alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Release Date: March 31, 2010*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 8.2     | 8.1                    | 7.6                                |
| 6.9     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
| 6.6     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.7     | 6.8                    | 6.5                                |
| 6.2     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.0     | 6.1                    | 5.9                                |
| 6.0     | 6.2                    | 5.9                                |
| 6.1     | 6.2                    | 5.9                                |
| 5.9     | 6.1                    | 5.9                                |
||
| 8.5     | 8.2                    | 7.7                                |
| 7.4     | 7.2                    | 6.7                                |
| 7.1     | 6.9                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.0     | 6.9                    | 6.5                                |
| 6.7     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.5     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.6     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.6     | 6.6                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.5     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
||
| 8.3     | 8.4                    | 8.4                                |
| 7.5     | 7.6                    | 7.7                                |
| 6.6     | 6.8                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.8     | 7.3                    | 7.1                                |
| 5.5     | 5.9                    | 5.8                                |
| 5.7     | 6.1                    | 6.0                                |
| 5.9     | 6.5                    | 6.5                                |
| 5.9     | 6.5                    | 6.6                                |
| 5.9     | 6.3                    | 6.2                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NEXTEC APPLICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BROOKWOOD COMPANIES, INC.,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant.

______________________ 

2012-1670, -1685

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 07-CV-6901, Senior 

Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

NAGENDRA SETTY, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & 

Hampton, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were STEPHEN 

S. KORNICZKY, EDWARD V. ANDERSON, and MICHAEL 

MURPHY. Of counsel was DANIEL NICHOLAS YANNUZZI, of 

San Diego, California. 

DARYL L. JOSEFFER, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With 

him on the brief were KAREN F. GROHMAN; ADAM M.
 

CONRAD, of Charlotte, North Carolina; ETHAN HORWITZ, of 

New York, New York; and MARY KATHERINE BATES, of 

Atlanta, Georgia. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, Chief Judge, MAYER, and CHEN, 

Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 November 18, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 28, 2016

p1212

Order 

Clerk

December 28, 2016

153190(52)

VALERIE HAMMOND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 153190

COA: 322889

Michigan Compensation Appellate

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Commission: 13-000060

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 6, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30527 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. M I CHAEL TE RRANCE P RAT HER D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 5: 07- C R

- 50087- 1
B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * M i c hae lTe r r anc e Pr at he rpl e ad e d gui l t y t o a s i ngl e c o unti ndi c t m e nt cha rgi n g h i m w i t h bei n g a fel on i n possess i on of tw o R u ger f

i rearm s. Prather has ap pe al e d hi s s e nt e nc e , c o nt e ndi ng t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y de nyi ng th e G ov ern m en t’ s m oti on to red u ce h i s off en se le v e l b y o n e leve lpu rsu a n t t o U
. S. S. G
. § 3 E1. 1(b)
. Pr at h er contends t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tha ve t he d is c r e tio n to d e n yth e re d u c tio n u n d e rth e cir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is ca s e . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30527

2 B eca u se P r a th er’ s ar gu m en ts i n the distri ct cou rt w ere n ot su ff i ci en t t o pu tt h e di st ri ctcourton n o tice of t h e basi s of

t h e argu m en the h as rai sed on a p p e a l, o u rr e v ie w is fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. D u h on , 541 F. 3d 391, 396 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. A l t h ou gh w e ha ve concl u ded t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt c o m m itt e d a cle a ro ro b v io u s e r r o r , s e eUni t e d St at e s v . O ut l aw , 319 F. 3d 701, 7 0 5 -0 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), a n dUn itedS ta tes v. T ello , 9 F
. 3d 111 9, 112 3- 28 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 3 ), a n d th a t P r a th e r ’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e r e a ffe c te d , s e e Uni t e d S t at e s v. Pri ce , 51 6 F
. 3 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 9 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ), w e dec l i n e t o exe rcise ou r d i scre ti on to c o r r e c tt he e r r o rb e c aus e t he e r r o rdi d no ta f fe c tt he fai r ne s s o ri nt e gr i t y o f t he ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s in lig h t o f P r a th e r ’ s o b s tr u c tio n o f ju s tic e . S ee D u h on , 541 F
. 3 d a t3 9 6 . T h e j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.
#### James R. YOCOM, Commissioner of Labor, etc., et al., Appellants, v. James W. CREECH and Workmen’s Compensation Board of Kentucky, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 9, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1974.

Gemma M. Harding, Louisville, Robert D. Hawkins, Dept, of Labor, Frankfort, Richard D. Cooper, Hazard, for appellants.

G. Wix Unthank, Harlan, Robert B. Berger, Pineville, for appellees.

Appeal from Harlan Circuit Court; Ray O. Shehan, Special Judge.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by Commissioner CULLEN, Reversing.*
#### The State, ex rel. The Cygnet Savings Bank Co., *v.*Village of South Euclid et al.

(No. 24670

Decided July 10, 1935.)

*Messrs. Harris d& Christicm,*for relator.

*Messrs. Morgan, Landfear S Baskin*and *Mr. Frank T. Cnllitan,*prosecuting attorney, for respondents.

It is ordered and adjudged that the writ of mandamus prayed for be, and the same is hereby, allowed *133on authority of *State, ex rel. Bruml,*v. *Village of Brooklyn,*126 Ohio St., 459, 185 N. E., 841.

*Writ allowed.*

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

Williams and Day, JJ., not participating.
#### Paul ABNEY v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 20, 1973.

Paul Abney, pro se.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., J. T. Frank-enberger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Kenneth A. Howe, Jr., Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion

PER CURIAM,

Affirming.*

*

 Opinion ordered not to be published.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

REVISED January 7, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10556

Summary Calendar

LOUISE RHODES

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL; THOMAS STANTON,

Senior Attorney

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

USDC No. 3:05-cv-2402

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Louise Rhodes appeals the dismissal of her claim against the

United States Office of Special Counsel. The district court adopted the Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated

May 22, 2008, and dismissed the case as to the defendant the United States

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10556

2

Office of Special Counsel, finding that Appellant lacked standing and

accordingly, that the federal court was without jurisdiction to entertain the

claim. The District Court then entered a final judgment as to this defendant.

At its core, Appellant’s claim stems from an asserted breach of an oral

settlement agreement which she claims was reached in a previous claim that she

had againstthe Internal Revenue Service. The purported settlement agreement

was recorded in proceedings initiated by her against the IRS before the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission. But it is clear that Appellee has no

connection to the alleged settlement agreement or any breach. Nor did the

officer purported to have made the agreement for the IRS represent Appellee or

have any connection with Appellee. Appellee is an independent federal agency

and obviously is not part of the IRS or the EEOC. It is clear that any injury

complained of is not fairly traceable to any action or activity of the defendant

United States Office of Special Counsel. Because Appellant failed to show

standing, the District Court correctly dismissed the case as to this defendant for

lack of jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the District Court essentially for

the reasons set out in the Magistrate’s Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation dated May 22, 2008.

AFFIRMED.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 11, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.103 Nonfarm Noncorporate Business** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Incentra  Solutions,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the period ended March 31,  2006,  as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Paul
McKnight, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:    May 15, 2006                           By:  /s/ Paul McKnight
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Paul McKnight
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

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

This  certification   accompanies  each  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6535

NICHOLAS E. CARDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00171-LMB-JFA) Submitted: June 16, 2008 Decided: July 11, 2008 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas E. Carden, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nicholas E. Carden moves for a certificate of appealability, seeking to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. In addition, we deny Carden’s motions for appointment of counsel and for relief audita querela, his “Motion to Request Order from Court to Consider Petition,” and all other pending motions. 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. DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - 13 CFR Parts 121, 125, 127, and 134
          - RIN 3245-AF40

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration (SBA).

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Small Business Administration is correcting a Final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 1, 2008. The Final rule amends the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations governing small business contracting programs to set forth procedures that will govern the new Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Federal Contract Assistance Procedures as authorized in the Small Business Act. This notice will correct the                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         section of the rule.                    

# DATES:

Effective October 16, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Koppel, Assistant Director, Policy, Planning and Research, Office of Government Contracting, (202) 205-6460.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. E8-23138 appearing on page 56940 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Wednesday, October 1, 2008 (73 FR 56940), the following correction is made:                

                    1. On Page 56940, revise the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     section to read as follows:                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Koppel, Assistant Director, Policy, Planning and Research, Office of Government Contracting, (202) 205-6460.

Calvin Jenkins,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Government Contracting and Business Development, Associate Administrator/Disaster Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E8-24602 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 15.2





Consent of GLJ Petroleum Consultants








GRAPHIC
LETTER OF CONSENT
Principal Officers:

Harry Jung, P. Eng.

President, C.E.O.

Dana B. Laustsen, P. Eng.

Executive V.P., C.O.O.

Keith M. Braaten, P. Eng.

Executive V.P.



Officers / Vice Presidents:

Terry L. Aarsby, P. Eng.

Jodi L. Anhorn, P. Eng.

Leonard L. Herchen, P. Eng.

Myron J. Hladyshevsky, P. Eng.

Bryan M. Joa, P. Eng.

Mark Jobin, P. Geol.

John E. Keith, P. Eng.

John H. Stilling, P. Eng.

Douglas R. Sutton, P. Eng.

James H. Willmon, P. Eng.
 
 
 Mr. G. Stapleton, Chairman of the Board of Directors
 And Chief Executive Officer
 MegaWest Energy Corp.
 Suite 902, #105 150 Crowfoot Crescent NW
 Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3G 3T2
  Re:           MegaWest Energy Corp.
 
 Gentlemen:
  You have informed us that you intend to file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission an annual report for the year ended April 30, 2010 (the “Annual Report”) and are seeking our written consent to include references to our report on the oil reserves of MegaWest Energy Corp. dated April 12, 2010, effective as of April 30, 2010 (the “GLJ Report”) that we prepared at your request.
  We confirm that we consent to the inclusion of our name in the Annual Report and to references to the GLJ Report in the Annual Report.
  This consent is given only with respect to the Annual Report, and is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, a consent to use the GLJ Report for any other purpose without our prior written consent.
  
 Yours truly,GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.ORIGINALLY SIGNED BYJodi L. Anhorn, M. Sc., P. Eng.Vice-President
 
 November 15, 2010
 Calgary, Alberta Canada
  
 4100, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2 ● (403) 266-9500 ● Fax (403) 262-1855 ● GLJPC.com
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1928 

To amend section 1977A of the Revised Statutes to equalize the remedies 

available under that section. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. DODD, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. 

OBAMA, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend section 1977A of the Revised Statutes to equalize 

the remedies available under that section. 

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 ‘‘Equal Remedies Act 

5 of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EQUALIZATION OF REMEDIES. 

7 Section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

8 1981a) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (b)— 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1928 IS

1 (A) by striking paragraph (3); and 

2 (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as 

3 paragraph (3); and 

4 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘section—’’ 

5 and all that follows through the period, and insert6 ing ‘‘section, any party may demand a jury trial.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 16, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.222 Consumer Credit** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5512

- 17T4

ROBERT J. TRIFFIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

YUM & CHILL MIL L TOWN TB, LLC,

Defendant

- Respondent

,

and

RUPAL D. PATEL and NIRAV MEHTA,

Defendants.

______________________________

Argued December 4, 2019

– Decided

Before Judges Haas and Enright.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. DC

- 0 18657

- 17.

Robert J. Triffin argued the cause pro se.

Respondent ha s not filed a brief.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.

December 13, 20192 A

- 5512

- 17T4

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Robert J. Triffin appeals from the June 18, 2018 order dismissing

his complaint against defendants Yum & Chill Milltown TB, LLC, Rupal D.

Patel, and Nirav Mehta (collectively defendants) following a bench trial. The

judge found that Triffin failed to esta blish his claim that defendants were liable

to him for the face amount of a check they issued to an employee that was

subsequently dishonored by a bank. 1

On appeal, Triffin asserts the judge erred in dismissing his complaint

against defendants, and presen ts the following contentions:

POINT ONE

THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN HE RULED AFTER TRIAL THAT A TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO A PAYROLL SERVICE PROVIDER SATISFIES ITS OBLIGATIONS TO A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

POINT TWO

THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN HE ASSUMED MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

1 Triffin purchased the dishonored check from a check cashing company that assigned its right to seek payment of the check to him.3 A

- 5512

- 17T4 POINT THREE

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN HE ASSUMED THE CRITICAL FACT, THAT YUM & CHILL'S CO

- DEFENDANT JOHNSON WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED[] THAT SHE FIRST ELECTRONICALLY DEP OSITED HER PAYROLL CHECK BEFORE CASHING IT WITH TRIFFIN'S ASSIGNOR.

Having considered Triffin's contentions in light of the record and

applicable legal principles, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.