alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra L. Johnson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-l-johnsonnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-81","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3CRpMXLfIx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-81\/\">STS-81<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-81\/embed\/#?secret=3CRpMXLfIx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-81” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3CRpMXLfIx\" 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\/03\/sts081-s-002-e1680294994765.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
#### UNITED JERSEY BANK v. WILLIAM D. FUGAZY.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jermaine Walker","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jwalke32\/","title":"Deep Space Station 43","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OGHYWvpIPd\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-dss-43-54\/\">Deep Space Station 43<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-dss-43-54\/embed\/#?secret=OGHYWvpIPd\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Deep Space Station 43” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OGHYWvpIPd\" 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\/08\/canberra-dss-43-54.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
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



In connection with the quarterly report of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2006 (the Report), I, Joseph Lloyd McAdams, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive 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:



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



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



By:

/S/    JOSEPH LLOYD
MCADAMSJoseph Lloyd McAdams Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer August 8, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephanie Anne Navas,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00009-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Weitz & Luxenberg, PC

(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 1/3/2018, 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 9605 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 9605 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 2
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 573

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to remove the requirement that exposure resulting in stomach cancer occur before age 30,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to remove the requirement that exposure resulting in stomach

cancer occur before age 30, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT THAT EXPOSURE

4 RESULTING IN STOMACH CANCER OCCUR BE5 FORE AGE 30.

6 Section 4(b)(2) of the Radiation Exposure Com7 pensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘(provided initial exposure occurred before age 30)’’.
2

HR 573 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CLAIMS FORMERLY

2 BARRED.

3 Section 8 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before

6 ‘‘A claim’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 section:

9 ‘‘(b) STOMACH CANCER CLAIMS FORMERLY

10 BARRED.—

11 ‘‘(1) EXTENSION OF TIME.—A claim by an indi12 vidual described in section 4(a)(2), who submits the

13 documentation required by such section to show that

14 the individual contracted cancer of the stomach after

15 initial exposure that occurred at or after age 30,

16 shall be barred unless filed within 20 years after the

17 date of the enactment of this subsection.

18 ‘‘(2) CLAIMS PREVIOUSLY DENIED.—An indi19 vidual may reapply for payment under this Act if the

20 individual’s claim under section 4(a)(2) was denied

21 before the date of the enactment of this subsection

22 on the grounds that the specific disease claimed by

23 the individual was cancer of the stomach and the

24 initial exposure of the individual did not occur before

25 age 30.’’.

Æ
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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Randy Buck Hood, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maricopa County Jails, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01916-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) submitted in this matter by 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine on February 19, 2016. (Doc. 10.) In the R&R, Judge 

Fine recommended that the Court dismiss this matter without prejudice because Plaintiff 

failed to comply with LR. Civ. 83.3(d), which required him to file a notice of change of 

address within seven days after the effective date of the change, by not informing the 

Court or the remaining Defendant of any forwarding address after his release from 

custody. The time to object to the R&R has expired and Plaintiff failed to object to the 

recommendation, which entitles the Court to treat Plaintiff as assenting to the adoption of 

the R&R. But even upon an independent review of the R&R on the merits, the Court 

concludes it is appropriate to dismiss the case. As a practical matter, because of 

Plaintiff’s failure to provide a current address or to participate in the litigation, the Court 

has no way to contact Plaintiff to inform him of the progress of the case or to otherwise 

ensure that orders it issues in order to manage the progress of this matter reach Plaintiff 

so he might comply with them. 

Case 2:15-cv-01916-JJT Document 12 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

 Judge Fine correctly recommends that the matter should be dismissed without 

prejudice, as this is the least severe sanction available to address the practical effects of 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rules. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting in whole Judge Fine’s R&R (Doc. 10) and the 

reasoning therein. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice and 

instructing the Clerk to close it. 

 Dated this 25th day of April, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01916-JJT Document 12 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-mj-01931-JFM Document 5 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01931-JFM Document 5 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01931-JFM Document 5 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              90
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                        52
<INVENTORY>                                        946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,245
<PP&E>                                           3,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,311
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,026
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,111
<SALES>                                          2,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,746
<CGS>                                            1,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                       458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                746
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Doris J. Bassett,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03407-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 10/23/2017, 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: October 26, 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. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8439 Filed 10/27/17 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 8439 Filed 10/27/17 Page 2 of 2
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 662

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to fulfillment by

elderly persons of the requirements for naturalization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1997

Mrs. MEEK of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to

fulfillment by elderly persons of the requirements for

naturalization.

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 ‘‘Naturalization of Older

5 Persons Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress makes the following findings:
2

•HR 662 IH

1 (1) The Immigration and Nationality Technical

2 Corrections Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–416) pro3 vides that a permanent resident who wishes to be4 come a United States citizen may take the required

5 test on the history, principles, and form of govern6 ment of the United States in a language other than

7 English if the person either is over 50 and has lived

8 legally in the United States for at least 20 years or

9 is over 55 and has lived legally in the United States

10 for at least 15 years.

11 (2) Many aged permanent residents are not

12 able to pass the required citizenship test in English.

13 SEC. 3. FULFILLMENT BY ELDERLY PERSONS OF REQUIRE14 MENTS FOR NATURALIZATION RELATING TO

15 KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNITED STATES.

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 312(b) of the Immigra17 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(b)) is amended

18 by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

19 ‘‘(4)(A) The requirement of subsection (a)(2) shall

20 not apply to any person who, on the date of the filing of

21 the person’s application for naturalization as provided in

22 section 334, is over 64 years of age and has been living

23 in the United States for periods totaling at least 5 years

24 subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
3

•HR 662 IH

1 ‘‘(B) The requirement of subsection (a)(2) may be

2 fulfilled through an examination in a language other than

3 English with respect to any person who, on the date of

4 the filing of the person’s application for naturalization as

5 provided in section 334, is at least 60 years of age and

6 has been living in the United States for periods totaling

7 at least 5 years subsequent to a lawful admission for per8 manent residence.’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact11 ment of this Act and shall apply to applications for natu12 ralization pending on or after the date of enactment.

Æ
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. 

Raul Torres-Moceda, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50193-PHX-JAT

DETENTION ORDER 

 On November 24, 2015, defendant, Raul Torres-Moceda, appeared before this 

Court on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the 

information provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether 

the defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed 

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

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

that he 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 25th day of November, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cr-50193-JAT Document 6 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 1
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20380

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DON WHITEHEAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-380-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Don Whitehead appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Whitehead contends that § 922(g)(1) is

unconstitutional on its face because it does not require a

substantial effect on interstate or foreign commerce. 

Alternatively, he contends that the factual basis for his plea

was insufficient because the mere movement of a firearm from one

state or country to another at some undetermined time in the past
No. 06-20380

-2-

does not constitute a substantial effect on interstate or foreign

commerce. 

Whitehead raises these arguments solely to preserve them for

possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, they are

foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United

States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 190 (2005); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,

518 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.
423 A.2d 1312

#### Commonwealth v. Rice, Appellant.

Reargument Denied Jan. 18, 1980.

Argued August 28, 1979.

Larry P. Gaitens, for appellant; Kathryn L. Simpson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, LARSEN and LAVELLE, JJ.*

*

**Justice Rolf Larsen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge John E. Lavelle of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.