alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jason Costa","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jason-p-costanasa-gov\/","title":"Melissa Jones","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"g6uTMYCQq1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kennedy-biographies-jones\/\">Melissa Jones<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kennedy-biographies-jones\/embed\/#?secret=g6uTMYCQq1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Melissa Jones” — NASA\" data-secret=\"g6uTMYCQq1\" 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\/2018\/04\/ksc-melissajones-201703223.jpg?w=526","thumbnail_width":526,"thumbnail_height":805}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6509
REGINALD ASKEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR LIGHTSEY, Defendant - Appellee, and MARVIN L. POLK; V. MCCULLOUGH; MICHAEL V. NORRIS; D. J. METIKO, Doctor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00022-H) Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: November 9, 2006 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Askew, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth P. McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Reginald Askew appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeAskew v. Polk , No. 5:05-ct-00022-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2006). 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
#### Sarah Lang’s Admr. *v.*Sarah Ward.

Landlord and Tenant — Consideration.

Evidence examined and held sufficient to authorize judgment for compensation for care of old and infirm 'landlord.

APPEAL PROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT.

September 26, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

No error is perceived to the prejudice of the appellants, in either of the decisions or rulings of the circuit court in this case.

The rejected testimony of George, offered for the purpose of proving a hearsay statement of Louis Ward concerning the terms of renting Mrs. Lang’s land, was not admissible and properly disallowed. There was no such privity of interest between Louis Ward and the appellee, as to render his admission evidence against him, and the fact which the appellants sought to establish through the medium of the oral declaration of Louis Ward, was not one of traditionary reputation or otherwise such, as under peculiar circumstances, might be proved by mere hearsay evidence.

Respecting the action of the court in passing on the motions for instructing the jury, the objections of the appellants’ counsel, seem to-have reference to the sufficiency of the evidence on which the court predicated its rulings, rather than the correctness of the instructions as abstract propositions of law.

There is scarcely any contrariety of evidence as to the facts that during the residence of Mrs. Lang in the family of the Wards, her great age and affliction, rendered much care, attention and trouble necessary for her comfort and convenience, which boarders do not ordinarily require, and that these were faithfully *495and labriously rendered and borne by the appellee, either for her brothers who received compensation for board out of the rent of the land, ior as a gratuity to Mrs. Lang, or under an express or implied promise of compensation from her; and without discussing the instructions at any length, we deem it sufficient to say that they fairly and fully present the law of the case, as developed by the evidence as to the existence and binding force of an express or implied undertaking by Mrs. Lang to pay the reasonable value of said services.

*Porter & Greathouse, for appellants.*

*Turner & Twyman, for appellee.*

As to so much of the services as may have been within the statutory bar (of limitation, unless embraced by a new promise to pay, the evidence sufficiently conduced to prove such a new undertaking as to authorize the instruction referring it to the jury, and that instruction does not seem liable to any objection.

The attempt to show a ground for a' new trial for newly discovered evidence, was properly deemed unavailing by the court below both because the proposed proof of Louis Ward’s declarations were inadmissible, and if this were not so the fact proposed to be proved was within the general scope of the evidence already heard, and was merely cumulative.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
Case 2:15-mj-01812-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01812-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01812-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 3
9523.

#### Coleman *v.*Lawson.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Trover; from Candler superior court—Judge Hardeman. January 1, 1918.

*Kirkland & Kirkland,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. G. Bedgood, Arthur W. Jordan,*contra.

Luke, J.

The evidence in this case was conflicting, and it was error for the court to direct a verdict. The jury, under appropriate instructions, should have been permitted to pass upon the issues. *Wallace*v. *Mallary,*117 *Ga.*161 (43 S. E. 424).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Roxana Bardan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbardan\/","title":"NASA Invites Media, Public to Solar Eclipse Events in April","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9o0EBikx0E\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-invites-media-public-to-solar-eclipse-events-in-april\/\">NASA Invites Media, Public to Solar Eclipse Events in April<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-invites-media-public-to-solar-eclipse-events-in-april\/embed\/#?secret=9o0EBikx0E\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Invites Media, Public to Solar Eclipse Events in April” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9o0EBikx0E\" 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\/eclipse-2024-advisory-events.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":390}
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25243]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Audit Committee Meeting; Sunshine Act

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Monday, October 27, 2014.

PLACE: NeighborWorks America--Gramlich Boardroom, 999 North Capitol 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

STATUS: Open (with the exception of Executive Sessions).

CONTACT PERSON: Jeffrey Bryson, General Counsel/Secretary, (202) 760-
4101; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9838b9b909a8687a9879ec7869b8e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3a9a1b1bab0acad83adb4edacb1a4">[email protected]</span></a>.

AGENDA: 

I. Call To Order
II. Executive Session with the Chief Audit Executive
III. Executive Session: Chief Audit Executive Performance Review
IV. Executive Session: CEO Transition Update
V. Executive Session: Pending Litigation
VI. Internal Audit Reports with Management's Response
VII. Internal Audit Status Reports
VIII. OHTS Watch List Review
IX. Update on A-133 Findings
X. Annual Audit Update & Other External Audit Reports
XI. Management Updates
XII. Adjournment

Jeffrey T. Bryson,
EVP & General Counsel/Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25243 Filed 10-20-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7570-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,967
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          24,262
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     69,544
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          10,091
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             9,902
<LOANS>                                        516,119
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 645,462
<DEPOSITS>                                     428,780
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,735
<LONG-TERM>                                    159,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 645,462
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,893
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,300
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                27,193
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,487
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,706
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,318
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,570
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,441
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,441
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.69
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,963
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,938
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,558
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,909
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      429
<RECOVERIES>                                        40
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,838
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,838
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,454


</TABLE>
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 74

To protect the voting rights of homeless citizens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Ms. NORTON, Mr.

FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr.

OBERSTAR, Mr. FAZIO of California, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts,

Mr. GONZALEZ, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To protect the voting rights of homeless citizens.

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 ‘‘Voting Rights of

5 Homeless Citizens Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. VOTING RIGHTS OF HOMELESS CITIZENS.

7 No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or

8 standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or ap9 plied by any State or political subdivision to deny or

10 abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to
2

HR 74 IH

1 vote because that citizen resides at or in a nontraditional

2 abode.

3 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

4 The Attorney General may commence in the name of

5 the United States a civil action (including an action

6 against a State or political subdivision) or an aggrieved

7 citizen may institute a proceeding under this Act, for in8 junctive relief against a violation of section 2.

9 SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.

10 This Act shall not be construed to impair any right

11 guaranteed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.

12 1973 et seq.).

13 SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

14 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘nontraditional abode’’

15 includes—

16 (1) a supervised publicly or privately operated

17 shelter designed to provide temporary living accom18 modations (including welfare hotels, congregate shel19 ters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);

20 and

21 (2) a public or private place not designated for,

22 or ordinarily used as, regular sleeping accommoda23 tion for human beings.
3

HR 74 IH

1 SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 This Act applies with respect to elections taking place

3 after December 31, 1997.

Æ
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0510

IN THE MATTER OF 

U.R.L.,

Youth in Need of Care.

GRANT OF EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time, 

and good cause appearing therefore, the Appellant is granted an extension of 

time until January 27, 2021, to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 9 2020

12/09/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0510
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA to Air Live Coverage of SpaceX Crew-1 Astronauts\u2019 Return to Earth","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"82NW7X72IF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-to-air-live-coverage-of-spacex-crew-1-astronauts-return-to-earth\/\">NASA to Air Live Coverage of SpaceX Crew-1 Astronauts\u2019 Return to Earth<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-to-air-live-coverage-of-spacex-crew-1-astronauts-return-to-earth\/embed\/#?secret=82NW7X72IF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA to Air Live Coverage of SpaceX Crew-1 Astronauts\u2019 Return to Earth” — NASA\" data-secret=\"82NW7X72IF\" 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\/04\/crew1_collage.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00457-CV

In re John Ray Reed, III

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: October 6, 2006
**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**

In connection with the quarterly report of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Thad M. Brown, Chief Financial Officer (Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) ofthe 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
1 United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2111

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dennell Malone, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2009

Filed: October 27, 2009

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

The district court1

 originally sentenced Dennell R. Malone to the applicable

Guidelines range of life imprisonment (with a consecutive 60-month sentence for a

firearm count). After Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the court

resentenced Malone to 360 months imprisonment (with a consecutive 60-month

sentence for the firearm count), the bottom of his recalculated Guidelines range. See

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
-2-

Malone appeals, arguing that the district court should be allowed to resentence

him below the Guidelines range. This court has previously rejected this argument.

See United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 841-43 (8th Cir. 2009) (resentencing under

section 3582(c)(2) is more narrow in scope than original sentencing proceedings; the

limitation that resentencing courts “must not reduce the sentence of a defendant who

was originally sentenced within the applicable guideline range to a term that is less

than the minimum of the amended guideline range” is “constitutional and

enforceable”) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Harris, 556 F.3d 887, 888

(8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (Starks forecloses the argument that the district court has

authority to sentence him below the Guidelines range in a section 3582(c)(2)

resentencing); United States v. Murphy, 578 F.3d 719, 720-21 (8th Cir. 2009) (same,

holding that there is no conflict between Starks and United States v. Mihm, 134 F.3d

1353 (8th Cir. 1998)).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________