alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13040]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE


Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board; Meeting

AGENCY: General Accounting Office.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, May 
30, 1996, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in room 7C13 of the General Accounting 
Office, 441 G St., NW., Washington, DC.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and review the (1) 
Accounting for Natural Resources document, (2) JFMIP Cost Accounting 
Systems and Reporting project, (3) Invitation for Views: Accounting for 
the cost of Capital document, and (4) Rule 203 of the AICPA's Code of 
Ethics.
    Any interested person may attend the meeting as an observer. Board 
discussions and reviews are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald S. Young, Executive Staff 
Director, 750 First St., NE., Room 1001, Washington, DC. 20002, or call 
(202) 512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-463, 
section 10(a)(2), 86 Stat. 770, 774 (1972) (current version at 5 
U.S.C. app. section 10(a)(2) (1988); 41 CFR 101-6.1015 (1990).

    Dated: May 20, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-13040 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Saul Rodea-Castro, et al, 

Defendant. 

NO. 18-01088MJ 

MATERIAL WITNESS ORDER OF 

DETENTION 

 Defendant, Saul Rodea-Castro, having been charged in the District of Arizona 

with a violation of Count One of Title 8 United States Code Section 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 

the Magistrate Judge having determined from the affidavit of the Department of 

Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection filed in this case, the following 

persons can provide testimony that is material to the offense(s) alleged in the complaint: 

Luis Adrian Silva-Garcia 

Fidel Garcia-Chavez 

Miguel Angel Chavez-Velasquez 

Abel Acosta-Calderon 

 The Magistrate Judge finds that it may become impracticable to secure the 

presence of the witness(es) by subpoena in further proceedings because they are not in 

the United States legally and have no legal residence or employment in this Country. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the witness(es) shall be detained pursuant to 18 USC ' 3144 

in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or 
- 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 

serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The witness(es) shall be 

afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel. 

 Dated this 31st day of January, 2018.
CORE/3505308.0002/157146962.1 

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

27

28

Carrie M. Francis (020453)

Stefan M. Palys (024752) 

Michael Vincent (029864)

STINSON LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Tel: (602) 279-1600 

Fax: (602) 240-6925 

Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com

stefan.palys@stinson.com

michael.vincent@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, No. 2:18-cv-00063-PHX-DGC

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 

FILING HIGHLIGHTED 

DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION 

TRANSCRIPT OF THE RULE 

30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF FUJITSU 

AMERICA, INC. 

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert J. Donat, 

Individually and as Trustee of The 

Robert Donat Living Trust Dated April 

19, 2017, 

Defendants.

Defendants notify the Court of the filing of the transcript of the Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition of Fujitsu America, Inc., as attached Exhibit A. Defendants’ designated 

portions of the transcript are highlighted in blue. Plaintiff’s counter-designations are 

highlighted in yellow. Defendants have for the Court’s convenience added their 

objections to Plaintiff’s counter-designations in red text boxes in the margin next to the 

counter-designations. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-SMM Document 197 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

CORE/3505308.0002/157146962.1 

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

27

28

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of January, 2020. 

 STINSON LLP 

By: s/ Michael Vincent 

 Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys 

Michael Vincent 

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584

 

SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, PC

By: s/ Timothy B. O'Connor [With Permission] 

 Timothy B. O’Connor

365 East Coronado Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:18-cv-00063-SMM Document 197 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Jesse KLUMPP, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Frances SANCEGRAW, Phillip Nixon and Gloria Gourley, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 70240.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 27, 1996.

Jesse Klumpp, Mineral Point, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., John R. Munich, Deputy Atty. Gen., Gretehen E. Rowan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendants/respondents.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, pro se, appeals the dismissal of his petition for declaratory judgment so “that he can file and maintain a suit in the United States District Court.” Presumably, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment stating that he has no remedies under Missouri law for deprivation of property, so that he can pursue a claim in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court dismissed his petition. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6664** 

BASIR MATEEN RAZZAK , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ACKOYT, Nurse Practitioner; A. GRIZZARD; CCS CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, MEDICAL AGENCY; FORSYTH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER SERVICE BUREAU , Defendants

- Appellees , and
DR. RHOADES , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Loretta C
. Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 01016

- LCB

- LPA )

Submitted : February 22, 2017 Decided: March 1, 2017

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Basir Mateen Razzak, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Basir Mateen Razzak seeks to appe al the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). In a civil case in which the United States is not a party, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). When the appellant is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is con sidered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The timely filing of a motion to alter or amend the judgment tolls the start of the
t ime for filing a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); In re GNC Corp. , 789 F.3d 505, 512 (4th Cir. 2015). Th e district court dismissed Razzak’s complaint on February 22, 2016
. Razzak filed a motion to alter or amend that was dated March 4, 2016, but was not filed in the district court until March 31, 2016

. The record does not conclusively reveal when Razzak delivered t his motion to prison officials for mailing. Razzak’s notice of appeal was dated April 18, 2016,3 well after the expiration of the appeal period , unless the motion to alter or amend tolled the start of that period. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine when the motion to alter or amend was delivered to prison officials for mailing. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this co urt for further consideration.

REMANDED
Third Amendment to Supplemental Retirement/Death Benefits Agreement



 Exhibit 10.8 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL 
 RETIREMENT/DEATH BENEFITS AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT entered into this 2nd day of January, 2002 by and between POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. (PBSJ Inc.) and The PBSJ Corporation (PBSJ Corp.), Florida corporations, with principal offices in Miami, Florida (collectively
hereinafter referred to as the “Corporations”) and John B. Zumwalt, (hereinafter referred to as the “Employee”). 
 RECITALS 
 A. The Corporations and the Employee entered into a Supplemental Retirement/Death Benefits Agreement (the
“Agreement”) dated December 17, 1987, which Agreement and subsequent Amendments dealt with the employment of the Employee for a specified period. 
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to further amend the Agreement and Amendments to reflect the current and revised understanding of the parties with respect to certain rights, obligations and benefits of the parties
under the Agreement and Amendments. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable
considerations, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Expenses During Employment, Consulting and Retirement Terms 

 Expenses formerly identified in the Second Amendment as 2. (k) Automobile lease, including insurance, tag, maintenance and repairs, and 2. (m) Country Club Membership dues and fees, will now be reimbursed by the Corporation to the
employee in accordance with the current policies of the Corporation in effect as of the date of the expense occurrence for the fifteen (15) year Consulting and Retirement term of the Agreement. Expense identified as 2. (m) Country Club
Membership dues and fees will be subject to a maximum amount of $3,600 year. 
  

	 	2.	Miscellaneous. 

 (a) Except as expressly provided
herein, the Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect without any modification or waiver of any provision thereof. 
 (b)
This Third Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws thereunder. 
 (c) The Agreement, as amended, sets forth the entire understanding of the parties as to the subjects discussed therein, and supersedes all prior understandings, commitments, agreements, whether oral or written, relating to the subject
matter thereof. 
 (d) This Third Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such counterpart shall for all purposes
be deemed an original. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their hands and seals as of the date and
year first above written. 
  

					
		 	 POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC.
 A Florida Corporation

	Attest:	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Becky S. Schaffer
	 	By:	 	 /s/ Richard A. Wickett

		 		 	Richard A. Wickett, Chairman
		
		 	THE PBSJ CORPORATION
	Attest:	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Becky S. Schaffer
	 	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Paulsen

		 		 	Robert P. Paulsen, Executive Vice President
		
		 	EMPLOYEE
		
	 /s/ Elizabeth A. Rufo
	 	 /s/ John B. Zumwalt

	Witness	 	John B. Zumwalt
**CERTIFICATION      OF LARRY POWALISZ**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

| 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:                August                3, 2007 |
|----------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                Larry                Powalisz                              |   |   |   |
| Larry                  PowaliszChief                  Executive Officer andPrincipal                  Accounting Officer                                                                                                       |   |   |        |

----
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 Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Narachi President and Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 operations of the Company.

Date: May 9, 2011



/s/ Michael A. NarachiMichael A. NarachiPresident and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10177 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RONEE WILLIAMS
,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11

- CR

- 275

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Ronee Williams has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Williams h a s not filed a response. W e have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 6, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10177 Document: 00514944499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2019No. 18

- 10177

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRA NTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-10177 Document: 00514944499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2019
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Patricia MacCorquodale, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona Board of Regents, 

Defendant. 

NO. CV-18-00028-TUC-RCC 

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN A 

CIVIL CASE 

 Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The 

issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulation 

of Dismissal with Prejudice, that this case is dismissed with prejudice. Each party will 

bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

 

 Brian D. Karth 

 District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

July 25, 2019 

 s/ MCO 

 By Deputy Clerk 

Case 4:18-cv-00028-RCC Document 48 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

Douglas Haig, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

NO. 18-mj-00105-MHB

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO COMPLY WITH RELEASE 

ORDER

*Expedited Consideration Requested*

Defendant, Douglas Haig, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests 

this Court extend his deadline to remove weapons, ammunition, reloading and ammunition 

equipment, and firearms from his possession or home forty-eight (48) hours past the current 

deadline of February 7, 2018 at 5:00 pm.

 Additional time is needed to find a person with the appropriate credentials to take 

possession of the weapons and related items. 

Undersigned counsel has been informed U.S. Pretrial Services and the Government do 

not oppose this Motion.

//

ATTORNEYS FOR FREEDOM LAW FIRM

3185 S. Price Road

Chandler, Arizona 85248

Telephone: (480) 755-7110

Fax: (480) 857-0150

Marc J. Victor – SBN 016064

Marc@AttorneysForFreedom.com

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-mj-00105-MHB Document 7 Filed 02/07/18 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

THEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court extend his deadline to 

remove weapons, ammunition, reloading and ammunition equipment, and firearms from his 

possession or home forty-eight (48) hours until 5:00 pm on Friday, February 9, 2018.

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7

th day of February, 2018.

ATTORNEYS FOR FREEDOM LAW FIRM

By: Marc J. Victor 

Marc J. Victor

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-mj-00105-MHB Document 7 Filed 02/07/18 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 February 7, 2018, I filed the Original with the Clerk of the 

Court using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to 

the following CM/CEF registrants:

Kristin Brook, Esq.

Emailed to chambers:

HONORABLE MICHELLE H. BURNS

United States District Court

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 323

401 West Washington Street, SPC 12

Phoenix, AZ 85003-2120

burns_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov

/s/ Andrea Yirak 

Case 2:18-mj-00105-MHB Document 7 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

Defendant. 

CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC (DTF) 

ORDER 

 

 The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Motion to Exceed Page Limitations (Doc. 

178), and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED the motion is Granted and the requested pleading, Motion to 

Dismiss Indictment Due to Selective Enforcement (Doc. 179) shall be filed. 

 Dated this 29th day of March, 2019. 

 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 185 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marcus LEWIS, Appellant. Marcus LEWIS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 60961, 63597.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 22, 1994.

John A. Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Defendant, Marcus Lewis, appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, for first degree assault. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty year’s. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

The evidence at trial established that defendant entered, uninvited, the Nolan’s apartment with a gun. The Nolans lived in defendant’s neighborhood and defendant had an argument with Antwine Smith, Mrs. Nolan’s son, earlier that day. Mr. Nolan grabbed the gun and pushed it upward away from his children when it fired. Mr. Nolan backed away from defendant to see if his children were alright. Defendant then shot Mr. Nolan and fled from the apartment.

*654Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion alleging that he had ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not call Shavonne Brown as a witness at trial. Defendant claimed that Shavonne Brown would have testified that Mr. Nolan hit defendant with a baseball bat prior to defendant shooting him.

In order to demonstrate that defense counsel was ineffective in not calling a witness, defendant must prove: 1) the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; 2) the witness would have testified if called; and 3) the testimony of said witness would have presented a viable defense. *Harry v. State,*800 S.W.2d 111, 115 (Mo.App.1990). Allegations in a post-conviction motion are not self-proving. *Clemmons v. State,*795 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Mo.App.1990), *cert. denied,*500 U.S. 907, 111 S.Ct. 1689, 114 L.Ed.2d 83 (1991). Defendant must prove the alleged grounds for relief by a prepon derance of the evidence. *Id.*Mere conjecture or speculation as to the potential testimony is not sufficient to establish the required prejudice. *State v. Anderson,*785 S.W.2d 596, 600 (Mo.App.1990).

In the present case, Shavonne Brown did not testify at the evidentiary hearing. In fact, the mother of the fifteen-year-old witness told defendant that she would not allow her daughter to testify. Also, defendant testified at trial that he did not know Shavonne Brown’s address and thought that she had moved out of town. Therefore, defendant’s claims as to Shavonne Brown’s testimony were mere conjecture and speculation. Defendant’s first point is denied.

Defendant also raises two claims of error relating to his direct appeal. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion on these points. Both points are denied. Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant’s judgment of conviction is affirmed. The judgment denying defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is also affirmed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.