alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      24.2





CERTIFICATE





I,
      Steven L. Frey, hereby certify that I am the Secretary of Angelica Corporation,
      a Missouri corporation, with its principal office in the County of St. Louis,
      State of Missouri, and as such in charge of its corporate records, including
      minutes of meetings of its shareholders and Board of Directors.





I
      further certify that the Board of Directors of the Company adopted the following
      resolutions under date of March 13, 2007, which resolutions have not since
      been
      amended or rescinded and are in full force and effect at the date
      hereof:





"FURTHER
      RESOLVED, That Stephen M. O’Hara, Steven L. Frey and James W. Shaffer, or any of
      them, are hereby authorized to do all acts and things and to execute any and
      all
      instruments on behalf of the Company, including the execution of the Company's
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2007, or any
      amendment thereto, relating to compliance with the reporting requirements of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which said attorneys, or any of them, may
      deem
      necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, and any rules, regulations and requirements of the
      Securities and Exchange Commission in respect thereof;





FURTHER
      RESOLVED, That this Board of Directors does approve the execution by the
      directors and officers of the Company or any of them, of a Power of Attorney
      in
      favor of Stephen M. O’Hara, Steven L. Frey and James W. Shaffer, or any of them
      (with power of substitution in each), empowering such attorneys, or any of
      them,
      to do all acts and things and to execute any and all instruments on behalf
      of
      such directors and officers, including the execution of the Company's Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2007 and all
      amendments thereto, which such attorneys, or any of them, may deem necessary
      or
      advisable to enable the Company to comply with the reporting requirements of
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission in respect thereof.”





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
      corporation this 12th day of April, 2007.








/s/
      Steven L.
      Frey


Steven
      L. Frey


Secretary





[SEAL]
**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 Report of eTotalSource, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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




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




Date
                May 22, 2006
            By:*/s/
                Virgil D. Baker*Name:Virgil
                D. BakerTitle:Chief
                Financial Officer







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 eTotalSource, Inc. and will be retained
      by
      eTotalSource, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

The State of Texas for the Best Interest a nd

Protection of L.A.

No. 06

- 15

- 00029

- CV Appeal from the County Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. M15

- 00051 ). Opinion del ivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the order of the

court below. Therefore, we reverse the order for administration of psychoactive medication,

effective immediately

. We further order that the appell ee
, The State of Texas , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Ma y 7, 200 4 S es sio n 

### I N 

### R E 

### : A.M.T., Z .T.R., AND 

### K.W.T. Ap pe a l f ro m th e Juve nil e Cou rt

fo r D a vid so n Co un ty No s
. 2 2 -7 2 6 0 5 , 2 0 1 9 -5 3 6 8 4 , 2 2 1 9 -7 0 1 6 3 Be t t y Ad am s Gr ee n , J u d ge

No. M2003-02926-COA- R3-PT - F iled Jul y 2, 2004

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J

. , co n cu rr i n g.

I concur in the judgme nt that clear and convinc ing ev i d ence establishes abunda nt gr ounds fo r the te rm inatio n of the pa re nta l rig hts of the mothe r in this c a se a nd fu rthe r e sta bli sh e s th a t it

is in the be st i nte re sts of

the c hil dr e n to te rm inate he r p are nta l r ig hts

. I continue, howe ver, to a dhere to my view that a pr eponder ance of the e vidence standard on the on e ha nda nd a

c le ar a ndc on vin c ing e vid e nc e sta nd ardon the oth e r a re c omp le te ly

inc omp a tib le wi th e a c h o the r both at the tr ia l lev e l and a t the app e lla te le ve l. My vie ws are e xha us tiv e ly se t f orth in Estate of Acuff v. O’ Linger , 56 S.W .3d 527 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001) pe rm.app.de nied (Oc t. 1, 2001) and in In re Z.J.S. and M

.J.P. , No. M2002-02235-COA- R3-J V, 2003 WL 21266854 (Tenn.Ct.App. J une 3, 2003) (Cain, Judge, c oncurring) and in State v. R.S. and K.S. , No. M2002-00919-COA- R3- CV, 2003 WL 22098035 (Tenn.Ct.App. Sept.11,2003) (Cain, Judge, c oncurring) , along with In re: K.N .R ., e t al

. , N o. M2 00 3- 01 30 1- CO A- R3- PT ( Te nn .Ct .A pp . 2 00 4) ; s e e a ls o Co lo r a do v . New Mex ico , 467 U. S. 310 , 104 S.Ct . 2 43 3, 81 L .E d. 2d24 7 ( 19 84 ); Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental He alt h , 4 81 At .2 d 13 9, 15 3- 54 (M e . 1 98 4) ; Riley Hill Gene ral Contractor, Inc. v . Tandy Corp. , 737 P.2 d 5 95 , 6 04 (O r. 19 87 ); Bee ler v. Ame rican Trust C o. , 147 P.2d 583 (Ca. 1944), (Traynor, Jus tice, dissenting)

. I n any event, the e vidence in this case is overw helming a nd the clea r and c onvincing e vidence standard se t forth in Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger is c le arl y me t. I c on c ur in the jud g me nt.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PAUL R. SIEMINKEWICZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 62 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2936 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2936

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
         for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 20, 2010

Mr. Baucus (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Reid, Mr. Nelson of Florida, 
Mr. LeMieux, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Hatch, 
   Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
     Cornyn, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
   Whitehouse, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. 
   Shaheen, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
 Ensign, Mr. Burris, and Mr. Brownback) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
         for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Haiti Assistance Income Tax 
Incentive Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE CASH 
              CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF THE EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution described 
in subsection (b) made after January 11, 2010, and before March 1, 
2010, as if such contribution was made on December 31, 2009, and not in 
2010.
    (b) Contribution Described.--A contribution is described in this 
subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made for the 
relief of victims in areas affected by the earthquake in Haiti on 
January 12, 2010, for which a charitable contribution deduction is 
allowable under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (c) Recordkeeping.--In the case of a contribution described in 
subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the name of the donee 
organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the 
contribution shall be treated as meeting the recordkeeping requirements 
of section 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2016-02-01 14:24:38","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"}],"value":"2016"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["11"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["7"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["20"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2016","quarter":"Q1"}
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                  Subsidiaries


dPi Teleconnect, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Action Rent-To-Own Holdings of South Carolina, Inc., a South Carolina
corporation

Rent-Way of Michigan, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Rent-Way of Tomorrow, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Rent-Way Developments, Inc., a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Rent-Way of Michigan, Inc.

Rent-Way of TTIG, L.P., an Indiana limited partnership, the partners of which
are Rent-Way of Tomorrow, Inc. and Rent-Way Developments, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,671
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,085
<INVENTORY>                                    101,520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,918
<PP&E>                                         478,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                 234,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 676,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           279
<OTHER-SE>                                     397,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   676,692
<SALES>                                        712,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               712,380
<CGS>                                          555,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  683,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (696)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,923)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,409
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,409
<DISCONTINUED>                               (103,433)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (92,024)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.21)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1562

PREFAB, INCORPORATED; JAMES M. MILLEAGE; EDWARD D. SNAVELY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and BONNIE I. MILLEAGE, Third Party Defendant - Appellant,
versusBRANCH BANKING & TRUST, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED MACHINE TOOLS; GERALD O’REILLY; JOHN DEMPSEY, JR.; WILLIAM NEWBOLD, Defendants - Appellees, and HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Third Party Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-2875-0-19) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: June 7, 20012 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen D. Schusterman, SCHUSTERMAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellants. Constance L. Young, Thomas L. Ogburn, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; James W. Bradford, Jr., BRADFORD & BRADFORD, P.A., York, South Carolina; Susan B. Lipscomb, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Prefab, Inc., James Milleage, Edward Snavely, and Bonnie Milleage (the “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their complaint for failure to obey discovery orderspursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). The Appellants’ case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 1993 and Supp. 2000 ). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed based on the Appellants’ repeated failure to comply with discovery orders and advised the Appellants that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, the Appellants failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (holding “that a court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those issues on which further review is desired”). The Appellants have waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving4 proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the districtcourt. The motion to file a Rule 60(b) motion is denied. 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v John Grant, Respondent.

Submitted November 22, 2010;

decided December 14, 2010

Motion to vacate this Court’s October 28, 2010 dismissal order granted *[see*15 NY3d 891 (2010)].
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BONNIE SUE ROBERTS IN HER 

CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT 

EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 

CHARLOTTE ROBERTS, DECEASED,

 Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00113-CV

Appeal from the

Probate Court Number Two

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2010-P00420)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and her sureties, if any, see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Barbara E, a Person Alleged to be Incapacitated, Appellant. Robert Doar, Respondent.

Submitted July 19, 2010;

decided September 16, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]).
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-36761, 333-03193, 333-70397, 333-70427, 333-50390, 333-50392, 333-153382, and
333-165802 on Form S-8 of our reports dated August 13, 2010, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Anaren, Inc. and subsidiaries (the
"Company"), and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the year ended June 30, 2010.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Rochester, New York
August 13, 2010
Exhibit 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-55894, 33-68898, 333-09390, 333-38652 and 333-63878) and Form S-3 (Nos. 33-94666 and 333-1988) of Graphic Packaging International Corporation of our report dated February 12, 2002, except as to
Note 6, which is as of February 28, 2002 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





Denver, Colorado


March 11, 2002
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 Financial Report of NoFire Technologies Inc.,
on Form 10Q for the quarter ended 11/30/2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I, Sam Gottfried, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o (d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



Dated January 18,2010
Name /s/ Sam Gottfried (CEO)


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 NoFire Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by NoFire
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.







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 Financial Report of NoFire Technologies Inc.,
on Form 10Q for the quarter ended 11/30/2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I, Sam Oolie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o (d)); and


(2) The information contained in the Form 10Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



Dated: January 18,2010

Name /s/ Sam Oolie (CFO)


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 NoFire Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by NoFire
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7784

GARY GRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-3012-S) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Gray, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., AttorneyGeneral, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gary Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Gray v. Waters , No. CA-98-3012-S (D. Md. Nov. 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED