alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27936-27937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13767]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Project 94-10]


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Petroleum Environmental Research Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 24, 1996, pursuant to 
Sec. 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Petroleum Environmental 
Research Forum Project 94-10, ``Guidelines for the Scientific Study of 
Oil Spill Effects'' has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) 
the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Sec. 6(b) of 
the Act, the identities of the parties are: Amoco Corporation, Chicago, 
IL; Atlantic Richfield Company, Los Angeles, CA; BP Oil Shipping 
Company, U.S.A., Cleveland, OH; Chevron Research & Technology Company, 
Richmond, CA; Conoco Inc., Houston, TX; Mobil Oil Corporation, 
Princeton, NJ; and Unocal Corporation, Brea, CA. Research required in 
furtherance of the project is to be carried out by: Arthur D. Little, 
Cambridge, MA; Pentec Environmental, Inc., Edmonds, EA; MEC Analytical 
Systems, Inc., Carlsbad, CA; and Owens Coastal Consultants, Bainbridge 
Island, WA.
    The area of planned activity of the joint venture is the 
development of

[[Page 27937]]

guidelines, protocols and standard operating procedures for the 
scientific study of the environmental effects of oil spills and spill 
response activities and the preparation of a report containing the 
study guidelines so developed.
    Participation in the project will remain open to interested parties 
and information concerning participation may be obtained from S.B. 
Robertson, Atlantic Richfield Co., 515 South Flower Street, Los 
Angeles, California 90071. The participants intend to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-13767 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Levi JAMES, Appellant. Levi JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 67576, 69291.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 30, 1996.

John M. Schilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Levi James, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury convicted him of second degree murder, RSMo § 565.021 (1994), and armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015 (1994). He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error in the judgment of the trial court. We further find *550the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the trial and motion court pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision is provided solely for the use of the parties involved.
#### David WACK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ARCHBISHOP OF ST. LOUIS on Behalf of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 67365.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 1, 1995.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1995.

Dallas W. Cox, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Roger Edgar, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

David Wack appeals from an order entered by the St. Louis City Circuit Court denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.
#### Leonard E. WIMMER, D.O., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DEACONESS HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a Deaconess Hospital-West Campus, a corporation, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 68634.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 5, 1996.

William K. Holland, St. Louis, for appellant.

Teresa Dale Pupillo, Roger K. Heiden-reich, St. Louis, for respondent.

*626Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Leonard E. Wimmer, appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of respondent, Deaconess Health System, d/b/a Deaconess Hospital— West Campus, on appellant’s claim for damages arising from respondent’s alleged breach of contract. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1 INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC. LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES NAME OF SUBSIDIARY (AND DOING BUSINESS AS)
    
    STATE OF INCORPORATIONIndus Group North America, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaIndus UK, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaIndus International, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomIndus International, S.A.
    
    FranceIndus International Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaIndus International Software Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeIndus International Canada, Inc.
    
    CanadaIndus International Japan, Inc.
    
    DelawareIndus APAC, Inc.
    
    DelawareWishbone Systems, Inc.
    
    New JerseyWishbone Systems GmbH
    
    Germany
EXHIBIT 8SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANYThe particulars of the Company’s principal subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 are asfollows:   **NAME OF COMPANY** **PLACE AND DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT/ OPERATION**Guangxi Airlines Company Limited (a) PRC  April 28, 1994   Southern Airlines (Group) Shantou PRCAirlines Company Limited (a) July 20, 1993   Zhuhai Airlines Company Limited (a) PRC  May 8, 1995   Xiamen Airlines PRCCompany Limited (a) August 11, 1984   Guizhou Airlines PRCCompany Limited (a) November 12, 1991   Guangzhou Nanland Air PRCCatering Company Limited (b) November 21, 1989   Guangzhou Baiyun International Logistic Company Ltd (a) PRC  July 23, 2002   Zhuhai Xiang Yi Aviation PRCTechnology Company Limited (a) July 10, 2002   China Southern West Australian AustraliaFlying College Pty Limited January 26, 1971   Xinjiang Civil Aviation PRCProperty Management Limited (a) December 12, 2002   Guangzhou Air Cargo PRCCompany Limited (a) March 31, 2004 (a) These subsidiaries are PRC limited companies. (b) This subsidiary is a Sino-foreign equity joint venture company.
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

JON M. SANDS

Federal Public Defender

J. LEONARDO COSTALES

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Louisiana State Bar# 35721

407 West Congress Street, Suite 501

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1355

Telephone: (520) 879-7500

Attorney for Defendant

Leo_Costales@fd.org

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States Of America,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Robert Francis Krebs,

 Defendant.

NO. CR-18-0263-TUC-JGZ (JR)

DEFENSE’S TRIAL BRIEF

Robert Francis Krebs, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits his trial 

brief as ordered by the Court. Doc. 106.

If permitted, See Doc. 138, the Defense will present the affirmative defense of 

insanity, arguing that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness 

of his acts as a result of having a severe mental disease or defect. See 18 U.S.C. §17(a).

If not permitted to present an insanity defense, the Defense will argue that the 

government cannot meet its burden of proving that Mr. Krebs committed the offense of 

bank robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. 
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 major evidentiary issues identified by the parties at this time have been briefed 

in motions in limine.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: February 18, 2020.

JON M. SANDS 

Federal Public Defender

/s/ J. Leonardo Costales 

J. LEONARDO COSTALES

Assistant Federal Public Defender
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 10/2018)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9

PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS(expedited) 9 9

DAILY

9 9

HOURLY

9 9

REALTIME

9 9

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

3 DAYS

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.) By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 388 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 83 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 24, 2009. 

Whereas the first Africans were brought involuntarily to the 

shores of America as early as the 17th century; 

Whereas these Africans in America and their descendants are 

now known as African-Americans; 

Whereas African-Americans suffered involuntary servitude 

and subsequently faced the injustices of lynch mobs, segregation, and denial of basic, fundamental rights; 

Whereas despite involuntary servitude, African-Americans 

have made significant contributions to the economic, educational, political, artistic, literary, religious, scientific, 

and technological advancement of the Americas; 

Whereas in the face of injustices, United States citizens of 

good will and of all races distinguished themselves with 

their commitment to the noble ideals upon which the 

United States was founded and courageously fought for 

the rights and freedom of African-Americans; 

Whereas Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. lived and died to make 

real these noble ideals; 

Whereas the greatness of the United States is reflected in the 

historic election of Barack Obama, an American of African ancestry, to the Office of the President of the United 

States of America; 
2 

•HRES 83 EH 

Whereas the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick 

Douglass inspired the creation of Negro History Week, 

the precursor to Black History Month; 

Whereas Negro History Week represented the culmination of 

Dr. Carter G. Woodson’s efforts to enhance knowledge of 

black history started through the Journal of Negro History, published by Woodson’s Association for the Study 

of African-American Life and History; and 

Whereas the month of February is officially celebrated as 

Black History Month, which dates back to 1926, when 

Dr. Carter G. Woodson set aside a special period of time 

in February to recognize the heritage and achievement of 

Black Americans: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the significance of Black History 

Month as an important time to recognize the contributions of African-Americans in the Nation’s history, and 

encourages the continued celebration of this month to 

provide an opportunity for all peoples of the United 

States to learn more about the past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped the Nation; and 

(2) recognizes that the ethnic and racial diversity of 

the United States enriches and strengthens the Nation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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 CombiMatrix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2011 (the “Report”), I, R. Judd Jessup, 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, based on my knowledge:




1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.




By:/s/ R. JUDD JESSUPR. Judd JessupChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)May 13, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, 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 to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This certification accompanies this report and is being furnished pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed “filed” by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, or incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Registrant specifically incorporates it by reference into such a filing.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15717]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research


Notice of Health Care Policy and Research; Special Emphasis Panel 
Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2) announcement is made of the following 
special emphasis panel scheduled to meet during the month of July 1996:

    Name: Health Care Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date and Time: July 10, 1996, 9:30 a.m.
    Place: DoubleTree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Conference Room 
TBA, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Open July 10, 9:30 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.
    Closed for remainder of meeting.

    Purpose: This Panel is charged with conducting the initial 
review of grant applications proposing medical effectiveness 
research. The three main areas of emphasis are: (1) Determining what 
clinical interventions are most effective, cost effective, and 
appropriate; (2) methods and data to advance effectiveness research; 
and (3) dissemination and evaluation of the impact of research 
findings on clinical practice and outcomes.
    Agenda: The open session of the meeting on July 10, from 9:30 
a.m. to 9:45 a.m., will be devoted to a business meeting covering 
administrative matters. During the closed session, the committee 
will be reviewing and discussing grant applications dealing with 
health services research issues. In accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 and 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), the Administrator, AHCPR, has made a formal 
determination that this latter session will be closed because the 
discussions are likely to reveal personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the grant applications. This information 
is exempt from mandatory disclosure.
    Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members or other relevant 
information should contact Linda Blankenbaker, Agency for Health 
Care Policy and Research, Suite 400, 2101 East Jefferson Street, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone (301) 594-1437 x1603.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: June 12, 1996.
Clifton R. Gaus,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15717 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
#### Tommy TURNBOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66675.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 28, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 2, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied June 20, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the action of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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 on Form 10-K of Northway Financial, Inc.
        (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
        President and Chief Executive Officer for the Company, certifies 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), as
                  applicable, 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.
 
 This
        certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item
        601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the
        Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934 (the “Exchange Act”). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
        this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of
        the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section,
        and (B)
        shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under
        the
        Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
        specifically incorporates it by reference.




/s/
                WILLIAM J. WOODWARDWilliam
                J. WoodwardChairman
                of the Board, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                March 24, 2006
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lamont STATON, Appellant.

No. 66847.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 16, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Lamont Staton, appeals from his conviction by jury for unlawful use of a weapon, RSMo § 571.030.1(1) (1986), in St. Louis County Circuit Court. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the claim of error is without merit. As we further find an *669extended opinion would serve no jurispru-dentiai purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
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, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

ORDER 

The Court having reviewed the Government’s Motion to Confirm Trial Subpoenas, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Confirm Trial Subpoenas (Doc. 1069).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all trial subpoenas issued for the previous trial 

dates in this case shall remain in effect for the current trial date of April 12, 2021.

Dated this 14th day of October, 2020.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1070 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 1
#### Aaron Timothy ELDER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 62909.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 10, 1993.

Janet M. Thompson, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Hugh L. Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

On May 3, 1991, pursuant to a plea bargain, movant pled guilty to four counts. He was sentenced to three years for possession of cocaine, ten years for sale of cocaine, and seven years on each of two other sales of cocaine. In his Rule 24.035 motion, movant alleges his counsel failed to furnish him copies of the informations and police reports. He also now alleges his attorney failed to investigate three alibi witnesses.

We have reviewed these allegations, the transcript of movant’s pleas of guilty, the transcript of his Rule 24.035 hearing, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. Movant was under oath at the time he pled guilty; he said (1) his attorney had done everything he had asked him to do, (2) he was fully and completely satisfied with his services, and (3) his attorney had interviewed all the witnesses.

*860The findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. No precedential value would be served by an opinion.

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).