alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cavanaugh *v.*Pritchard.

(No. 25182

Decided May 15, 1935.)

*Messrs. Harrington, Huxley & Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Manchester, Ford, Bennett S Powers,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on the ground stated by the Court of Appeals in its journal entry that reasonable minds must conclude that there is no evidence in the record of negligence on the part of defendant in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Williams, J., dissents.
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2 02 4-0 609 LT Case No. 20 13
- 102539 -CFDL

_____________________________ J OSHUA I. M ARTINEZ , Appella nt, v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee .

_____________________________ 3.800 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Randell H. Ro we, III, Judge. Joshua I. Martinez, Mayo, pro se. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Talla hassee, and Mitchell Sanders, Assistant Attorney Genera l, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. August 27, 2024 P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . W ALLIS , S OUD , and P RATT , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
#### John PATTON v. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE.

8 Div. 136.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

RICE, Judge.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02476-RPM

BANNOCK STREET CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

40/86 MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

_____________________________________________________________________

The plaintiff Bannock Street Center Limited Partnership claims a breach of a

mortgage loan application/commitment, attached to the complaint as Exhibit A, by

anticipatory repudiation evidenced by the tender of loan documents that contain terms

inconsistent with the terms of the commitment and seeks return of $243,000.00 paid as

a commitment fee. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(6). The plaintiff filed its response and the defendant filed a reply. Because the

complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting the claim, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is denied.

DATED: December 9th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02476-RPM Document 10 Filed 12/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02520-RBJ-KMT

PROFESSIONAL BULL RIDERS, INC.,

A Colorado corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,

v. 

STERLING PRODUCTIONS, L.P.,

A North Carolina limited partnership,

Defendant/Counter Claimant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM

______________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER, having come before the Court upon Stipulation for Dismissal with 

Prejudice of Defendant’s Counterclaim, and the Court being fully advised thereon:

HEREBY ORDERS the motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s Counterclaim is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice.

Done this 4

th day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT

__________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02520-RBJ Document 54 Filed 02/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Sixtus CAMPDON, Appellant, v. Guy C. HOLLIDAY and Mildred F. Miller, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Sept. 17, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 4.10**

 

**PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION**

 
| Principal Amount: | $1,500,000 |   |   | Original Note Date: October 31, 2003 |
|-------------------|------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|

 

FOR VALUERECEIVED, PHOTONIC PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., a New Jersey corporation (hereinaftercalled "Issuer"), hereby promises to pay to the order of CLAREX, Ltd.and its successors and assigns (hereinafter called the "Holder"), atsuch address as the Holder may designate in writing to Issuer, the principalsum of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDERED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000) plus all accruedinterest owing hereunder in lawful money of the United States of America on orbefore the Maturity Date (as defined below). For purposes of this Note, "Maturity Date" shall be extendedfrom December 31, 2008 to April 1, 2009.

 

At the option ofCLAREX, Ltd., the note and all accrued interest owing at the time of maturitymay be repaid in lawful money of the United States of America and/or acombination of shares of the Common Stock of Photonic Products Group, Inc. asproscribed under the terms of the Note.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Issuer hascaused this Note Extension to be signed in its name by its duly authorizedofficer and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto.

 
|   |   | PHOTONIC PRODUCTS GROUP, INC. |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |   |                          |   |
|   |   |                          |   |
|   |   | By:                           | /s/William J. Foote |
|   |   |                          | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |                          |   |
|   |   | Date:                         | February 15,  2008 |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1319 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1319

To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for the district 
                  of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2007

 Mr. Inouye (for himself and Mr. Akaka) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for the district 
                  of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship.

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

SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO PERMANENT JUDGESHIP FOR 
              THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII.

    (a) In General.--The existing judgeship for the district of Hawaii 
authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 
(28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5089) shall, as of 
the date of enactment of this Act, be authorized under section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, and the incumbent in that office shall 
hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as 
amended by this Act.
    (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of 
title 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in the total 
number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a result of 
subsection (a) of this section, the item relating to Hawaii is amended 
to read as follows:

 
 
 
  ``Hawaii.............................  4''.

                                 <all>
```
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-5 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of Case 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 16 Filed 09/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

2
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 82-5 filed 11/18/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of Case 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 16 Filed 09/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

2
##### 



EXHIBIT 8

SUBSIDIARIES OF MILLEA HOLDINGS, INC.*

|                                                                  |  |                  |                    |  |       |   |       |  
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------- | ------------------ |  | ----- | - | ----- | -
|                                                                  |  | Jurisdiction of  |                    |  |       |  
|Name of Subsidiary                                                |  | Incorporation    | Ownership Interest
|                                                                  |  |                  |                   
|The Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Limited              |  | Japan            |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|The Nichido Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Limited            |  | Japan            |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|The Tokio Marine Life Insurance Company, Limited                  |  | Japan            |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|The Nichido Life Insurance Company, Limited                       |  | Japan            |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|Tokio Marine Asset Management Co., Ltd.                           |  | Japan            |                    |  | 97.5  | %
|The Tokio Marine Career Service Company, Limited                  |  | Japan            |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|Trans Pacific Insurance Company                                   |  | New York, U.S.A  |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|The Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Limited                         |  |                  | U.K                |  |       |   | 100.0 | %
|Tokio Marine Global Re Limited                                    |  | Ireland          |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|The Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. |  | Singapore        |                    |  | 80.0  | %
|The Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company
(Hong Kong) Limited   |  | Hong Kong, China |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|Tokio Marine Brasil Seguradora S.A.                               |  | Brazil           |                    |  | 91.3  | %
|Tokio Millennium Re Ltd.                                          |  | Bermuda          |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|Nichido Investment (Luxembourg) S.A.                              |  | Luxembourg       |                    |  | 100.0 | %
|Tokio Marine Financial Solutions Ltd.                             |  | Cayman Islands   |                    |  | 100.0 | %



---

|* |  | As of March 31, 2003.
|- |  | ---------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-RM-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 24, 2013.

Before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff to Judge Moore, which the Court has construed as

a motion for assistance of counsel and for access to subpoenas [filed June 7, 2013; docket #89].

First, to the extent the Plaintiff seeks the assistance of volunteer counsel, the Court has already

granted Plaintiff’s request and his case has been placed on a list seeking volunteer counsel. This is

the Plaintiff’s second request for assistance since the Court’s March 28, 2013 order granting his

original request; the Court reminds the Plaintiff that it can do no more than place his case on a list

of cases from which volunteer counsel may choose to represent a pro se party. The Plaintiff’s

motion in this respect is denied.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff states that he has requested the issuance of ten (10) subpoenas

from the Clerk of the Court; however, there is no indication in the record that the Plaintiff has made

any such request. The Plaintiff may do so by separate motion.

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 92 Filed 06/24/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action: 11-cv-02557-CMA-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402

Date: June 7, 2012 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties: Counsel:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

David Andrew Winston

Stephanie Struble

v.

BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY,

LLC,

Defendant.

Joshua B. Kirkpatrick

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 9:18 a.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

The court addresses the parties regarding the previously held scheduling conference on 12/20/2012;

the plaintiff’s Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #10 Scheduling Order , Joint MOTION for

Extension of Time to Designate Expert Witnesses (Docket No. 14, filed on 2/21/2012), the

plaintiff’s Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Designate Experts and to Extend the

Discovery Cut-Off (Docket No. 17, 4/27/2012), and the defendant’s Unopposed MOTION for

Extension of Time to Designate Experts and to Extend the Discovery Cut-Off (Docket No. 21, filed

on 6/5/2012).

Discussion regarding why the parties are seeking a third extension, what written discovery has been

served, retained experts and how much has been done with them, the progress of taking depositions,

and the exploration of settling this case. 

ORDERED: The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the defendant's Unopposed

MOTION for Extension of Time to Designate Experts and to Extend the Discovery

Cut-Off (Docket No. 21, filed on 6/5/2012). The court shall extend the discovery cut

date to August 17, 2012. The court shall not move the dispositive motions deadline.

Case 1:11-cv-02557-CMA-CBS Document 24 Filed 06/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Mr. Kirkpatrick seeks clarification from the court as to whether the court is also granting the

requested extension to the experts deadline and the rebuttal experts deadline. The court advises Mr.

Kirkpatrick that it will also grant these requests. 

ORDERED: The designation of all expert witnesses shall be extended to June 26, 2012. The

designation of rebuttal experts shall be extended to July 20, 2012.

HEARING CONCLUDED.

Court in recess: 9:36 a.m.

Total time in court: 00:18

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303)

825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Case 1:11-cv-02557-CMA-CBS Document 24 Filed 06/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No. 11-PO-00149-DLW 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. MARK L. HALPER,

Defendant.

 

ORDER

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

Before deciding Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Engagement of Expert Witness [Doc. #33];

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant shall complete a new Financial Affidavit

which will be reviewed in Court with the Defendant being present before the Magistrate Judge at

103 

Sheppard Drive, Room 235, Durango, Colorado 81303 on May 21, 2012 at 3:00 p.m.

DATED: May 11, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-po-00149-DW Document 34 Filed 05/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
815 N.J. 953

#### IN THE MATTER OF MAURY R. WINKLER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

February 13, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-308, concluding that MAURY R. WINKLER of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.15(negligent misappropriation and commingling of funds), *RPC*1.15(d), and *Rule*1:21-6 (recordkeeping deficiencies), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MAURY R. WINKLER is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### Charley Dawson WELSH v. GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.

No. 2937.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 21, *1947.*

Brumfield & Hebert, of Baton Rouge, and W. T. Bennett, of Clinton, for appellant.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Fuller, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion in the'consolidated cases of Welsh v. Gulf States Utilities Company and Dunn et al. v. Gulf States Utilities Company, La.App., 32 So.2d 723, this day handed down, the judgment appealed from in the above entitled cause is hereby affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02439-RPM

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 455,

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,

a labor organization,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in the

Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Denver,

Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of Scheduling Order which

may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx (Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch

Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions (Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original

only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers by 4:00 p.m. on January 5, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or representatives of

parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: November 9th , 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02439-RPM Document 10 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
## In the Cour t of Appeals Second Appell ate District of Texas at Fort Worth

______ _____________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00405

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 415th District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV17

- 0924
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### R.W., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se A ppellant L. A.W. and Appell e e L.M.W. were named R.W. ’ s join t managing conservators in their 2018 divorce decree

. Two years later, L.A.W. filed a petition to modify the parent

– child relat ionship , and L.M.W. filed a counter petition.
The trial court has entered temporary o rders in the modification suit but has not yet
h eld a final trial

. L. A.W. admits in her reply brief that “ [a] final hearing has not been
held in the suit to mod ify the parent

– ch ild relationship

. ” She states that she is seek ing an interlocutory appeal of the trial court ’ s temporary orders. 1 Such tempora ry orders are not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 105.001(e) ; In r e J.W.L. , 291 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, orig. proce eding [mand. denied ] ) ( “ Generally, Texas appellate courts only have appellate jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments unless a statute specifically allows a particular typ e of inte rlocutory appeal. ” ); see also In re Derzap f

, 219 S.W. 3d 327, 335 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proc eeding) ; In re Berryman , 629 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2020, orig. proceeding )

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal fo r want of jurisdi ction.

1 Although we usually giv e a n appellant ten days to e xplain how we have jurisdiction over an appeal when it appears that she is attempting to bring an impermissible interlocutory appeal , we do n ot thin k further explanation is necessary here because L.A.W. has specifically stated t hat she is attempting to bri ng an interlo c utory appe al of t he trial court ’ s temporary orders

.3 /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Ju stice
Delivered: November 4, 2021
March 24, 2000

Ms. Elsie L. Rose
United States Company, Inc.
1051 Technology Park Drive
Glen Allen, VA 23060

Envirometrics, Inc.
9229 University Boulevard
Charleston, SC  29401

     Re: 111,648 Shares of Series B Preferred Stock of Envirometrics,  Inc. (the
"Company") Held By United States Company, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to our Agreement of June 30, 1998, (the  "Agreement,"  Paragraphs 10-24
of which are fully incorporated  herein by reference and ratified and reaffirmed
in their  entirety by the  undersigned),  we hereby  notify you of our intent to
convert the  above-referenced  shares of Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Stock")
to  Envirometrics  Common Stock (the  "Common  Stock") at a ratio of 5 shares of
Common Stock for one share of Preferred Stock.  Kindly effect this conversion on
the tenth day  following  your receipt of this notice or as soon  thereafter  as
practicable.

We are enclosing  herewith any Certificate(s) we hold representing the Preferred
Stock. If you are holding any  Certificate(s)  representing the Preferred Stock,
you are hereby  instructed  to cancel same upon the issuance of the Common Stock
to us.

With regard to any dividends which have accrued on the Preferred  Stock, you are
hereby  instructed  to issue  Common  Stock to us in lieu of such  accruals at a
price of $0.40 per  share.  We  understand  that no  fractional  shares  will be
issued, and shares will be rounded off to the nearest whole number.

We represent  that: (a) we have  familiarized  ourselves with the affairs of the
Company,  and we are  aware of the  Agreement  for the  Exchange  of Stock  (the
"Catapult  Agreement")  between  the  Company and The  Catapult  Group,  Inc. of
Atlanta,  GA; (b) we have  received and  reviewed a copy of the  Catapult  press
release dated March 13, 2000 which refers to the Catapult Agreement;  and (c) we
are aware that the Company  intends to effect a split of the Common  Stock prior
to the closing of the  Catapult  Agreement at a ratio of one new share of Common
Stock being issued for every ten shares then outstanding.


Sincerely yours,
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1188

JIBRIL L. IBRAHIM , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. VIZIO, INC.; SELF STORAGE PLUS; HOMELAND SECURITY; MARK DOE, DC Police Officer; PAUL DOE, Police Officer; NATE DOE, DC Police Officer; KAREN DOE, DC Police Officer; CHIEF ROBERT CONTEE, D.C. Chief of Police; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE MAYOR; OFFICE OF POLICE COMPLAINTS , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court f or the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. ( 8:22

- cv - 00462

- GJH )

Submitted : August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.
Jibril Luqman Ibrahim , Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Alan Sampson , SAUL EWING LLP , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Vizio, Inc.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1188 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jibril Luqman Ibrahim appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Vizio, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and dismissing as frivolous Ibrahim’s complaint as to all defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) . On appeal, we confine our review to t he
issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ibrahim ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1188 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2