alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANKLIN C ARL PAULUS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF EDUC ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15620 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00903-GMNVC F M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Franklin C arl Pa

ulus a p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m a ry judgm e nt in his a c tion c ha lle n ging the De pa rtm e n t of Educ ation’ s de nia l of his re que s t to disc ha

rge his fe d e ra l ly

gua rante e d stude nt loa

ns. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Law re n c e v . De p’t of Inte rior , 525 

# F IL ED DEC 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).F.3d 916, 920 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t the Highe r Educ at ion Te c hnic a l Am e ndm e nts of 1991 (“ HETA” ), 20 U.S.C . § 1091a , a pplie s to Pa

ulus’ s e duc ationa l loa

ns, a nd tha t M ic higa n’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions doe s not a

pply to the De pa rtm e nt’ s de bt c olle c tion e fforts a ga inst Pa ulus. Se e 20 U.S.C . § 1091a (a )(2) (the Unite d State s m ay

at a ny tim e bring a

n a c tion for there pa

ym e nt of a

loa n obta ine d unde r Title IV of the Highe r Educ at ion Ac t a nd a ssigne d to the De pa rtm e nt); Unite d State

s v . Phillips , 20 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th C ir. 1994) (HETA re troa c tive ly

a brogate d a ll sta

tute s of lim ita

tions on a c tions to c olle c t de fa ulte d fe de ra lly gua rante e d stude nt loa

ns). W e do not c onside r Pa

ulus’ s a rgum e nts re ga

rding the Ex Post Fa c to C la use and the Te nth Am e n dm e nt be c a use the y we re ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 5 6 2 0 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

d0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144134-5(101)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144134-5

COA: 292793, 292794

Allegan CC: 08-016032-FH

TROY LAVAUGHN JONES, JR., 08-015991-FH

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 23, 

2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                              BIG CITY RADIO, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS                   SIX MONTHS
                                                             ENDED JUNE 30,                ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                      ----------------------------  -----------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>
                                                          1999           1998            1999           1998
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
Net loss............................................  $  (6,540,000) $  (5,459,000) $  (12,755,000) $  (8,745,000)
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding--basic:
  Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding.....................................     14,069,275     13,988,913      14,069,275     13,982,253
Dilutive effect of stock options after application
  of treasury stock method..........................             --             --              --             --
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding.......     14,069,275     13,988,913      14,069,275     13,982,253
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
Net loss per share:
  Basic and dilutive (a)............................  $       (0.46) $       (0.39) $        (0.91) $       (0.63)
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
                                                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
</TABLE>

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

(a) In calculating diluted earnings per share, no potential shares of common
    stock are to be included in the computation of diluted earnings per share
    when a loss from continuing operations available to common stockholders
    exists. For the three and six months ended June 30, 1999 and 1998, the
    Company had a loss from continuing operations.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peabodys Coffee Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicted below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:


     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
          materials  respects,  the financial condition and results of operation
          of the Company.



February 23, 2004               By: /s/ Todd Tkachuk
                                   ---------------------------
                                   Todd Tkachuk
                                   President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                   Chief Financial Officer
- 1 -

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01758-SPL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HADOUS|CO. PLLC 

Nemer N. Hadous, AZ #027529

1204 E. Baseline Road, Suite 102

Tempe, Arizona 85283

P: (602) 492-4432

F: (888) 450-0687

nhadous@hadousco.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Elena Noguero

CHAMI LAW FIRM

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Elena Noguero

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elena Noguero,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A; TransUnion LLC; 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; and 

Equifax Information Services, LLC. 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01758-SPL

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Elena Noguero 

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Equifax 

Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) that Plaintiff’s claims against Wells Fargo and 

Equifax in the above-captioned action be and hereby are dismissed with prejudice. Each 

Party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred herein. There are no 

remaining Defendants in this case.

Case 2:15-cv-01758-SPL Document 55 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01758-SPL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: May 23, 2016 CHAMI LAW FIRM

By: /s/David A. Chami ’ 

David A. Chami, (AZ #027585)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Elena Noguero

Dated: May 23, 2016 SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P

By: /s/ Jacob C. Jones

Jacob C. Jones (AZ #029971)

One Arizona Center

400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202

P: (602) 382-6562; F: (602) 382-6070

E: jcjones@swlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Equifax Information Services, LLC

Dated: May 23, 2016 SNELL &WILMER, L.L.P

By: /s/ Jennifer A. Stevens

Jennifer A. Stevens (AZ 024655)

One Arizona Center

400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202

P: (602) 382-6000; F: (602) 382-6070

E: jstevens@swlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case 2:15-cv-01758-SPL Document 55 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01758-SPL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 23, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all 

attorneys of record in this matter. Since none of the attorneys of record are non-ECF 

participants, hard copies of the foregoing have not been provided via personal delivery or 

by postal mail.

/s/ Florence Lirato 

Case 2:15-cv-01758-SPL Document 55 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Brian Dunbar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/brian-dunbarnasa-gov\/","title":"Accessibility at NASA","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wybf2HLVG4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/accessibility\/\">Accessibility at NASA<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/accessibility\/embed\/#?secret=wybf2HLVG4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Accessibility at NASA” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wybf2HLVG4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/accessibility-istock-1409041610.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Vision, Mission, and Goals 

VISION 

Provide expert financial stewardship and oversight to enable NASA’s success. 

MISSION 

As stewards of NASA’s financial resources, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer provides expert financial and budgetary advice, analysis, operations, internal controls, strategic planning, 

and policies to ensure effective decision making, trustworthy advice and reliable outcomes. 

Goal 1 

Ensure stewardship of the taxpayer’s investment entrusted 

to NASA to advance and achieve the Agency’s strategic goals, 

priorities, and missions. 

Objectives: 

1. Deliver timely, reliable, and relevant products and 

services in support of the Agency’s budget and financial 

operations, quality controls, and independent strategic 

analyses. 

2. Enhance communications and transparency with 

stakeholders and customers. 

Goal 2 

Lead and develop a robust analytical community and 

capability that supports and empowers the Agency mission. 

Objectives: 

1. Improve analytics and sharing of information across 

Center and organizational barriers. 

2. Cultivate an engaged workforce through improving 

vertical and horizontal communications within the 

Center, OCFO Enterprise, and across the Agency. 

3. Create opportunities for continued learning and 

employee development. 

4. Foster a culture of diversity, inclusion, and unity. 

Goal 3 

Develop and engage the Enterprise workforce to enable the 

NASA of the future. 

Objectives: 

1. Identify and develop needed capabilities for the OCFO of 

the future. 

2. Continue to optimize OCFO processes and systems for 

efficiency and effectiveness, while balancing appropriate 

customer value, quality, and cost. 

3. Align optimization with Agency priorities. 

1
#### HEELING SPORTS LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LINSON INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1137.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 17, 2005.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Heeling Sports Limited’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal and to bear the costs associated with the appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Green Aviation Tech Gallery","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XltOrRn5YF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/green-aviation-tech-gallery\/\">Green Aviation Tech Gallery<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/green-aviation-tech-gallery\/embed\/#?secret=XltOrRn5YF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Green Aviation Tech Gallery” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XltOrRn5YF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/epfd_image.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### Graham and Others *v.*The State.

*Thursday, December*12.

In the case of a forfeited recognizance, an execution cannot be awarded against a recognizor, on whom a *scire facias*has not been served, and who has not appeared, until there have been two returns of *not found*to writs of *scire facias*against him, directed to the sheriff of the county in which the recognizance was taken.

ERROR to the *Wabash*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

— Minor *Graham*and three other persons entered into a joint recognizance at the *March*term, 1841, of the *Wabash*Circuit Court, in the sum of 2,000 dollars. The recognizance was conditioned that one *John Graham*should be and appear from day to day of said term, and answer the state on an indictment against him for forgery. At a subsequent day of the term, the said *John Graham*and his said sureties were called and made default, the recognizance of the sureties was declared forfeited, and a *scire facias*ordered to be issued. In *July,*1841, a *scire facias*in the cause was issued by the clerk, directed to the sheriff of *La Porte*county, requiring the said sureties to show cause why execution should not issue, &c. This writ was returned to the next term served on two of the defendants, and “ not found ” as to the two others. In *February,*1842, another *scire facias*issued, which was directed to the sheriff of *Wabash*county, requiring said sureties to show cause, &c., and which was returned “not found” as to all the defendants. At the *March*term, 1842, the said sureties were called and made default, and an execution was ordered to be issued against them.

This judgment ordering execution is erroneous. Before an execution can be awarded against a recognizor upon *314whom a *scire facias*has not been served, and who has not appeared, there must be two returns of “ not found ” to writs of *scire facias*against him, directed to the sheriff of the county wh*ch the recognizance was taken. The state has not proceeded according to this rule, in the case before us, as to two of the defendants.

*J. H. Bradley,*for the plaintiffs.

*A. A. Hammond, C. Fletcher,*and *O. Butler,*for the state.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Christie,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03600-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9179 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Otis HENSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 79-1912.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 1980.

Decided March 21, 1980.

Benjamin D. Entine, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Ronald S. Reed, Jr., U. S. Atty. and Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., First Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before BRIGHT, ROSS and McMILLI-AN, Circuit Judges.

*511PER CURIAM.

Otis Henson appeals the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In 1971, petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of five and twenty years following his conviction on charges of conspiracy to rob and aiding and abetting in the robbery.

Petitioner’s application contained a variety of claims; however, the district court dismissed all claims except the claim which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. On April 2, 1979, an evidentiary hearing on that claim was held before the United States Magistrate. At the hearing, petitioner alleged that his attorney (1) failed to confer adequately with petitioner in connection with the preparation of the defense in advance of trial; (2) failed to interview the government’s witnesses in preparation for trial; (3) failed to call certain material witnesses in his defenses; and (4) failed to take a timely appeal from the judgment of conviction.

The Magistrate found that based on the attorney’s testimony and conduct at trial as reflected in the trial transcript, petitioner was not entitled to relief based upon his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court approved and adopted the Magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We have carefully studied the record, including the Magistrate’s opinion and the briefs of the parties to this action. We find no merit to petitioner’s arguments, and accordingly affirm pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court on the basis of the Magistrate’s findings as adopted by the district court.