alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April 17, 2014


 


Gillian Munson


 


Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement


 


Dear Gillian,


 


You
and XO Group Inc. (the “Company”) entered into an employment agreement dated November 12, 2013 (the “Employment
Agreement”).


 


This
amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) amends the Employment Agreement to restate the
definition of “Good Reason” to read as follows:


 


“Good
Reason” shall mean (1) any reduction of your salary below the Base Salary amount, or a material reduction of your then-current
salary rate or maximum bonus/LTIP opportunity, (2) the relocation of your principal place of business by more than 20 miles, (3)
a material diminution in your duties, authorities or responsibilities, (4) any diminution of your title as set forth in this letter,
(5) a change in the reporting structure whereby you are required to report to a Company officer other than the Chief Executive
Officer or President, or (6) a material breach of this letter agreement by the Company; provided, however, that Good Reason shall
exist only if (a) you have given written notice to the Company (specifying such circumstances in reasonable detail) within thirty
(30) days of the initial existence of the Good Reason circumstances, (b) the Company has failed within thirty (30) days of receipt
of such notice to cure such circumstances, and (c) you resign within six (6) months of the initial occurrence of the circumstances
constituting Good Reason.”


 


This Amendment may be
executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and
the same instrument.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


To
the extent not expressly amended hereby, your Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect. Please indicate your
agreement to the above terms by signing below.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	XO GROUP INC.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Michael Steib
	 	Michael Steib
	 	Chief Executive Officer


 


	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:	 
	 	 
	/s/ Gillian Munson	 
	Gillian Munson	 
	 	 
	Dated: 	April 17, 2014
TITN-2014-1-31-EX10.54






EXHIBIT 10.54




David J. Meyer
c/o Titan Machinery Inc.
644 East Beaton Drive
West Fargo, ND 58078-2648


Dear David: 


This letter agreement amends the letter agreement dated March 6, 2013, between you and Titan Machinery Inc. (the “Company”).  The paragraph entitled “Long-Term Equity Incentive” is amended as follows: 
	
			
	 
	 
	 

	Long-Term Equity Incentive:
	 
	On June 1, 2014 and on June 1 of each year thereafter, or such other date as determined by the Compensation Committee, that this letter agreement is in effect, you will be entitled to receive an equity award.  Each award shall be granted in accordance with the terms of the Company’s Equity Grant Policy.  The value of the award will be equal to your annual base salary in effect on the date of grant.  The award will be subject to such terms (including, without limitation, vesting, risk of forfeiture, or similar terms) as shall be determined by the Company’s Compensation Committee.






All other terms and provisions of the March 6, 2013 letter agreement not specifically modified or altered, or not specifically deleted in this amendment are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.


Sincerely, 


TITAN MACHINERY INC.




By:     /s/ Stanley Dardis                        
Stanley Dardis,
Chair of the Compensation Committee


I accept and agree to the amendment to the March 6, 2013 letter agreement with Titan Machinery Inc. as set forth above. 
	
			
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ David J. Meyer                                                          
	 
	March 1, 2014                                              

	David J. Meyer  
	 
	Dated
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ron Kalfus, Chief Financial Officer of MabCure Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      three month period ended March 31, 2009, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            



|By:    | /s/ Ron Kalfus                                     | 
|------ | -------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Ron Kalfus                                         | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer                            | 
|       | (Principal Financial and
      Accounting Officer) | 
|Date:  | May 13, 2009                                       | 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
cbmg_ex1027.htm


Exhibit 10.27


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 


12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20253

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

WILLIAM TOTH,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On November 18, 2009, this case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on

November 18, 2009. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s

consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by

Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3)

that the offense(s) to which Defendant pleaded guilty is(are) supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the

preparation of a presentence investigation report.

1:09-cr-20253-TLL-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 55
2

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, Defendant be adjudged guilty and sentence be imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure

to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596

(6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties are

advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections

a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security,

474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: November 18, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Roy Kranz and Eric Proschek, and served on District Judge Ludington

in the traditional manner.

Date: November 18, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:09-cr-20253-TLL-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 56
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

YAHCHANAN, a/k/a JOHN THOMPSON, No. 09-11084

Plaintiff, District Judge Bernard A. Friedman

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

FOOTE HOSPITAL, ET.AL.,

Defendants.

 /

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER DIRECTING MARSHAL’S SERVICE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of

Corrections (MDOC), has filed a pro se civil rights complaint. Before the Court at this

time is his Motion to Amend Complaint for the Purpose of Allowing Two New

Defendants to be Served by the U.S. Marshal’s Office [Docket #8].

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served....” No responsive

pleadings have been filed in this case; therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff’s motion seeks

leave to amend his complaint, it is unnecessary, and the amended complaint (attached to

Plaintiff’s motion) will be accepted for filing. However, I will construe the motion as one

for Marshal’s service on the two new Defendants: Correctional Medical Services (CMS)

and the MDOC, and GRANT the motion on that basis. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint, attached to Docket #8, shall

be docketed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within 21 days of the date of this

Order, send to the Clerk of the Court two (2) additional copies of the amended complaint,

2:09-cv-11084-BAF-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 06/17/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 164
-2-

for service by the U.S. Marshal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshal shall serve copies of

the summons and amended complaint on Defendants Correctional Medical Services and

Michigan Department of Corrections.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: June 17, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 17, 2009.

S/G.Wilson 

Judicial Assistant

2:09-cv-11084-BAF-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 06/17/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 165
#### Christopher ESTES, Claimant-Appellant, v. BOMMARITO HYUNDAI ISUZU, Employer-Respondent.

No. 70466.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 24, 1996.

Sheldon Weinstein, St. Louis, for claimant-appellant.

Steven R. Sharp, St. Louis, for employer-respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Estes appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of benefits. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.433 Filed 12/27/10 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.434 Filed 12/27/10 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.435 Filed 12/27/10 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.436 Filed 12/27/10 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.437 Filed 12/27/10 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.438 Filed 12/27/10 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.439 Filed 12/27/10 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.440 Filed 12/27/10 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.441 Filed 12/27/10 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.442 Filed 12/27/10 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.443 Filed 12/27/10 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.444 Filed 12/27/10 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.445 Filed 12/27/10 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.446 Filed 12/27/10 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.447 Filed 12/27/10 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.448 Filed 12/27/10 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.449 Filed 12/27/10 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 42-2, PageID.450 Filed 12/27/10 Page 18 of 18
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4013

To amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to extend the

Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 1996

Mr. WALKER (for himself, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. BAKER

of California, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr.

TRAFICANT, Mr. TANNER, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. DAVIS, and

Ms. LOFGREN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992

to extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research

and Public Information Dissemination program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

4 Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42

5 U.S.C. 13478) is amended in subsections (c)(5), (e)(5),
2

•HR 4013 IH

1 (g)(3)(B), (j)(1), and (l) by striking ‘‘1997’’ each place

2 it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘1998’’.

Æ
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




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.




By:
                  /s/ Rowland W. Day IIRowland
      W. Day IIPrincipal
      Executive Officer




Dated:
May 17, 2010




This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GREGORY LEWIS HOLDER, 

Petitioner, 

Case No.: 09-10973 

v. Hon. Thomas L. Ludington 

CATHERINE S. BAUMAN, Warden, 

Respondent. 

__________________________________/ 

MOTION AND COMBINED BRIEF FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

NOW COMES Petitioner Gregory Holder, by and through his attorney, S. Allen 

Early, and pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. Pro., hereby moves for entry of a 

default judgment in its favor for the reason that Respondent has failed to respond to 

Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus by November 13, 2009, as previously ordered in 

this matter. 

On March 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus with this Court. 

On May 7, 2009, Magistrate Judge Whalen entered an Order Requiring Responsive 

Pleading to be filed by Respondent by November 13, 2009. Respondent has not filed a 

responsive pleading. 

The Petition for Habeas Corpus in this matter clearly lays out the ineffectiveness 

of trial counsel and the due process violation which occurred in this case when 

Petitioner entered an involuntary plea as a result of misrepresentations made to 

Petitioner by his attorney regarding what the sentence was going to be in this matter. 

Case 1:09-cv-10973-TLL-SDP Document 8 Filed 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 2
2 

Rule 55(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. Pro., provides for entry of default judgments in civil 

matters. Habeas Corpus Rule 11 provides that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

may be applied when appropriate to the extent that the rules are not inconsistent with 

any statutory provision or the habeas corpus rules. Also see Rule 81(a)(4), Fed. R. Civ. 

Pro. 

The misrepresentation regarding sentence in this case is clear error. Petitioner’s 

conviction should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial. 

WHEREFORE Petitioner does respectfully request that the Court grant a default 

in favor of Petitioner, vacate the conviction and order a new trial, or order such other 

relief as is fair and just. 

LAW OFFICE OF S. ALLEN EARLY 

 /s/ S. Allen Early 

S. ALLEN EARLY (P13077) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1480 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 962-2320 

Dated: November 20, 2009 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served via CM/ECF, this 20th day of November, 2009, upon all counsel of record. 

 /s/ S. Allen Early 

S. ALLEN EARLY (P13077) 

 Counsel for Petitioner 

Dated: November 20, 2009 

Case 1:09-cv-10973-TLL-SDP Document 8 Filed 11/20/2009 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATSY N. SAKUMA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT 

OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT 

WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by 

its board of directors; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16791 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00274-DKWKJM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 

(“RICO”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16791 

review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 

F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the 

record, Thomson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Sakuma’s action was proper because Sakuma failed to allege 

facts sufficient to state a plausible RICO claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a 

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for 

relief); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 

(9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a civil RICO claim).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sakuma’s motion to file supplemental excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 

40) is granted and the docket reflects that the supplemental excerpts of record have 

been filed. All other pending requests and motions are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-122126; Form S-3 No.333-119016; and Form S-3 No. 333-128893) of Jameson Inns, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated March 4, 2005, except for Note 13, as to which the date is March 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedules of Jameson Inns, Inc. included in this Form 10-K/A. 

 

/s/ Ernst& Young LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

December 19, 2005
* 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 December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50351 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISIDRO CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-789-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Isidro Castro raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.