alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
178 La. 111

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. DUNLAP.

NO. 32391.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Nat W. Bond, City Atty., and Henry B. Curtis, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

*848ROGERS, Justice.

The defendant, John Dunlap, was convicted in the First recorder’s court of the city of New Orleans of violating Ordinance No. 1436, N. O. S., entitled “An Ordinance relative to vagrants, dangerous and suspicious persons, bunco steerers, confidence men, notorious thieves, and those who harbor or maintain same.” Under his conviction defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $25, or in default of payment of the fine to suffer imprisonment for a period of thirty days.

Defendant appealed from his conviction and sentence on the general allegation that the ordinance under which he is being prose* cuted is violative of the state and federal Constitutions.

The city of New Orleans has moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the constitutionality of the ordinance was not questioned nor presented in the court below.

As the record fails to show that there was any contestation in the recorder’s court as to the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance in question, the appellate jurisdiction of this court does not attach. State v. Tsni Ho, 37 La. Ann. 50; State v. Romano, 37 La. Ann. 98; State ex rel. Lamarque v. Burthe, 39 La. Ann. 341, 1 So. 656; State v. Clesi, 44 La. Ann. 85, 10 So. 409; State v. Deffes, 44 La. Ann. 581, 10 So. 812; State v. Hennessey, 44 La. Ann. 805, 11 So. 39; City of New Orleans v. Reems, 49 La. Ann. 794, 21 So. 599. See, also, Minden v. McCrary, 108 La. 518, 32 So. 468.

For the reasons assigned, appellee’s motion is sustained, and the appeal herein is dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL E. ROMERO

In re: ) 

 ) Case No. 03-12994 HRT 

DAVID A. MASCIO, d/b/a ) 

DM capital, inc., Mascio Asset ) 

Management, Inc., Mascio Asset ) 

Management, LLC; and ) 

MONICA L. MASCIO, ) 

 ) Chapter 7

 Debtors. ) 

_______________________________________ ) 

 ) 

PAUL GRONEWOLLER and ) Adversary No. 03-1482 MER

GRONEWOLLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

DAVID A. MASCIO, d/b/a DM Capital, Inc., ) 

Mascio Asset Management, Inc., ) 

Mascio Asset Management, LLC; and ) 

MONICA L. MASCIO, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME

This matter, having come before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Stipulated Motion for 

Extension of Time, and good cause appearing for the motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including November 30, 2011, to file additional documents. 

 Dated this 7th day of November, 2011 BY THE COURT:

 

Michael E. Romero 

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 

BY THE COURT: 

Case 1:11-cv-02678-CMA Document 7 Filed 11/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON

Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera

Court Reporter: Tamara Hoffschildt

Date: February 17, 2012

Interpreter: Ruth Warner

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00386-RBJ-1 

Parties:

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ-FLORES, 

Defendant.

Counsel:

Lillian Alves

Edward Pluss

SENTENCING MINUTES

10:01 a.m. Court in session.

Appearances of counsel. Probation Officer Sue Heckman present.

Defendant is present in custody.

Defendant pled GUILTY to Count One of the Indictment on November 18, 2011.

Statement by the Government as to Request for Variance in Guideline Sentence Pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Statements by Mr. Pluss, defendant and the government as to sentencing.

ORDERED: United States’ Motion for 1-Level Variance in Defendant’s Offense Level for

Acceptance of Appellate Waiver Doc.# [18] is GRANTED.

ORDERED: Motion for Leave to Late File Motion for Downward Variance Doc.# [22] is

GRANTED.

Case 1:11-cr-00386-RBJ Document 24 Filed 02/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED: Request for Variance in Guideline Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is

DENIED.

Statement by the Court regarding defendant's offense level, criminal history level and sentencing

guidelines range.

Court states its findings and conclusions.

ORDERED: Defendant shall be imprisoned for a term of EIGHT (8) months.

Court RECOMMENDS that defendant receive credit for 154 days spent in custody.

ORDERED: No term of supervised release is imposed.

ORDERED: Defendant shall pay $100 to Crime Victim Fund (Special Assessment), to be

paid immediately.

ORDERED: No fine is imposed because defendant has no ability to pay a fine.

ORDERED: Defendant is REMANDED to the custody of the U.S. Marshal.

10:22 a.m. Court in Recess. 

Hearing concluded.

Total Time: 00:21

Case 1:11-cr-00386-RBJ Document 24 Filed 02/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41322

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

JERRY CRAIG TUDEHOPE

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 652

Filed: August 7, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy Hansen , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respon dent.

________________________________________________

GUITIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jerry Craig Tudehope was convicted of robbery , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 6501, 18

- 6502. The

district court imposed a unified thirty

- year sentence with fifteen years determinate

. Tudehope

filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Tudehope appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 84 5, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffm an , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our2 review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we apply the same criteria used for

determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde , 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740

P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez , 106 Idaho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at 871

- 73. Upon review of

the record, including any new information submitted with Tudehope’s Rule 35 motion, we

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying

Tudehope ’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement Nos. 333-31275, 333-65331, 333-69669, 333-69663, 333-69659, 333-86475, 333-88311, 333-88307, 333-88309, 333-31702, 333-44226, 333-66396, 333-69456, 333-69458, 333-70916, 333-104236, 333-117486 and 333-134248 on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement Nos. 333-40969, 333-38920, 333-38922, 333-70902 and 333-119044 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 13, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule of CardioDynamics
International Corporation appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CardioDynamics International Corporation for the year ended November 30, 2007.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.
|San Diego, California        

February 25, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24140]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11449 and <greek-i>11450]


Indiana Disaster Number IN-00026

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1795-DR), dated 09/23/
2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 09/12/2008 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 10/03/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/24/2008.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/23/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to:U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance,U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Indiana, dated 09/23/2008 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):
    Clark, Crawford, Dearborn, Jackson, Knox, Lawrence, Martin, Pike, 
Spencer, Switzerland.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):Indiana:
    Brown, Daviess, Dubois, Franklin, Gibson, Greene, Monroe, Ohio, 
Orange, Perry, Sullivan, Warrick.
Illinois:
    Crawford, Lawrence, Wabash.
Kentucky:
    Boone, Daviess, Gallatin, Hancock, Oldham.
Ohio:
    Butler, Hamilton.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-24140 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
814 A.2d 627

#### IN THE MATTER OF GARY S. FRIEDMANN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 036541984)

February 4, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-006, concluding that GARY S. FRIEDMLANN of MOORESTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years for violating *RPC*1.8(a) (improper business transaction with client), *RPC*3.1 (asserting a frivolous claim), *RPC*3.3(a)(1) (false statement of material fact to a tribunal), *RPC*8.1(a) (false statement of material fact to disciplinary authorities), and *RPC*8.4(e) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that prior to reinstatement to practice respondent should be required to demonstrate that he has successfully completed twelve hours of courses in professional responsibility;

And GARY S. FRIEDMANN having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GARY S. FRIEDMANN is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, and until the further Order of the Court, effective March 1, 2003; and it is further

ORDERED that prior reinstatement to practice, respondent shall submit proof to the Disciplinary Review Board and the Office of Attorney Ethics that he has successfully completed twelve hours of courses in professional responsibility approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

*158ORDERED 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 be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### CENTURY TRANSIT CO. v. KASPRZAK.

No. 6575.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Nov. 26, 1937.

*193D. T. Stackhouse, of Camden, N. J., for appellant.

Samuel P. Orlando, and Louis B. LeDuc, both of Camden, N. J., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, THOMPSON, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case it appears that Stanislaw Kasprzak was first appointed administrator ad prosequendum of Joseph Kasprzak and later appointed bonded administrator. In the former capacity he brought suit in a state court against the Century Transit Company to recover damages sustained by his decedent by reason of the alleged negligence of the Transit Company. He recovered a judgment for $9,000. Later it was adjudged bankrupt in the court below, whereupon the.administrator ad prosequendum presented a claim for allowance of the judgment as a preferred claim. The court below denied the allowance as a preferred claim, but allowed it as a common claim, stating that the judgment “is hereby allowed as a common claim against the said debtor’s estate, though disallowed as a secured or prior claim, and that the filing by the administrator ad pros, is approved.” Whereupon the trustee in bankruptcy took this appeal, and the question involved, as stated by him pursuant to our rule, is: “Where a judgment is1 recovered against a corporation under the New Jersey ‘Death Act’ [2 Comp. St.N.J.1910, pp. 1907, 1911, §§ 7, 9, and Comp.St.Supp.N.J.1924, §§ 55 — 8, 55 — 10] by an administrator ad prosequendum of a' decedent, appointed pursuant to such act, and the defendant in such judgment files a petition under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act [as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207 and note] may such administrator ad prosequendum file a claim in that capacity with the 1 trustee of the defendant debtor and have such filing approved and the claim allowed by the Court?”

The New Jersey Death Act, Comp.St. Supp.N.J.1924, § 55— 10, provides: “Every ' action, proceeding or claim brought, instituted or made under and by virtue of the remedy given by the act to which this is a supplement shall be brought, instituted ór made in the name of an administrator ad prosequendum of the' decedent whose death gives rise to the claim under the act to-which this act is a supplement.”

The question before the court was the right of the administrator ad prosequendum to present the claim and not whether he was to receive the money awarded. Clearly, the court committed no error. Its construction of the act was right and it had support in the reasoning of New Jersey court decisions. Devlin v. Herr, 98 N.J.L. 324, 119 A. 871; Pavignamo v. Atlantic Casualty Co., 184 A. 614, 14 N.J.Misc. 280. So regarding, the decree of the court below is affirmed.’
_________________________________________ 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 2, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly Rehearing No. 529 Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

6 Nov 2006 

126530-1 

MICHIGAN CHIROPRACTIC COUNCIL, 

MICHIGAN CHIROPRACTIC SOCIETY, 

Petitioners-Appellees, 

 SC: 126530-1 

v COA: 241870, 241874 

Ingham CC: 01-093481-AA 

COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF 

FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICE, 

Respondent, 

and 

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and 

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Intervenors-Respondents-Appellants. 

In this cause, a motion for rehearing is considered and it is DENIED. 

Weaver and Markman, JJ., would grant rehearing. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 2, 2006 

 Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02656-MSK-MJW

BRIAN M. GROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE M. VICALVI, 

Defendant.

 

FINAL JUDGMENT

 

In accordance with all orders previously filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Electronic Order filed on April 16,2013 adopting the Recommendation

issued by the Magistrate Judge to dismiss the case due to plaintiff’s failure to appear and

prosecute, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Watanabe (Doc. #94) is

ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #14) is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16(f) and/or D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 based upon the plaintiff’s failure to appear, failure to

prosecute, and failure to comply with this court’s orders, and the case is closed. It is further 

ORDERED that the defendant is AWARDED its costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of the

Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 18th day April, 2013.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Edward Butler 

Edward Butler, Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02656-MSK-MJW Document 97 Filed 04/18/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

As an accompaniment to the Annual Report of MainSource Financial Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Donald A. Benziger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

o    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
o    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
     as of and for the periods presented.

This certification is based on inquiries that I have made, or have caused to be
made, in a good faith effort on my part to be a responsible and competent chief
executive officer serving the Company and its many constituencies.

This certification merely accompanies and is not part of the Report, shall not
be deemed filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and may not
be used for any purpose other than compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


/s/  Donald A. Benziger
------------------------
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00407-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EDWIN LEHI, JR.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

A Sentencing hearing is set for Tuesday, March 27, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., in

Courtroom A-1002.

Based on the recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States

in Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 556 (Dec. 10, 2007) and Kimbrough v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (Dec. 10, 2007), all motions for variance, downward

departure, upward adjustment, and for any sentence outside the advisory

guideline range shall be filed not later than fourteen (14) days prior to sentencing. 

Responses to these motions shall be filed not later than seven (7) days prior to

sentencing hearing.

Motions for acceptance of responsibility and motions to dismiss

counts/indictment, and proposed orders as to these motions, shall be filed not

later than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the date of sentencing. Proposed orders

shall also be electronically submitted to the chambers e-mail account. This deadline

does not in any way alter or affect deadlines for the filing of objections or other

pleadings established pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

There will be no exceptions to this policy, and sanctions may be imposed

for failure to comply.

 Dated: December 21, 2011.
#### Rose N. STRAUS, Transferee, etc., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 6424.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 19, 1937.

George T. Altman, of Chicago, 111., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before EVANS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for respondent, and upon consideration of the certificate of the clerk of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, it is now here ordered and adjudged that this cause be docketed in this court and that the petition of Rose N. Straus, Transferee, Estate of Simon J. Straus, for a review of the decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, entered therein on May 25, 1935, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
EXHIBIT
99.2
  To Whom
it May Concern:
  I, John
Kinross-Kennedy, hereby consent to the inclusion of information contained in my
valuation report dated August 16, 2008, relating to a valuation of Balqon
Corporation, a California corporation, in any reports filed by Balqon
Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, including the  Company’s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 and the Company’s Registration
Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-156446), and any amendments and/or
supplements thereto.  I also hereby consent to any reference to myself
under the caption "Experts" in the above-referenced filings, including the above
mentioned Registration Statement.
  Sincerely,/s/
      John Kinross-KennedyName:
      John Kinross-Kennedy
                  Date:
      March 30, 2009
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23







                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Comptek Research, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-54170, 33-82536, and 333-11437) on Form S-8 and in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-2387 and 33-6959) on Form S-3 of Comptek Research, Inc. of
our report dated May 6, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Comptek Research, Inc, and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1997, and
related schedule, which reports appear in the March 31, 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of Comptek Research, Inc.

                                                         KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Buffalo, New York
June 25, 1997
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1916** 

SCOTT M. DAWLING , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. SHAMROCK ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00198

- CCE

- LPA )

Submitted : November 19, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and W YNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Scott M. Dawling, Appellant Pro Se. Jillian McConnell Benson, James Marion Powell, WOMBLE CARLYLE & SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Scott Dawling appeals the denial of relief in this action claiming race and age discrimination under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Age Discrimination i n Employment Act
. W e have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dawling v. Shamrock Envtl. Corp. , No. 1:12

- cv - 00198

- CCE

- LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2012, and July 1, 2013). 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
#### KELLY v. KELLY.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.