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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5205

To extend the boundary of the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park in the 

State of Hawaii. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 4, 2004

Mr. CASE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL

To extend the boundary of the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National 

Park in the State of Hawaii.

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 ‘‘Hawai‘i Volcanoes Na5 tional Park Boundary Extension Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HAWAI‘I VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY 

7 EXTENSION. 

8 The first section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 

9 Stat. 781, chapter 530; 16 U.S.C. 391b) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following: 
2

•HR 5205 IH 

1 ‘‘All of that certain parcel of land (being portion(s) 

2 of the land(s) described in and covered by Royal Patent 

3 Grant Number 2791 to C. C. Harris; Royal Patent Num4 ber 6454, Land Commission Award Number 9156, Apana 

5 1 to Kualaala; Royal Patent Grant Number 2787, Apana 

6 1 to W. C. Shipman; and all of Royal Patent Number 

7 5335, Land Commission Award Number 10514 to Naohe; 

8 Royal Patent Number 5925, Land Commission Award 

9 Number 8771 to Kila; Royal Patent Number 6452, Land 

10 Commission Award Number 11028–B, Apana 1 and 2 to 

11 Samuela Kuula; Royal Patent Number 6083, Land Com12 mission Award Number 10842, Apana 1 and 2 to Pau; 

13 Royal Patent Number 6622, Land Commission Award 

14 Number 8772, Apana 1 and 2 to Kaaloa; Royal Patent 

15 Number 5434, Land Commission Award Number 9157, 

16 Apana 1 and 2 to Keliikanakaole; Royal Patent Number 

17 (None), Land Commission Award Number 8110 to 

18 Hamohamo; Royal Patent Number 6475, Land Commis19 sion Award Number 9209 to Kemu) situate, lying and 

20 being at Kahuku, District of Ka’u, Island and County of 

21 Hawaii, State of Hawaii, being a portion of PARCEL 2, 

22 bearing Tax Key designation (3) 9–2–001–001 and con23 taining an area of 655.544 acres, more or less. 

24 ‘‘All of that certain parcel of land (being all of Apana 

25 3 of Royal Patent Number 6452, Land Commission 
3

•HR 5205 IH 

1 Award Number 11028–B to Samuela Kuula) situate, lying 

2 and being at Kiao, District of Kau, Island and County 

3 of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, bearing Tax Key designation 

4 (3) 9–3–005–012 and containing an area of 1.300 acres, 

5 more or less.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 MattMar Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean
Mitchell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of October, 2006.


/s/ Sean Mitchell
----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before COOK, GALLAGHER, and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Private First Class SHAUN M. WILLOUGHBY United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20110100

Headquarters, Fort Carson Mark A. Bridges, Military Judge Colonel Randy T. Kirkvold, Staf f Judge Advocate (pretrial)

Lieutenant Colonel Steven P. Haight, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Major J acob D. Bashore, JA; Captain Kristin McGrory, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Major Robert A. Rodrigues, JA; Captain Daniel H. Karna, JA (on brief).

14 February 2013

---------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam:

A panel of officers sitting as a general court- martial convicte d appellant, contrary to his plea s, of assault in vi olation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928 (2006) [hereina fter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved th e adjudged sentence to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for one year, forfeiture of all pay and allowanc es, and reduction to the grade of E-1.

The convening authority approved appellant’s request for deferment of automatic and adjudged forfeitures, as well as appellant’s reduction in rank, until action. At action, the convening authority waived appellant’s automatic forfeitures for a six-month period, with di rection that they be used for the benefit of appellant’s dependent son. However, th e convening authority failed to disapprove the adjudged forfeitures, leaving no pay and allowances to waive for the benefit of appellant’s

son. In order to effectuate the clear intent of the co nvening authority, and in the interest of judicial economy, we set aside that portion of the sentence th at includes

forfeiture of all pay and allowances.WILLOUGHBY—ARMY 20110100

2 On consideration of the entire record, and the ma tters personally raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C .M.A. 1982), the findings of guilty are A FFIRMED. Only so much of the approved sentence as provides for a bad-conduct disc harge, confinement for one year, and reduction to the grade of E-1 is AFFIRMED. All rights, privileg es, and property of which appellant was deprived by virtue of th at portion of his sentence se t aside by this decision are hereby ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58(b), 75(a).

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

7Obrtla?~ 16, 1939 

Eon* ohas. 8. Thoobald 

OOtml Irtt0rn.y 

Gltaatoa, trua 

Dear sir1 

lot may ba eaII the llmlta ot 

J be ambraord in 

one dlatrlot to 

Called Ssaai 

doer not MOO 

laturr , Seoond 

8ri88t 

whioh you redor, 

the qwatlon of 

alhaga dlatriot oan be 

ad in on0 oountJ,* Should 

h dlatrlot oan be and 18 

ita boondulaa daflaad aa 

10~011~ looatad any 

ot d*'~latriata....w 

la 8091, Rerlaad Cl<11 Statutea, 1935, 

Tha oomalaelonsra oourta may ratabliah one or more drainage dlatrlota la 

their reapeotlro oountloa 1~ the manner 

prmlded in thla ohaptar. &oh dlatrlota, 
Eon. Ohaa. 8. Theobald, February 13, lOSO, Page t 

when ao aatabllahed, say make drainage 

lmproremsnta therein and laaue bonda in 

payment therafor aa provided la thla 

ohaptar . The oosomlaalonair oourt ahall 

hereafter be designated aa tha @Court*.’ 

It is to be noted that the authority to a!- 

tabliah one or mora drainage dlatrlota ln a oounty la 

grantad bJths ~Blature to the Comlasloneraw Court 

of It8 reapsotlro oounty, whloh dlatrlot, in it8 oraatlon, however, mat be eatabllahad in the manner provided 

for and auoh protlaiona are act iorth in chapter 7 of 

title US, Revised Civil Statutaa, 1335. 

After axaminlng the rarloua provlalona of the 

statute8 pertaining to tho maMu or moating auoh dlatrlota, w ara unable to oonatrua Buoh protlal~na and tha 

above Artlole SO97 aa a llmltatlon an tha power of tha 

qualified petltlonsrs and tax-paTera of a oountp and tha 

Conm2aslonera~ Court to eatabllah ona drainago dlatrlot 

to embraoe all the tarrltory permlaalbla in the entlra 

oouaty wherein no drainage dlatrlota srlat. 

It la, thareiore, the oplalon of thla Department that the oreatlon of one dralnaga dlatrlot to ambraoe all territory of the oounty aroaptlng thuerrom 

the tarrltor7 rlthln the llmlta of lnoorporated oltlaa 

where a&me la aatabllrhed in the manner provided by law, 

would not be without the aoopa oi tha leglalatlte intent 

aa expressed In Artlols 8097, quoted above aad under tha 

prorlalona ot tha law ragulatlng the manner ot lta eatabllahment. 

Very truly your8 

WmKaAW 

APPROVED a
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129741 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DETROIT BUILDING AUTHORITY, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Cross Plaintiff- Justices Appellee, 

and 

CITY OF DETROIT,

 Intervening Plaintiff/Counter 

 Plaintiff/Cross PlaintiffAppellant, 

v SC: 129741 

 COA: 253479 

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Wayne CC: 02-234701-CH

 Defendant/Cross Defendant/ 

 Counter Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

MICHIGAN FINANCIAL 

INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., 

Intervening Defendant/

Cross Plaintiff/DefendantAppellee. _________________________________________/ 

By order of March 27, 2006, the application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in In re 

Petition by Treasurer of Wayne County for Foreclosure (Docket No. 129341). On order 

of the Court, the case having been decided on May 23, 2007, 478 Mich 1 (2007), the 

application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we 

REINSTATE the order of the Wayne County Circuit Court setting aside the foreclosure 

sale and quieting title to the property in the plaintiff. The foreclosure sale of publicly 

owned property is prohibited. MCL 211.78g(1). Contrary to the Court of Appeals 

majority's conclusion, the Wayne County Treasurer had reason to know that the property 

was publicly owned because there is no dispute that the plaintiff Detroit Building 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

Authority, which was incorporated by the intervening plaintiff City of Detroit, MCL 

123.951, was the owner of record and had filed both a deed and an affidavit of property 

transfer notifying the county that the property was tax exempt. 

MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I concur in the decision to reverse the Court of Appeals; however, I would do so 

on different grounds. It is undisputed that the city of Detroit was the taxpayer of record 

in the local assessor’s office at the time of the foreclosure. Because the city's interest was 

“identifiable by reference to . . . [t]ax records in the office of the local assessor,” MCL 

211.78i(6)(c), the Wayne County Treasurer was required to send notice by certified mail. 

MCL 211.78i(2). Moreover, because the city's interest was “reasonably identifiable” 

under the records of the local assessor, merely posting a foreclosure notice and publishing 

such notice in a newspaper was not constitutionally adequate. Mennonite Bd of Missions 

v Adams, 462 US 791, 798-799 (1983). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred by 

concluding that the treasurer "afforded the City the required due process.” 

l0925 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 28, 2007 

Clerk
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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen A. Miller, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (2) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2007                        
|                                          
|/s/ Glen A. Miller                        
|Glen A. Miller                            
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 85 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1823
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00419-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.G., a Child

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02259

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Because Appellant is indigent, no costs 

are taxed against her. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1.

SIGNED November 5, 2014.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ERIC J. RHETT,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 1:09CV64-SPM/AK

FIREMANS INSURANCE CO., et al,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against

a number of businesses and persons in New Jersey. Plaintiff resides in New Jersey. 

There appears to be no connection between the parties and this district. Thus, the

proper forum for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 110 is the

United States District Court for the New Jersey. 

A federal district court has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer a

case to another district or division "in which it could have been brought." A court may

raise the issue of defective venue sua sponte, but should not dismiss an improperly filed

case for lack of venue without giving the parties an opportunity to respond. Lipofsky v.

New York State Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988). The

Lipofsky court did not place the same limitations on the court's ability to transfer a case

to the appropriate forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Lipofsky, 861 F.2d at

1259, n. 2. Thus, it is recommended that the case be transferred rather than dismissed. 

Case 3:09-cv-02727-PGS-DEA Document 7 Filed 03/17/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 57
Page 2 of 2

No. 1:09CV64-SPM/AK

There is no need for a hearing on this transfer. Cf. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486,

1488 (9th Cir. 1986) with Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 

The undersigned is also of the opinion that no decision by this Court should be

made on the pending motion for IFP and accompanying affidavit since the district court

in New Jersey may have different forms and requirements for this process.

In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), the

undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS transfer of this action to the United States

District Court for New Jersey, for all further proceedings.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 17th day of March, 2009.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 3:09-cv-02727-PGS-DEA Document 7 Filed 03/17/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 58
1

Codrut Radu Radulescu Attorney At Law

65 Longview St. Phone: 973 536 2608

West Orange, New Jersey 07052 email: radu@synclabs.com

Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo

M.L. King , Jr., Federal Building & Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, New Jersey 07101

RE: Sync Labs v. Fusion Manufacturing

Civ. Action no. 11-cv-03671 (WHW)(MCA)

Dear Judge Arleo,

I am respectfully asking you honor to consider the dates of my vacation between Jul 23 

and Aug 22, 2012 in allowing me a reasonable time to file an eventual appeal for the order to 

dismiss counsel and for other litigation related events. As I will be in Europe spending time with 

my father I am not certain of the access to email or ECF during this time. 

Respectfully submitted,

Codrut Radu Radulescu, Esq Date :Jul 10th, 2012

/s Codrut Radu Radulescu 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Cc: Christopher W. Hager ( via ECF and Email)

Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-MCA Document 46 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 620
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5274

To create an additional judgeship for the eastern district of California, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. POMBO, Mr. HERGER, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. OSE, Mr. NUNES, Mr. RADANOVICH, and Mr. CARDOZA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL

To create an additional judgeship for the eastern district 

of California, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE EASTERN DIS4 TRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

5 (a) ADDITIONAL PERMANENT DISTRICT JUDGE6 SHIP.—The President shall appoint, by and with the ad7 vice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge 

8 for the eastern district of California. 
2

•HR 5274 IH 

1 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—

2 In order that the table under section 133(a) of title 28, 

3 United States Code, will reflect the change in the number 

4 of permanent judgeships authorized for the eastern dis5 trict of California by subsection (a), such table is amended 

6 in the item relating to the eastern district of California 

7 by striking ‘‘6’’ and inserting ‘‘7’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      AND**


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




In
      connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Eugene Science, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Seung Kwon Noh, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350, that to the best of my
      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.




Date:
                April 23, 2007
            
            /s/
                Seung Kwon NohSeung
                Kwon NohPresident
                & Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
      under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

[In thousands]

Category

Total Age Sex

2014 2015

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

Total not in the labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,025 93,671 17,418 17,367 23,744 23,957 50,863 52,347 36,865 37,481 55,159 56,190

Do not want a job now1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,702 87,589 15,377 15,525 21,075 21,344 49,250 50,719 33,932 34,681 51,770 52,907

Want a job1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,323 6,082 2,041 1,842 2,669 2,612 1,614 1,628 2,934 2,799 3,389 3,283

Did not search for work in previous

year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,448 3,454 1,072 1,030 1,337 1,357 1,039 1,067 1,524 1,507 1,924 1,947

Searched for work in previous year,

but not in past 4 weeks2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,875 2,628 969 812 1,332 1,256 574 561 1,409 1,292 1,465 1,336

Not available to work now. . . . . . . . . . . . 667 673 303 287 284 307 81 79 270 277 397 395

Marginally attached (available to

work now)3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,207 1,956 666 525 1,048 949 493 482 1,139 1,015 1,068 941

Discouraged over job

prospects4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 664 184 159 350 316 205 189 443 404 296 261

Reasons other than

discouragement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,468 1,291 482 366 697 632 289 293 696 611 772 680

Family responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . 239 216 34 23 160 138 45 55 65 64 174 153

In school or training. . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 212 208 154 54 51 4 7 149 106 118 107

Ill health or disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 168 16 16 84 77 61 75 82 84 80 84

Other5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801 695 224 174 398 366 179 155 400 358 401 337

1

Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job.

2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched since the end of that job.

3 Persons ′′marginally attached to the labor force′′ are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during

the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

4 Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work

available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.

5

Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which

reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
#### Michelson, administrator, *v.*Lavin.

Bleckley, C. J. — There is no merit whatever in any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial; the damages do not appear to be excessive, and no cause for reversing the judgment appears.

October 15, 1894.

Action for slander. Before Judge Sweat. Glynn superior court. May term, 1893.

Symmes & Bennet, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff in error. Harris & Sparks and P. H. Harris, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*