alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11

                 SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
            STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                 QUARTER ENDED      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                  MAY 5,   APRIL 29,        MAY 5, AP
RIL 29,
                                 2001      2000      2001      2000
                               --------   -------  --------  --------

NET EARNINGS
  Basic net earnings           $  10,123  $ 13,781  $ 18,678  $ 24,948
  Add:  Distributions on
   Preferred Securities,
   net of tax                      1,584     1,329     2,086     1,817
                               ---------  --------   -------   -------

  Diluted net earnings            11,707    15,110    20,764    26,765
                               =========  ========   =======   =======

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
 OUTSTANDING
  Basic weighted average common
   shares outstanding             26,652    27,350    26,663    27,324
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed conversion of
   Preferred Stock                 4,578     3,964     3,107     2,784
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed exercise of options       363     1,000       345     1,049
                                --------  --------  --------  --------

  Diluted weighted average
   shares outstanding             31,592    32,314    30,116    31,157
                                ========  ========  ========  ========

NET EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Basic                         $    .38  $    .50  $    .70  $    .91
                                ========  ========  ========  ========
  Diluted                       $    .37  $    .47  $    .69  $    .86
                                ========  ========  ========  ========
220 So.2d 258

#### David Earl TRAMMELL v. STATE.

6 Div. 645.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 13, 1969.

McCollough & McCollough, Birmingham, for petitioner.

*720MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

LAWSON, Justice.

Petition of David Eárl Trammell for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Trammell v. State, 44 Ala.App. 681, 220 So.2d 258.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL' and HARWOOD, JJ„ concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,     Respondent     v.   BASIL BROOKS,     Petitioner 

No. 192 EAL 2015   Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6032 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6032

 To take certain Federal lands located in Siskiyou County, California, 
  and Humboldt County, California, into trust for the benefit of the 
                  Karuk Tribe, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2021

 Mr. Huffman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To take certain Federal lands located in Siskiyou County, California, 
  and Humboldt County, California, into trust for the benefit of the 
                  Karuk Tribe, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Katimiin and Ameekyaaraam Sacred 
Lands Act''.

SEC. 2. LAND HELD IN TRUST FOR THE KARUK TRIBE.

    (a) In General.--In recognition of the historical use and ongoing 
relationship between the Karuk Tribe and the Katimiin and Ameekyaaraam 
tracts of land in the ancestral territory of the Karuk Tribe, 
administrative jurisdiction of these tracts of land are hereby 
transferred from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the 
Interior and held in trust for the benefit of the Karuk Tribe, subject 
to valid existing rights.
    (b) Land Description.--The land taken into trust pursuant to 
subsection (a) is the approximately 1,031 acres of Federal land located 
in Siskiyou County, California, and Humboldt County, California, and 
generally depicted as ``Proposed Area'' on the map titled ``Katimiin 
AreaBoundary Proposal'' and dated 08-09-2021, including improvements 
and appurtenances thereto.
    (c) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall complete a 
survey of the land taken into trust under subsection (a).
    (d) Use of Land.--
            (1) In general.--Land taken into trust under subsection (a) 
        shall be used only for traditional and customary uses for the 
        benefit of the Karuk Tribe.
            (2) Gaming.--Class II and class III gaming under the Indian 
        Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) shall not be 
        allowed on the land taken into trust under subsection (a).
    (e) Wild and Scenic Rivers Management.--The fact that the land 
described in subsection (b) is held in trust for the benefit of the 
Karuk Tribe shall not affect the status or administration of any 
component of the national wild and scenic rivers system, including 
components located on such land.
                                 <all>
```
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00168

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.A.R. , et al. From the 57th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009

- PA

- 01606 Honorable David A. Berchelmann, Jr. , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2011
DISMISSED A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on March 3 , 20 11 . The clerk of the court notified the appellant in writing that our records did not reflect that the filing fee in the amount of $17 5 was paid. On March 17, 2011, appellant’s attorney filed a Motion to Withdraw, stating that the trial court determined appellant is not indigent and, therefore, not entitled to representation by appointed counsel. Appellant’s attorney further stated that he had notified the appellant in writing t hat the filing fee was due. On March 22, 2011, we ordered appellant to file written documentation within fifteen days of the date of our order establishing that the filing fee has been paid. We cautioned appellant that a failure to respond would result i n04

- 11

- 00168

- CV

- 2

- the dismissal of this appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 5, 42.3(c). Appellant failed to respond to our order; therefore, this appeal is dismissed. See id

. PER CURIAM
#### Arthur VANMOOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1242.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2002.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, BRYSON and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
H. R. 6427 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the boundary 

of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Red River National Wildlife 

Refuge Boundary Modification Act’’. 

SEC. 2. RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION. 

Section 3(a)(1) of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act 

(Public Law 106–300; 114 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ‘‘map 

entitled ‘Red River National Wildlife Refuge—Selection Area’, dated 

September 5, 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘map entitled ‘Red River National 

Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary’ and dated March 21, 2022’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF CASH FLOWS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,364,316
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     10,391
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         369,834
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        15,048
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  71,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,831,038
<COMMON>                                       277,629
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            384,976
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 662,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           527,104
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 900
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  11,125
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    8,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 621,304
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,831,038
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      317,605
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            22,903
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     249,548
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     272,451
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         45,154
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,911
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  49,065
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        12,949
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,116
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   36,116
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        15,711
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       10,763
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        (40,354)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 600219

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee

v.


### CAMERON M. SEMETA Lance Corporal (E

- 3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

_________________________ A ppeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel Peter S. Rubin, USMC

. For Appellant : Commander Suzanne M. Lachelier, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 15 September 2016

_________________________ Before CAMPBELL , RUGH and HUTCHISON

, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the con vening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6484-6485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1940]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[DoD-2006-OS-0030]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency is deleting a system of 
records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
March 5, 2008 unless comments are

[[Page 6485]]

received which result in a contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Freedom of Information and Privacy 
Office, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, 
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Brenda Carter at (703) 767-1771.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register 
and are available from the address above.

    Dated: January 30, 2008.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Deletion

HDTRA 004

System name:
    Nuclear Weapons Accident Exercise Personnel Radiation Exposure 
Records (August 24, 2005, 70 FR 45592).

Reason:
    The Defense Threat Reduction Agency does not have a mission 
requirement to maintain these records. However, these records are 
maintained under the DoD System of Records F044 AF SG O, United States 
Air Force Master Radiation Exposure Registry. Published in the Federal 
Register on November 18, 2003, in Volume 68, Page Number 65042.

[FR Doc. E8-1940 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TIMOTHY QUINN RODEHEAVER, SR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 171 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Rosie Heimbinder, Appellant, *v.*Daniel Sullivan, Respondent.

Second Department,

December 30, 1908.

Court—jurisdiction of Municipal Court, city of Mew York — allegations not raising question of title.

A defendant, sued in the Municipal Court of the city of New York for the recovery of earnest money paid on a contract to sell lands, does not show that a question of title is involved so as to oust that court of jurisdiction by merely alleging that the plaintiff refused a conveyance on the ground that the defendant could not give a marketable title or convey according to the terms of the contract and that “ violations of the tenement house department ” were on file against the premises.

An issue as to whether incumbrances affect the marketability of a title does not involve a question of title.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Rosie Heimbinder, from two orders of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Brooklyn, rendered on the 22d and 30th days of September, 1908, respectively.

*H. Cook,*for the appellant.

*Clarence B. Campbell,*for the respondent.

*590Gaynor, J.:

This is an action to recover back the amount paid by the vendee to the vendor on a contract of sale of real estate. The defendant filed an answer professing to state facts showing that the title to real estate will come in question, as permitted by section 179 of the Municipal Court Act, so as to oust that court of jurisdiction; whereupon an order of discontinuance was entered. The plaintiff moved to have this order vacated and the cause restored to the calendar, which was denied, and an appeal is taken from both orders. '

The answer does not state facts showing unequivocally that title to real estate will come in question, as it had to do to be of any effect. It states that the plaintiff refused to accept the deed of conveyance tendered by the defendant under the contract, “ claiming that the defendant did not have a good and marketable title to said premises and could not give a deed of the same; that he could not convey under the terms of the contract and that there were violations of the tenement house department on file against the said premises”. It does not appear unequivocally from this that the dispute was about the title, *i. e.,*the ownership of the land, but rather about a question of encumbrance, which is not a dispute about the title *(Smith*v. *Riggs,*2 Duer, 622; *Collins*v. *Adams,*15 Civ. Proc. Rep. 384). The defendant may have the title, and yet may not be able to convey what is called a “ good and marketable title”, or “under the terms of the contract”, but only because of some encumbrance, and the question of an encumbrance is not a question of title.

The orders should be reversed and the ease tried.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Orders of the Municipal Court reversed and the case directed to be tried, costs to abide the event.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6432 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to limit the use of business 

integrity and reputation factors in determining the eligibility of a retail 

food store or wholesale food concern to be approved to accept and 

redeem supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2022 

Mr. TRONE (for himself, Mr. KATKO, Mr. CORREA, and Mr. MEIJER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to limit 

the use of business integrity and reputation factors in 

determining the eligibility of a retail food store or wholesale food concern to be approved to accept and redeem 

supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SNAP Second Chance 

5 Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6432 IH

1 SEC. 2. BUSINESS INTEGRITY AND REPUTATION UNDER 

2 SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

3 PROGRAM. 

4 Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

5 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2018(a)(1)(B)) is amended— 

6 (1) in clause (v), by inserting ‘‘, in accordance 

7 with clause (ii)’’ before the period at the end; 

8 (2) by redesignating clauses (i) through (v) as 

9 subclauses (I) through (V), respectively, and indent10 ing appropriately; 

11 (3) in the matter preceding subclause (I) (as so 

12 redesignated), by striking ‘‘In determining’’ and in13 serting the following: 

14 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In determining’’; 

15 and 

16 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(ii) TREATMENT OF CRIMINAL CON18 VICTIONS UNDER BUSINESS INTEGRITY

19 AND REPUTATION.— 

20 ‘‘(I) DEFINITION OF CRIME OF

21 FINANCIAL FRAUD OR DECEPTION.— 

22 In this clause, the term ‘crime of fi23 nancial fraud or deception’ means a 

24 crime involving— 

25 ‘‘(aa) fraud; 

26 ‘‘(bb) bribery; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6432 IH

1 ‘‘(cc) embezzlement; or 

2 ‘‘(dd) a false statement in— 

3 ‘‘(AA) a private loan 

4 application; or 

5 ‘‘(BB) an application 

6 for a Federal loan or other 

7 Federal financial assistance. 

8 ‘‘(II) TREATMENT.—In consid9 ering the business integrity and rep10 utation of the applicant under clause 

11 (i)(V), a conviction of an applicant 

12 shall be taken into account only if the 

13 conviction is for— 

14 ‘‘(aa) a crime of financial 

15 fraud or deception under Fed16 eral, State, or Tribal law, that 

17 occurred during the 5-year period 

18 preceding the date of application, 

19 or 

20 ‘‘(bb) a crime under section 

21 15 of this Act.’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 6432 IH

1 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

2 Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to 

4 carry out the amendments made by section 2. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DE Z HO NG T I AN , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70144 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 047- 161 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , P A E Z , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e z hong T i an, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED APR26 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70144 2 j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f ors ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e the ag en cy’ s factu al fi n d i n g s, ap p l yi n g th e n ew st an d ard s g o v ern i n g ad v erse c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n s c r e a te db yth e R e a l I D A c t. Sh restha v. H older , 590 F . 3 d1 0 3 4 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A r e a s o n ab lyc o n c lu d e dT ian ’s te s tim o n yw a s n o n - r e s p o n s iv e to s e v e r a l q u e s tio n s , ap p e ar e dto b e m e m o r iz e d , an dla c k e dd e ta il r e g ar d in g h is r e lig io u s p r a c tic e in th e U n ite dS ta te s . See i d. a t1048 ( a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng re as on abl e und ert ot al i ty of c i rc um st ance s) . T here fore , the re cord do es no tcom pel th e c o n c lu s io n T ian w a s c r e d ib le . See D on v. G on zales , 4 7 6 F .3 d7 3 8 , 7 4 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2007) . I n the abs e nc e of c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , T i an’ s a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. See Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). F i na l l y , s ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a l of C A T pr ot e c t i on be c aus e T i an’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on the s a m e s t a t e m e nt s the a ge nc yf ound not c r e d ib le , an dth e r e is n o o th e re v id e n c e in th e r e c o r dth a t w o u ldc o m p e l af in d in g it is m o r e lik e lyth an n o t h e w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif r e tu rn e dto C h in a . See i d. a t1156- 5 7 . A cco rd i n g l y, T i an ’ s C A T cl ai m fai l s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.