro se Plaintiff

SIGNED AND DATED this 26th day of February, 2018 at Seattle, Washington.

COZEN O’CONNOR

By: s/ Paula L. Zecchini 

Paula L. Zecchini

Case 2:17-mc-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 02/26/18 Page 3 of 3
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00450

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 30th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. 59,811

- A

B efore Pittman, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Pittman 

### D EMETRIS 

### D ESHAWN 

### P OPE 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court sentenced Appellant Demetris Deshawn Pope to twenty

- five years’ confinement for aggravated assault on a public servant, a first

- degree felony

. 1
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (a), (b)(2). In one issue, Appellant contends the

sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the crime for which he was convicted in violation of the Eighth Amendment

. Appellant argues that the sentence imposed

was longer than his then

- age, that he had recently become a father and obtained employment, and that he had not previously been convicted of a felony. He also argues that the State did not establish that the injuries of the police officer he
assaulted were a s serious as the State contended. Appellant did not object to his sentence when the trial court imposed it and did not raise the complaint in a motion for new trial or other post

- trial motion

. T his type
of claim must be raised at the trial court level to preserve it for appellate review

. See
Banister v. State , 551 S.W.3d 768, 769 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) ; Pollock v.
State , 405 S.W.3d 396, 405

– 06 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2013, no pet.) ; Kim v. State , 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref ’ d)

. Because Appellant

1 Because Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, we omit a factual background

.3 forfeited his complaint by not objecting to his sentence in the trial court, we overrule
his sole issue

. 2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Mark T. Pittman Mark T. Pittman Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: June 6, 2019

2 We note that Appellant ’ s sentence was within the statutory limits , see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32 , and that “ [p] u nishment that is imposed within the statutory limits, and that is based upon the sentencer ’ s informed normative judgment, is generally not subject to challenge for excessiveness except in exceedingly rare situations. ” Pollock , 405 S.W.3d at 406 n.7 (citat ions and internal quotation marks omitted).
H. Res. 560 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 19, 2009. 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who 

embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law; 

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication 

through interference with the Internet and cellphones; 

and 

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and 

the importance of democratic and fair elections. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Mary Capone, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nicholas Di Giacomo, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*Beards Erie Basin, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

November 20, 1951.

*Thomas P. Curtin*for Anchor Steel Structures, Inc., defendant.

*Louis Mitler*for plaintiff.

*Thomas F. Keane*for Beards Erie Basin, Inc., defendant.

Algeron I. Nova, J.

Defendant Anchor Steel Structures, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ Anchor”) moves to vacate so much of a notice of examination before trial of the defendant Beards Erie Basin, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ Beards ”) as states that such defendant will be examined as a witness against the defendant Anchor. This motion was brought by Mary Capone, as administratrix of Nicholas Di Giacomo, to recover for personal injuries and damages resulting from the wrongful death of her intestate while he was employed as a carpenter by the firm of Golub and Bar rick. The latter are subcontractors allegedly engaged by defendant Anchor, the general contractor. Defendant Beards is the owner and operator of a “ Breakwater Pier ” in this borough where buildings were being constructed or repaired when the accident in question occurred. Heretofore, plaintiff served a notice of examination before trial upon the defendant Beards. A copy of that notice was also served upon defendant Anchor, with notice that Beards would be examined as an adverse party as well as a witness against the codefendant Anchor. An invitation to attend the examination and cross-examine the witnesses produced by Beards was extended to the codefendant. The only objection raised by the defendant Anchor is to that portion of the notice which states that the deposition of defendant Beards will be taken as a witness against defendant Anchor. It is now well settled that a plaintiff may take a deposition of a defendant as a witness against any codefendant provided the latter has “ plain notice to that effect.” However, in such case, there must be compliance with those provisions of section 288 of the *491Civil Practice Act, which relate to the taking of depositions of witnesses generally. In *Gillette*v. *Warren*(175 Misc. 614, 615-616, affd. 260 App. Div. 900) the court stated that the case of *Weigand*v. *Schmitt*(241 App. Div. 655) was decided on the basis of the lack of any special circumstances. It has been held that a bank cannot be examined as a witness, although an application to examine appropriate officers and employees thereof as witnesses to the alleged transaction can be granted. A sufficient showing has been made warranting the conclusion that special circumstances do exist herein entitling plaintiff to the examination of the corporate defendant, by its officer, agent or employee who has knowledge of the facts both as a party defendant and as a witness against the codefendant. Motion is denied. Settle order on notice.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-37804) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, and the 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan; the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8, File No. 333-55958), pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, the Amended and Restated 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, and the 2000 Employee StockPurchase Plan; the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-67070), pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-86878), pertaining tothe Second Amended and Restated 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, each of Vyyo Inc., of our report dated January 16, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Vyyo Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2000, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Palo Alto, California 

February 10, 2003
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Misha Patel Terrazas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-04275-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for a protective order (Doc. 

15). 

 Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK 

Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party 

seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears 

the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is 

granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting 

Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking 

protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] 

individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate 

that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within 
- 2 - 

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 

the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.” 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 

Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 

 In this case, the parties seek to mark information as “confidential” that the parties 

deem to be, “confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive information.” 

(Doc. 16-1 at 2). This description is far too generalized to qualify for protection under 

Rule 26. Moreover, the parties state, “The parties agree that, where it would not be cost 

effective to review every document for confidentiality issues, the parties may designate 

an entire group of documents as confidential, ....” (Doc. 16-1 at 3). This practice is 

inconsistent with the law in this circuit which requires designations to be on a document 

by document (or line by line) basis. Therefore, the joint motion for protective order, as 

submitted, will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion for protective order (Docs. 15 and 16) is 

denied, without prejudice. 

 Dated this 30th day of January, 2018.
#### Donald L. RUSSELL, Respondent, v. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Missouri, Appellant.

No. WD 42177.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 12, 1989.

*724George S. Murray, Asst. City Atty., St. Joseph, for appellant.

Roger J. Staab of Staab & Staab, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and SHANGLER and CLARK, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the award of Worker’s Compensation benefits.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).