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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 454 

To release to the State of Arkansas a reversionary interest in Camp Joseph 

T. Robinson. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mr. PRYOR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To release to the State of Arkansas a reversionary interest 

in Camp Joseph T. Robinson. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST. 

4 The United States releases to the State of Arkansas 

5 the reversionary interest described in sections 2 and 3 of 

6 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the transfer of part 

7 of Camp Joseph T. Robinson to the State of Arkansas’’, 

8 approved June 30, 1950 (64 Stat. 311, chapter 429), in 

9 and to the surface estate of the land constituting Camp 

10 Joseph T. Robinson, Arkansas, which lies east of the 
2 

•S 454 IS

1 Batesville Pike county road, in sections 24, 25, and 36, 

2 township 3 north, range 12 west, Pulaski County, Arkan3 sas. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 35.3

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC

                RASC SERIES 2007-KS3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the period from and including
March 29, 2007 through and including  September  24, 2007 and of the  Servicer's
performance  under the  applicable  servicing  agreement  has been made under my
supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects  throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4075 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply the joint return 

limitation for capital gains exclusion to certain post-marriage sales of 

principal residences by surviving spouses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply 

the joint return limitation for capital gains exclusion 

to certain post-marriage sales of principal residences by 

surviving spouses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF JOINT RETURN LIMITATION 

4 FOR CAPITAL GAINS EXCLUSION TO CERTAIN 

5 POST-MARRIAGE SALES OF PRINCIPAL RESI6 DENCES BY SURVIVING SPOUSES. 

7 (a) SALE WITHIN 2 YEARS OF SPOUSE’S DEATH.— 

8 Section 121(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:47 Dec 06, 2006 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4075.IS S4075

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 4075 IS

1 lating to limitations) is amended by adding at the end the 

2 following new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(4) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN SALES BY

4 SURVIVING SPOUSES.—In the case of a sale or ex5 change of property by an unmarried individual 

6 whose spouse is deceased on the date of such sale, 

7 paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting 

8 ‘$500,000’ for ‘$250,000’ if such sale occurs not 

9 later than 2 years after the date of death of such 

10 spouse and the requirements of paragraph (2)(A) 

11 were met immediately before such date of death.’’. 

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

13 this section shall apply to sales or exchanges after Decem14 ber 31, 2005. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 221 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 37 

[Report No. 109–140] 

To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 years. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. TALENT, Mr. 

HATCH, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. SALAZAR, 

Mr. BUNNING, Mr. THOMAS, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. WYDEN, 

Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. BURR, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. 

CORZINE, Mr. DORGAN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. BURNS, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. 

DOMENICI, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. LOTT, Mr. SANTORUM, 

Mr. HAGEL, Mr. VITTER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. BAYH, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. 

JEFFORDS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. CHAFEE, 

Mr. SARBANES, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. 

LEAHY, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. THUNE, Mr. BOND, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. KYL, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. 

SUNUNU, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer 

research for 2 years. 
2 

S 37 RS 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR 

4 BREAST CANCER RESEARCH. 

5 Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2007’’. 

Calendar No. 221 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 37 

[Report No. 109–140] 

A BILL 

To extend the special postage stamp for breast 

cancer research for 2 years. 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 

Reported without amendment
Employment Letter - Donald Prebola



 Exhibit 10.4 
 [INFRA-METALS LETTERHEAD] 
 Mr. Don Prebola 
 Infra Metals Co 
 8 Pent Highway 
 Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 
 USA  
 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 
 23 March 2005 
 Dear Don, 
 NOTICE PERIOD 
 Following our recent discussions I am pleased to be able to offer you an improvement to your contractual notice period. If you agree to the variation offered please sign
both copies of this letter. You should keep one copy for your records and give the other copy back to me. On signing this letter these changes will have immediate effect. 
 Your existing notice period is 2 weeks on either side. On reviewing this matter, I believe the notice period should be changed to reflect your position in the Company. Therefore, it is proposed that the period of
notice to be given by you to the Company to terminate your employment shall be 6 months. The period of notice to be given to you by the Company shall be 12 months. 
 This notice period (12 months) will also be applicable with regard to any change in your salary, benefits (which for the sake of good order are set out in the attached schedule), position (including location) or formula for calculation of
your annual incentive payment. 
  

	
	Yours sincerely,
	
	/s/ V H Sher
	 V H Sher
 Chairman
 Infra Metals Inc


 I agree to the change in notice periods, and I understand that all other terms and conditions of employment remain
unchanged. 
  

			
	Signed:	 	/s/ Donald Prebola

 Date: 3/24/2005 







 NORTHERN REGION 
 BONUS FORMULA - DON PREBOLA, VICE PRESIDENT 
 YEAR: 
 (AUDITED) 
 Mr. Don Prebola is entitled to
a bonus annually which is based on the profits of the New England and Central divisions. The formula starts with the audited EBIT. From that number is deducted 10% of the 12 month average assets employed which results in a basis for the bonus. The
bonus basis is multiplied times 5% to arrive at the fiscal year bonus. 
  

									
	PERIOD:                    	  			 			 	
	  	  	New Eng.	 	 	Central	 	 	 
	 EBT
	  			 			 	
	 Add Interest Expense
	  			 			 	
		  	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 EBIT
	  			 			 	
	 Less % of Ave.assets employed
	  			 			 	
	 Ave assets employed
	  			 			 	
	 Reduction %
	  	10.00	%	 	10.00	%	 	
	 Reduction amount
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	
	 Basis for Bonus
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	
	 Bonus %
	  	5	%	 	5	%	 	
		  	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 Bonus amount
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	—  
		  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 








 INFRA-METALS CO. 
 Automobile Fringe Benefit 
 Don Prebola is entitled to an automobile which is leased to the Company. Upon the
termination of the lease, he shall receive a new leased automobile, subject to the approval of the President. A leased automobile is considered part of their overall compensation package. 
 Vacations 
 Effective January 1, 2005, Don Prebola is entitled to paid vacation as follows:

  

			
	Don Prebola	  	5 Weeks
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4035 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the school as lender 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal 

the school as lender program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SCHOOL AS LENDER. 

4 (a) REPEAL OF THE SCHOOL AS LENDER PRO5 GRAM.—Paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 435(d) of 

6 the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)) 

7 are repealed. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 435(d) of 

9 the Higher Education Act of 1965 is further amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 4035 IS

1 (A) by striking subparagraph (E); and 

2 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) 

3 through (K) as subparagraphs (E) through (J), 

4 respectively; and 

5 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as 

6 paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively. 

7 (c) CROSS REFERENCES.—The Higher Education 

8 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) is amended— 

9 (1) in section 428(h) (20 U.S.C. 1078(h))— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘or (F)’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘or (E)’’; 

12 (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘or 

13 (F)’’ and inserting ‘‘or (E)’’; and 

14 (C) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘or 

15 (F)’’ and inserting ‘‘or (E)’’; and 

16 (2) in section 439 (20 U.S.C. 1087–2)— 

17 (A) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘or 

18 (F)’’ and inserting ‘‘or (E)’’; and 

19 (B) in subsection (o)(2), by striking ‘‘or 

20 (F)’’ and inserting ‘‘or (E)’’. 

21 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall apply to loans for which the first dis23 bursement is made on or after July 1, 2007. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 4035 IS

1 SEC. 2. HERA REPEAL. 

2 Section 8011 of the Higher Education Reconciliation 

3 Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171, 120 Stat. 165) is re4 pealed. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4083 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require reporting of 

quality measures by hospitals in order to reduce medication errors. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2006 

Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. BAYH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 

reporting of quality measures by hospitals in order to 

reduce medication errors. 

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 ‘‘Hospital Quality Re5 porting Improvement Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORTING OF QUALITY MEASURES BY HOSPITALS 

7 IN ORDER TO REDUCE MEDICATION ERRORS. 

8 Section 1886(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)), as amended by section 5001(a) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 4083 IS

1 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109– 

2 171), is amended— 

3 (1) by moving clause (viii) (including subclauses 

4 (I) through (VII) of such clause) 6 ems to the left; 

5 and 

6 (2) in clause (viii)— 

7 (A) by redesignating subclauses (VI) and 

8 (VII) as subclauses (VII) and (VIII), respec9 tively; and 

10 (B) by inserting after subclause (V) the 

11 following new subclause: 

12 ‘‘(VI) Effective for payments beginning with fiscal 

13 year 2009, in expanding the number of measures under 

14 subclause (III), the Secretary shall adopt consensus-based 

15 measures designed to reduce the likelihood of hospital 

16 medication errors. The Secretary shall adopt measures 

17 under this subclause that have been approved by national 

18 organizations with expertise in health care quality. In 

19 adopting the measures, the Secretary— 

20 ‘‘(aa) shall recognize a range of measures avail21 able to hospitals, including those that do not require 

22 a significant short-term investment in technology23 based systems; and 

24 ‘‘(bb) may take the cost of complying with 

25 those measures into account for hospitals located in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
3 

•S 4083 IS

1 rural areas and small community hospitals (as deter2 mined by the Secretary).’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,705]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 31, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of FLA Orthopedics, Inc., Huntersville, North Carolina.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10919 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>


[CINRAM LOGO]

2255 MARKHAM ROAD, SCARBOROUGH, ONTARIO, M1B 2W3


NEWS RELEASE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                   CINRAM TO EVALUATE INCOME TRUST ALTERNATIVE

TORONTO (APRIL 25, 2005) -- Cinram International Inc. (TSX: CRW) today made the
following announcement at its annual general meeting of shareholders:

"The Board of Directors, on a regular basis, considers alternatives for
enhancing shareholder value. One such alternative that the Board is currently
considering is the conversion of the Company into an income trust type
structure. While it is too early to comment on the viability of this alternative
and its appropriateness for the Company, the Board has concluded that further
study is warranted and has authorized management of the Company to do so. There
can be no assurance that the Company will convert from its present form into an
income trust type structure."


ABOUT CINRAM
Cinram International Inc. is the world's largest independent provider of
pre-recorded multimedia products and related logistics services. With facilities
in North America and Europe, Cinram manufactures and distributes pre-recorded
DVDs, VHS video cassettes, audio CDs, audio cassettes and CD-ROMs for motion
picture studios, music labels, publishers and computer software companies around
the world. The Company's shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (CRW)
and are included in the S&P/ TSX Composite Index. For more information, visit
our Web site at www.cinram.com.

Certain statements contained in this news release constitute "forward-looking
statements" within the meaning of the United States Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements, by their
nature, are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and
uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those
anticipated in these forward-looking statements. We consider the assumptions on
which these forward-looking statements are based to be reasonable, but caution
the reader that these assumptions regarding future events, many of which are
beyond our control, may ultimately prove to be incorrect. For a complete list of
risks and uncertainties, please consult the Company's annual information form
filed with Canadian securities commissions, available on www.sedar.com. Cinram
disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking
statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise,
except as required by law. These cautionary statements expressly qualify all
forward-looking statements attributable to Cinram.


                                      -30-

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Lyne Beauregard
Cinram International Inc.
Tel: (416) 321-7930
lynebeauregard@cinram.com
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7884
JOHN EDDIE CHAPPELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2249-3-6BD) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Eddie Chappell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217, petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificateof appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Chappell v. South Carolina , No. CA-94-2249-3-6BD (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Bank of Smithtown, Appellant, v 264 West 124 LLC et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 176]

*469Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about November 4, 2011, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against defendants 264 West 124 LLC and Shlomo Levi, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion granted, the counterclaims dismissed, the matter remanded for further proceeding, and People’s United Bank substituted as plaintiff in the action.

Plaintiff demonstrated an entitlement to summary judgment by producing the note and mortgage and the uncontested proof of default, as well as the personal guaranty signed by defendant Levi as additional collateral for the mortgage *(see Hypo Holdings v Chalasani,*280 AD2d 386 [1st Dept 2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 717 [2001]).

Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to any defense to foreclosure *(see Marine Midland Bank v Fillippo,*276 AD2d 601 [2d Dept 2000]). The uncorroborated affidavit from defendant Levi that plaintiff had orally agreed to modify the terms of the loan and that it should be estopped was insufficient because the note and mortgage prohibited oral modifications to the loan, and thus, even accepting the truth of Levi’s allegations, any oral agreement was fundamentally ineffectual in modifying the loan *(see CrossLand Sav. v Loguidice-Chatwal Real Estate Inv. Co.,*171 AD2d 457 [1st Dept 1991]).

Nor did defendants establish that the principles of equitable estoppel or partial performance apply because they did not materially alter their position based on any alleged oral modification, and their payment of common charge arrears was not unequivocally referable to the oral modification nor incompatible with the written agreement *(see Rose v Spa Realty Assoc.,*42 NY2d 338, 343-345 [1977]). Payment of the common charge arrears was “reasonably explained” by their legal obligation to make those payments *(Anostario v Vicinanzo,*59 NY2d 662, 664 [1983]).

Nor does the claim of unclean hands require denial of summary judgment. Even accepting the truth of Levi’s allegations, plaintiff was under no obligation to modify the loan or to comply with any oral agreement, and there is nothing immoral or unconscionable about its decision to proceed with foreclosure.

Defendants’ reliance on the prenegotiation letter is unavailing. The letter did not require plaintiff to modify the loan and reserved all of plaintiff’s rights. The letter also authorized plaintiff to terminate participation in negotiations at any time, for any reason or no reason.

Following the commencement of this action, People’s United Bank merged with Bank of Smithtown and is now the owner of *470the subject note. Thus, we substitute it as plaintiff.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jimmy Richard HUSBAND, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-8330.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2009.

Decided: May 6, 2009.

*171Brian Scott Foreman, John A. Rockec-harlie, Bowen, Champlin, Carr, Foreman & Rockecharlie, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Richard Husband seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Husband has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*