alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT No. 1


TO


STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


(Under the HyreCar Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive
Plan)


 


This Amendment No. 1
to Stock Option Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made with reference to that certain Stock Option Agreement (the
“Agreement”), by and between HyreCar Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and the
Participant of the Company’s 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) listed below. Capitalized terms used
herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the
parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the potential acceleration of vesting requirements for awards made under the
Plan in the event of a Change in Control; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant
to Section 10(g) of the Agreement, the Agreement may only be amended by a written instrument signed by the parties.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally
bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1. The
following is inserted at the end of the Section of the Agreement titled “Vesting Schedule; Accelerated Vesting:”


 


In the event
that a Change in Control occurs, then:


 


(a) any
unvested or unexercisable portion of any Option carrying a right to exercise shall become fully vested and exercisable; and


 


(b) the
restrictions, deferral limitations, payment conditions and forfeiture conditions applicable to an Option granted under the Plan
shall lapse and such Options shall be deemed fully vested and any performance conditions imposed with respect to such awards shall
be deemed to be fully achieved at target performance levels.


 


2. Acknowledgement.
The parties acknowledge that except for the amendment expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions
of the Agreement shall be unaffected hereby and remain in full force and effect. The parties reaffirm, ratify and confirm
their respective obligations, covenants and agreements under the Agreement.


 


	 	HYRECAR INC.
	 	 
	Date: ____, 2019	
	 	

	 	Name: 	 
	 	Title:	 
	 	 
	 	PARTICIPANT:
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Name:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas L. Attard

v. Civil No. 06-cv-355-PB

Jean Benoit, et al

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

August 11, 2008 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Paul McEachern, Esq.

Martha Van Oot, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00355-PB Document 42 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1506

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize the annual enrollment

of land in the wetlands reserve program, to extend the program through

2005, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. PICKERING (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. HAYES, Mr.

PHELPS, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. LEACH, Mr. THOMPSON of

Mississippi, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr.

BEREUTER, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. DICKS, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. JOHN, Mr.

CUNNINGHAM, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. WICKER, Mr. TURNER, Mr. STUPAK,

Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. BURR of North Carolina, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. WATKINS,

Mr. REGULA, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. CALVERT, Mr.

WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, and Mr. ROSS)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize the

annual enrollment of land in the wetlands reserve program, to extend the program through 2005, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1506 IH

1 SECTION 1. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

2 (a) ANNUAL ENROLLMENT AUTHORITY.—Section

3 1237(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.

4 3837(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and insert5 ing the following new paragraph (1):

6 ‘‘(1) ANNUAL ENROLLMENT AUTHORITY.—For

7 calendar years 2001 through 2005, the Secretary

8 may enroll up to 250,000 acres annually in the wet9 lands reserve program.’’.

10 (b) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 1237(c) of

11 such Act (16 U.S.C. 3837(c)) is amended by striking

12 ‘‘2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2005’’.

13 (c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—Section 1237F of

14 such Act (16 U.S.C. 3837f) is amended—

15 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub16 section (c); and

17 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol18 lowing new subsection (b):

19 ‘‘(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—Notwithstanding

20 chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary

21 may enter into a cooperative agreement for the acquisition

22 of goods or services, including personal services, with a

23 State, a political subdivision or agency of a State, a public

24 or private agency, an organization, or any other person,

25 without regard to any requirements for competition, if the

26 Secretary determines that—
3

•HR 1506 IH

1 ‘‘(1) the objectives of the agreement will serve

2 a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in

3 wetland conservation;

4 ‘‘(2) all parties will contribute resources to the

5 accomplishment of the objectives; and

6 ‘‘(3) the agreement will further the purposes of

7 this subchapter.’’.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Ronald STALVEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6233.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 24, 2003.

Decided Aug. 25, 2003.

George Ronald Stalvey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

George Ronald Stalvey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Stalvey,*No. CA-90-190-C-MU (W-D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### HOOPER v. HARPER.

No. 7220.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1948.

G. P. Bullís, of Vidalia, for apellant.

Smith & Taliaferro, of Harrisonburg, and Philip Watson, of St. Joseph, for apel-lee.

HARDY, Judge.

This is an ejectment suit in which judgment was rendered *in*favor of plaintiff, and from which defendant has suspensively appealed.

Careful examination of the very imperfect and unsatisfactory record before us in this case fails to disclose any basis which would serve to fix appellate jurisdiction. The lease which is incorporated in the record, and which covers a tract of some 200 acres of land, more or less, located in Con-cordia Parish, Louisiana, contains the following provisions with respect to the payment of rent:

“In cash, or by certified or cashier’s check payable to the order of the Treasurer of the United States, at the office of the Farm Security Administration in Jones-ville, La., an amount equivalent to the market value of the shares of the agricultural commodities produced on the Property specified in the following table:

> “25 percent of the 1946 cotton crop

> “25 percent of the 1946 Corn crop

> “25 percent of the 1946 Hay crop.”

It is well settled that the monthly or yearly rent paid under a lease is the test of jurisdiction. Cunningham v. Middleton, 4 La.App. 643; Tobias v. Schloss, 5 La. App. 234.

Since the record is devoid of any information as to the value of the crop rentals fixed in the lease, we have no guide for a determination as to whether the appeal properly lies before this or the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, it is ordered that this case be, and it is, remanded to the Plonorable Seventh Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Concordia, State of Louisiana, for the purpose of taking testimony or the entering of a stipulation fixing the jurisdictional amount involved. Assessment of costs of appeal are to await final determination hereof.

TALIAFERRO, J., recused.
y y

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


August 23, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 443 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on August 22, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-231497) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO              


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54140-54141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21609]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: On September 11, 2008, a 30-day notice published a comment 
period notice in the Federal Register, (Page 52848, Column 3) for the 
information collection, ``Leveraging Educational Technology to Keep 
America Competitive: National Teacher Technology Study.'' In that 
notice 2,300 responses and 750 burden hours were provided. This 
correction notice provides the correct number of responses as 3,285 and 
882 burden hours. The IC Clearance Official Regulatory Management 
Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.


[[Page 54141]]


    Dated: September 11, 2008.
Angela C. Arrington,
IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, 
Office of Management.
[FR Doc. E8-21609 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 1 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 2 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 3 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 4 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 5 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 6 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 7 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL     Document 88      Filed 07/20/2009     Page 8 of 8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTINE R. DUNKOWSKI,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 401 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of December, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        1,039
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        5,489
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   9,814
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        3,429
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          3,315
<LOANS>                                     120,947
<ALLOWANCE>                                     659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              146,801
<DEPOSITS>                                  117,884
<SHORT-TERM>                                  2,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             593
<LONG-TERM>                                  11,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        108
<OTHER-SE>                                   14,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              146,801
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               7,068
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               838
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              7,906
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            3,651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            4,210
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         3,695
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   126
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               3,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               1,036
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    1,036
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    630
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.71
<LOANS-NON>                                     355
<LOANS-PAST>                                    191
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                582
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    53
<RECOVERIES>                                      4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               659
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            659
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hypertherm, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-373-JD

American Torch Tip Company

Procedural Order

In the order issued on July 24, 2008, the court directed the

parties to file a notice specifying the parts of pending motions

that had been resolved or changed by that order. The parties

filed a joint notice on August 18, 2008, that specified which

parts they agreed were changed by the order and also their issues

of disagreement, largely based on ATTC’s then-pending motion to

reconsider the July 24 order. As the motion for reconsideration

has now been denied, the grounds for ATTC’s differing positions

would appear to have been resolved.

Therefore, the parties shall file a joint notice on or

before November 26, 2008, clearly specifying the parts of pending

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 364 Filed 11/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

 motions that have been resolved or changed in any respect by the

July 24, 2008, order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 19, 2008

cc: Jill C. Anderson, Esquire

Jacob Baron, Esquire

Steven Abuer, Esquire

Lucas Blower, Esquire

Seth Cannon, Esquire

Joseph Capraro, Jr., Esquire

Christopher Carney, Esquire

Jeffery Cross, Esquire

Joseph Dattilo, Esquire

Ami Gandhi, Esquire

Maia Harris, Esquire

Marc Kallish, Esquire

Rhett Krulla, Esquire

Jonathan Lax, Esquire

Richard Nelson, Esquire

W. Scott O'Connell, Esquire

Jeremy Oszek, Esquire

Richard Rochford, Jr., Esquire

David Ruoff, Esquire

John Skeriotis, Esquire

Benjamin Stern, Esquire

Wayne Tang, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 364 Filed 11/19/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1490

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the definition

of homebound with respect to home health services under the Medicare

Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. KING, Mr.

MCDERMOTT, Mr. HOLT, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. BALDACCI,

Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. RILEY, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs. MINK

of Hawaii, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. SANDLIN,

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. GORDON, Mr. INSLEE, Mr.

REYES, Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify

the definition of homebound with respect to home health

services under the Medicare 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homebound Clarifica5 tion Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1490 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF HOME2 BOUND.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 1814(a) and 1835(a) of

4 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a); 1395n(a)),

5 as amended by section 507(a)(1)(B) of BIPA (114 Stat.

6 2763A–532), are each amended by striking the last two

7 sentences and inserting the following: ‘‘Any other absence

8 of an individual from the home, including any absence for

9 the purpose of attending a religious service, shall not so

10 disqualify the individual.’’.

11 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—(1) The fifth sen12 tence of such sections 1814(a) and 1835(a), as amended

13 by section 507(a)(1)(A) of BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A–532),

14 is amended by striking ‘‘leave home,’’ and inserting ‘‘leave

15 home and’’.

16 (2) Such section 1814(a) is further amended by mov17 ing the sixth sentence, as added by section 322(a)(1) of

18 BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A–501), to the end of that section.

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

20 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact21 ment of section 507(a) of BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A–532).

22 (d) REFERENCES TO BIPA.—In this section, the

23 term ‘‘BIPA’’ means the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP

24 Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (appen-
3

•HR 1490 IH

1 dix F, 114 Stat. 2763A–463), as enacted into law by sec2 tion 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106–554.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-156-02-PB

Troy Cote

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. 

Mr. Cote was with Ms. Cote when she made her call

threatening the confidential informant (“CI”) and participated in

the background. There is probable cause to believe he engaged in

a conspiracy to make a threatening communication and obstruction

of justice. There are no combination of conditions which would

assure the safety of the CI. The conditions of release are

revoked. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

Case 1:06-cr-00156-PB Document 14 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 2
2

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 12, 2007 

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Tony Soltani, Esq.

 R. Brian Snow, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00156-PB Document 14 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Jesus Gerardo MURILLO-CONTRERAS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Thomas PITTMAN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-15838.

D.C. No. CV-99-0616-JMR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies appellant’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner Jesus Gerardo Murillo-Contreras appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his *Bivens*action, alleging, *inter alia,*the defendants used excessive force during his arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Jackson v. City of Bremerton,*268 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Murillo-Contreras contends that his arrest constituted kidnaping, endangerment and unlawful detention by the defendants. The district court properly dismissed these claims without prejudice because success on the merits would necessarily imply the invalidity of Murillo-Contreras’ conviction. *See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park,*159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (citing *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); *see also Beezley v. Fremont Indem. Co.,*804 F.2d 530, 530 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (noting that the court may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record).

Murillo-Contreras next contends that the district court did not consider the merits of defendants’ summary judgment motion and improperly based its ruling on his failure to file a timely response. The record belies this contention. Even though Murillo-Contreras did not file a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district court considered the evi*751dence in the light most favorable to him and addressed at length the merits of the motion.

The district court properly concluded that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Murillo-Contreras presented no evidence showing that the defendants’ use of force during his arrest was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. *See Jackson,*268 F.3d at 651-53 (applying reasonableness analysis to conclude that officers did not use excessive force).

AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We grant Murillo-Contreras' motion to file a late reply brief but we find the arguments lacking in merit.