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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2848

To transfer administrative jurisdiction over certain land in Clark County, 

Nevada, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2004

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mr. REID) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL

To transfer administrative jurisdiction over certain land in 

Clark County, Nevada, from the Secretary of the Interior 

to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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 ‘‘Foundation for Ne5 vada’s Veterans Land Transfer Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Administrative jurisdiction over 

8 the land described in subsection (b) is transferred from 
2

•S 2848 IS 

1 the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Veterans 

2 Affairs. 

3 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land re4 ferred to in subsection (a) is the approximately 150 acres 

5 of Bureau of Land Management land in Clark County, 

6 Nevada, as generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Vet7 erans Administration Conveyance’’ and dated September 

8 24, 2004. 

9 (c) USE OF LAND.—The parcel of land described in 

10 subsection (b) shall be used by the Secretary of Veterans 

11 Affairs for the construction and operation of medical and 

12 related facilities, as determined to be appropriate by the 

13 Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Æ
#### Charles Newburg *v.*Nathan Ratliff

Witness — Competency.

One, who is remote vendor of an appellant, is held to be a competent witness for him, and his evidence being material, and not known what effect it would have with the jury, the court erred in rejecting

his depositions.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 16, 1869.

*L. T. Moore,*Auxier, *for appellant.*

*O. G.*Bowles, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

Although the instructions submitted to the jury were proper, and the evidence, as admitted, preponderates in favor of the ver-, diet, still the preponderance is not so decisive as to authorize an .affirmance of the judgment, notwithstanding the rejection by the court below, as incompetent, the deposition of John H. Allison, remote vendor, offered by appellant.

' In Carbon & Bettis vs. Stout, 2 Bush, 246, where the same question arose, this court, after citing a string of authorities to the point, said:

> “The possible interest of Turnbull was not direct, certain or immediate, and consequently, could only affect the credibility of his testimony *when heardj*the spirit of our code harmonizing with the genius of the age inclines more than the common law, to let interest discredit, rather than disqualify, a witness.”

Allison being only a remote vendor of appellant, was a competent witness, and as his testimony was material and it cannot be known what effect it may have had with the jury, the circuit court erred in rejecting his deposition. But no other error is presented in the record. Por the error named, however, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to award a new trial, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Order entered February 2 7 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00014
- CR No. 05
- 14
- 00015
- CR BERNARD KAY ROSS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F13
- 24874
- P , F12
- 57536
- P



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s records in these appeals within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this orde r, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sarah Douglas","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sschlied\/","title":"Pose Bowl: Spacecraft Detection and Pose Estimation Challenge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Pk71QFT5bP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/stmd-prizes-challenges-crowdsourcing-program\/center-of-excellence-for-collaborative-innovation-coeci\/pose-bowl-spacecraft-detection-estimation-challenge\/\">Pose Bowl: Spacecraft Detection and Pose Estimation Challenge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/stmd-prizes-challenges-crowdsourcing-program\/center-of-excellence-for-collaborative-innovation-coeci\/pose-bowl-spacecraft-detection-estimation-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=Pk71QFT5bP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Pose Bowl: Spacecraft Detection and Pose Estimation Challenge” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Pk71QFT5bP\" 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\/2024\/02\/detection-tile.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Itzel Karina Guerrero, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01191-002-PHX-JJT

DETENTION ORDER 

 On January 16, 2018, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be 

released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke her supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that she is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 17th day of January, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Elyna N. Niles-Carnes","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/enilesca\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Artemis I Spacecraft Prepped to Depart to Ohio Facility","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1WMSPovHcV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasas-artemis-i-spacecraft-prepped-to-depart-to-ohio-facility\/\">NASA\u2019s Artemis I Spacecraft Prepped to Depart to Ohio Facility<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasas-artemis-i-spacecraft-prepped-to-depart-to-ohio-facility\/embed\/#?secret=1WMSPovHcV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Artemis I Spacecraft Prepped to Depart to Ohio Facility” — NASA\" data-secret=\"1WMSPovHcV\" 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\/2024\/01\/ksc-20231222-ph-kls01-0058.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1350


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PLATO Learning, Inc. (the "Company") for the first quarter ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent P. Riera, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: March 12, 2010
/s/ Vincent P. RieraVincent P. RieraPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     We hereby certify that the accompanying Report of Harris Preferred Capital
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Harris
Preferred Capital Corporation.

Date November 14, 2005

<Table>
<S>                                                              <C>        <C>
                                                                 /s/ JANINE
/s/ PAUL R. SKUBIC                                               MULHALL
-------------------------------------                            ---

                                                                 Janine
                                                                 Mulhall
                                                                 Chief
Paul R. Skubic                                                   Financial
Chief Financial Officer                                          Officer
</Table>

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Harris Preferred Capital
Corporation and will be retained by Harris Preferred Capital Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 No.'s 333-102209, No. 333-010179,
No. 333-65188, No. 333-60702, No. 333-49436, No. 333-88645, No. 333-79463,
No. 333-79457, No. 333-74555, No. 333-56473, and No. 333-15069, pertaining to various employee benefit plans of Main Street
Banks, Inc. (formerly First Sterling Banks, Inc.) of our report dated January 13, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Main Street Banks, Inc. and
Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



Atlanta,
Georgia
March 27, 2003

---

QuickLinks
Case 2:15-mj-01689-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01689-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01689-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Susan M. Nelson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04393-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

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) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9944 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SAMANTHA RIEMENSCHNEIDER,

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID SCOTT MACLEARY, PETITONER

v.

D. SABATELLI, INC.AND ANTHONY SABATELLI,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 174 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of November, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.2   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   I, Salil Dhaumya, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Pan American GoldfieldsLtd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2011 (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:  July 13, 2011  /S /Salil Dhaumya _________________________________ Salil Dhaumya Title: Chief Financial Officer
No. 99-60516 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60516 Conference Calendar

JOHNNIE HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOYCE ANDERSON; EDWIN SMITH; JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:97-CV-3-D-A

-------------------- April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Johnny Hudson, Mississippi prisoner No. 05459, appeals from the district court’s denial of injunctive and mandamus relief. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved for appellate review and litigants must support their arguments with citation to the record. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1993); F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(a)(9)(A). Hudson’s appellate brief does not comply with this standard. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal.No. 99-60516 -2- APPEAL DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Collins,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04757-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(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 12/29/2017, 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: January 5, 2018 /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. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9597 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“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 9597 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                    14,952
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             36,903
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               8,162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          70,852
<PP&E>                                    541,446
<DEPRECIATION>                            47,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            604,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     45,062
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     115,000
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  15
<OTHER-SE>                                224,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              604,561
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          210,257
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             154,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        7,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           44,605
<INCOME-TAX>                              16,950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       27,655
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           2,132
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              25,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.63



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7033

JAMEEL WOODARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EVERYONE WHO COULD HAVE STOPPED MY UNSANITARY LIVING CONDITIONS BUT DIDN’T (B.C.D.C.); WENDY SHERROD; RALPH LOGAN; COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-2465-AW) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 30, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jameel Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn Todd Marrow, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jameel Woodard appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Woodard v. Everyone Who Could Have Stopped My Unsanitary Living Conditions But Didn’t (B.C.D.C.) , No. CA-01-2465-AW (D. Md. June 3, 2002). 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