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

---

Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report
of RADVISION Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December
31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Adi Sfadia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and

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

/s/ Adi Sfadia*
Adi Sfadia
Chief Financial Officer

March 25, 2009

*     The
originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Companys
offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.



---

---
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Timothy Jan Leftwich, Appellant

No. 06-23-00114-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2021-F-00073). 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and 

Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Rambin. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Timothy Jan Leftwich, pay all costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 1, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5122 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5122

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members 
 of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for 2 
                                 terms.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5122

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members 
 of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for 2 
                                 terms.

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

 SECTION 1. PERMITTING SECOND TERM FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OFFICE OF 
              COMPLIANCE.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 301(e)(1) of the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381(e)(1)) is 
amended to read as follows: ``A member of the Board may be reappointed, 
but no individual may serve as a member for more than 2 terms.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to individuals serving on the Board of Directors of 
the Office of Compliance on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Nelson Rosendo Cordova et al., Respondents, v 360 Park Avenue South Associates et al., Defendants and Third-*751Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Fortune Interior Dismantling Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 435]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated September 24, 2004, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied those branches of their cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action and the plaintiffs’ claim for unearned lost wages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff Nelson Cordova (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was an employee of a company hired to perform demolition work on a building being renovated. He was instructed to cut a pipe which extended from the ceiling on the ninth floor of the building, and was injured when the severed pipe struck the ladder on which he was standing, causing him to fall.

Under these circumstances, the court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The plaintiff established a prima facie case of liability *(see Rivera v Dafna Constr. Co., Ltd.,*27 AD3d 545 [2006]; *Sniadecki v Westfield Cent. School Dist.,*272 AD2d 955 [2000]; *Dasilva v A.J. Contr. Co.,*262 AD2d 214 [1999]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue in support of their allegation that the accident was caused by the injured plaintiffs own negligence *(see Pichardo v Aurora Contrs., Inc.,*29 AD3d 879 [2006]; *cf. Plass v Solotoff,*5 AD3d 365, 366-367 [2004]).

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the injured plaintiffs status as an illegal alien does not bar his claim for lost wages under the Labor Law *(see Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC,*6 NY3d 338 [2006]; *Romero v John’s Fruits & Vegetables, Inc.,*23 AD3d 364 [2005]).

The Supreme Court did not determine those branches of the *752defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6). Thus, we do not address the defendants’ contentions regarding that issue, as that branch of the cross motion remains pending and undecided *(see Katz v Katz,*68 AD2d 536 [1979]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5105

AN ACT

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonear Tucson, Arizona. Array System (VERITAS) project on Kitt Peak Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope lated activities in support of the collaborative nian Institution to carry out construction and re-

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5105

AN ACT

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out construction and related activities

in support of the collaborative Very Energetic Radiation

Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) project on

Kitt Peak near Tucson, Arizona.
2

•HR 5105 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING BOARD OF REGENTS OF SMITH4 SONIAN INSTITUTION TO CARRY OUT CON5 STRUCTION AND RELATED ACTIVITIES IN

6 SUPPORT OF VERITAS ASTROPHYSICAL OB7 SERVATORY PROJECT.

8 The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution

9 is authorized to carry out construction and related activi10 ties in support of the collaborative Very Energetic Radi11 ation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS)

12 project on Kitt Peak near Tucson, Arizona.

13 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

14 There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000

15 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out section 1.

Passed the House of Representatives September 29,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of MCA Holdings
      Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), for the quarter ending
      September 30, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Wai Leung Cheng, Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
      knowledge and belief, that:




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




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




**MCA
              Holdings Corporation**Dated:
              November 14, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Wai
              Leung
              ChengWai
              Leung ChengChief
              Executive Officer
#### GOLDEN et al. v. ARCADIA MUT. CASUALTY CO.

No. 3701.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Nov. 6, 1942.

Erwin W. Roemer, of Chicago, 111., for plaintiffs.

McKinley, Price & Quindry, of Chicago, 111., for defendant.

HOLLY, District Judge.

I am of the opinion that defendant should produce for inspection and copying all of the documents in its possession and called for by plaintiff, except that as to the forms called for by paragraphs 3, 4, and 14 of plaintiff’s motion only those forms used in Missouri need be produced. Defendant says that the motion constitutes a “fishing expedition” but the Rules, particularly Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, permit “fishing” for evidence, as they should. If documents in defendant’s possession tend to sustain plaintiff’s claim, plaintiff is entitled to inspect them and have the use of them as evidence.

Defendant contends that the documents called for have no bearing on the issue we have here — whether defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Missouri. It says it has no agents in Missouri; that whatever policies it may have issued to residents of Missouri were on applications received by it at its office in the State of Illinois, that the policies were sent by mail to the insured, that whatever business was transacted by defendant with such policyholders was transacted by correspondence passing between such citizens and defendant through the mails and that such letters “could not conceivably under any set of circumstances” be deemed relevant to that issue. But it is quite conceivable that the letters and other documents might throw some light upon that subject.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-41053 c/w No. 11-41054 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RUPERTO VALLE-PORCALLO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-67-1 USDC No. 2:05-CR-626-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ruperto Valle-Porcallo appeals the sentence imposed following convictions for transporting an illegal alien and failing toappear for a pretrial conference in 2005. Valle-Porcallo does not contest the two-level increase in his guidelines offense level for obstruction of justice based on his flight and fugitive status, which resulted in his conviction for failing to appear. However, he argues that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 9, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 11-41053 c/w No. 11-41054

2 the court erred by denying him credit for acceptance of responsibility based on the obstruction enhancement where he pleaded guilty promptly after being apprehended and was already sufficiently punished for fleeing. We will affirm a decision not to award a reduc tion for acceptance of responsibility “unless it is without foundation, a standard of review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte

, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment under this section as a matter ofright.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). Moreover, absent extraordinary circumstances, an enhancement for obstruction of justic e “indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” I d., comment. (n.4); seeJuarez-Duarte , 513 F.3d at 211. Valle-Porcallo has shown no extraordinary circumstances
w arranting a reduction for acceptance of responsibility in the face of an uncontested increase for obstruction ofjustice

. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); United States v. Lujan-Sauceda, 187 F.3d 451, 451-52 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that even voluntary surrender after flight did not create extraordinary circumstances warranting credit for acceptance of responsibility). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n th e M a tte ro f: L O D G E B U I L D E R , I N C ., B R E N D A M O O D Y W H I N E R Y , C r e di t or T rus t e e f orF ortD e f

i a nc e H ous i ng C o rp o r a tio n , I n c ., P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. U. S. TR USTE E, T rust ee - A pp el l ee , W I LLI A M A U BREY ; BREN D A B. T OD D, D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 11- 15873 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 1 9 7 1 - PM PP AL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED NO V 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 11- 15873 2 S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W il li am A ub re y a n d B re n d a B . T o d d ap p ea l p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s order af fi rm i ng the bank rupt cycourt ’ s orderdet erm i ni ng thatthei r debtt o F ort D e f i a nc e H ous i ng C orp. w a s nondi s c ha r ge abl e unde r11 U . S . C . § 523( a ) . W e ha ve j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 58 (d). W e r evi ew deci si on s of the bank rupt cy co u rti n d ep en d en t l y w i th o u td eferen ce t o th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n s, L e i c ht yv . N e ar y, ( I n r e Str and) , 3 7 5 F. 3 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he bank rupt cycourtprop er l y det erm i ned thatthe debti n q uest i on w as no nd i sc hargeabl e bec ause a pri or deci si on betw ee n the part i es nece ss ar i l y dec i ded tha tthe m one y a ti s s ue w a s obt a i ne d by“ f a l s e pr e t e ns e s ” a nd tha tA ubr e ya nd T odd i nf l i c t e d “ w i l l f

ul a nd m a l i c i ous i nj ury ” on F ortD e f i a nc e H ous i ng C orp. 11 U . S . C . §§ 52 3(a) (2)( A ), (a )( 6); O rm sb y v. Fi rst A m . T i t le C o . o f N ev. (In re O rm sby) , 591 F . 3d 1199, 1206- 07 ( 9th C i r . 2010) (s ett i ng forth el em ent s und er § 5 23 (a )( 6)); H

arm on v . Kobr i n (

I n r e H arm on) , 25 0 F . 3d 12 40 , 12 45 -46 (9th C i r. 2001) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ [ p] r i nc i pl e s of c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l appl yt o pr oc e e di ngs s e e ki ng e xc e pt i ons f

r om di s c ha r ge br oughtunde r11 U . S . C . § 523( a ) , ” a nd s e tt i ng11- 15873 3 forth el em ent s und er§ 5 23 (a )( 2)(A )) . A ppe l l a nt s ’ r e que s tf

oras t a yi s de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

ARLENE BAISA LOCKHART and GENE 

LOCKHART, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 10-5621 SBA 

ORDER HOLDING MOTIONS IN 

ABEYANCE PENDING RESOLUTION 

OF MOTIONS TO TRANSFER FOR 

MDL PROCEEDINGS

SCOTT TALLAL, AL ALBERTO, CRAIG 

MORRIS, MATT TILLMAN, and SAHLIMAR 

GUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 10-5660 SBA 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the pending motions in the above-captioned actions 

(Dockets 4, 18, 28, and 33 in Case No. C 10-5660 SBA, and Dockets 5, 7, 26, 39, and 44 in Case 

No. 10-5621 SBA) shall be held in ABEYANCE pending resolution of the motions to transfer for 

consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings, which currently are under consideration by the 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”). The parties shall notify this Court forthwith 

upon the Panel’s issuance of its decision on the transfer motions. The April 19, 2011 and April 26, 

2011 motion hearings and the April 19, 2011 Case Management Conference are VACATED. This 

Order shall be filed in both of the above actions. 

/// 

Case 2:11-cv-02312-SDW-MCA Document 35 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 304
- 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 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2011 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:11-cv-02312-SDW-MCA Document 35 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 305
Exhibit 10.35.2



 Exhibit 10.35.2 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. 
 2011 CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Genworth Financial, Inc. 2011 Change in Control Plan (the
“Plan”) is made this 5th day of December, 2012.

 The Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Genworth Financial, Inc. (the
“Corporation”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the Corporation and its stockholders to amend the Plan to add protective language relating to the timing of a release of claims, based on recent IRS interpretations of Code
Section 409A relating to deferred compensation arrangements. 
 1. The Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first
sentence of the last paragraph of Section 3(a) and replacing it with the following: 
 “Subject to
Section 11 of this Plan, Basic Severance Benefits described in paragraphs (i) through (iv) above shall be paid within ten (10) business days (or at such earlier time as required by applicable law) following the Participant’s
termination of employment in accordance with the provisions of this Section 3(a), provided, however, that if such period begins in one calendar year and ends in the next calendar year, the payment or benefit shall not be made or commence before
the second such calendar year.” 
 Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain unchanged
and the Plan as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors Otix Global Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-104239, 333-36562,333-59988, 333-76250, 333-98303, 333-99035, 333-115524, 333-124814, 333-134361, 333-145312) on Form S-8 of Otix Global, Inc. of our reports dated March 17, 2008, except as to Note 2 subsection “Reclassifications” and Note 5 which aredated March 16, 2009, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedulewhich reports appear in the December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Otix Global, Inc. 

Our report on the consolidated financialstatements refers to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48 *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, included in ASC Subtopic 740-10, *Income Taxes – Overall*. 

KPMG LLP 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

March 15, 2010
Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB   Document 40   Filed 05/11/11   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 113
Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 2019 

Consumer Price Index: Changes in Seasonal Adjustment Status for 2019

These items are changing to Seasonally Adjusted:

Item code Title

CUUR0000SEFJ01

CWUR0000SEFJ01

CUUR0000SEMF

CWUR0000SEMF 

Milk

Medicinal drugs

 
Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 2019 

These items are changing to Not Seasonally Adjusted:

Item code Title

CUUR0000SEFJ02 

CWUR0000SEFJ02 

CUUR0000SEHN01 

CWUR0000SEHN01

Cheese and related products

Household cleaning products

CUUR0000SEHJ03

CWUR0000SEHJ03

Other furniture
Exhibit 13.2



Certification of CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Clicksoftware
Technologies Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Shmuel Arvatz, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 the best of 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 operations of the
     Company.



/s/ Shmuel Arvatz
Name:   Shmuel Arvatz
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Date:   April 10, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1257

S. K. VARMA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JONATHAN W. DUDAS, Director, United States

Patent and Trademark Office,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00421-JCC)

Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. K. Varma, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

S. K. Varma appeals the district court’s order granting

Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her age discrimination claim

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended,

29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000), and her retaliation claim under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and affirming the Merit Systems

Protection Board’s decision affirming her removal from employment.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Varma v. Dudas, No. 1:06-cv-00421-JCC (E.D. Va. Jan.

24, 2007). 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