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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2353 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2353

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2011

Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. Reichert, Ms. Baldwin, and 
 Mr. Latham) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

    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 ``Volunteer Responder Incentive 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. BENEFITS PROVIDED TO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY 
              MEDICAL RESPONDERS.

    (a) Increase in Dollar Limitation on Qualified Payments.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 139B(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$50''.
    (b) Extension.--Subsection (d) of section 139B of such Code is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply with respect to 
taxable years--
            ``(1) beginning after December 31, 2010, and before January 
        1, 2012, or
            ``(2) beginning after December 31, 2015.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
FROM  MEDSCAPE'S  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,803,000
<SECURITIES>                                22,711,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,320,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,373,000
<PP&E>                                       9,931,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,969,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,559,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,124,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       453,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  60,982,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                72,559,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,009,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,186,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             490,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (23,687,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (23,687,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (23,687,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.53)



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JFT CORPORATION,

 Petitioner

 v.

NEWTEL PAYPHONE OPERATIONS,

INC. AND JOHN CORY,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 871 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH 

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU

)LOH 1DPH DS

	

		

	







$8/

5(*25<

286(

	






,&.<

(//


	













 

!"#$%& 

'#()
*!'!+%!,$%-.(


	
		
/)/0

0)
1(//)1
/()

!+%!,$%-2







1  ()
 $ *!' !+%!, $%-  %"

-3%24**252,+,,*6%2,2 %,*!7!- " 0' 	8!+2 ' 2,22 
+ , 92, *!: ! 9!- 2,, +%,9+!-2"0'4299!,,92,%2!*!2'"*52+9%29+!-!,*
!,	,,20!2,!+,%, ',*2,0!2,!+,'229%2%,,&
	;<=<>6?*!2+%,*23,,!22%'!" +!2!244!,!-%"!-':,*

&  22	%9:%,,*'+,!!!2"29!-5'
!,	,,28,*"22%2 , 5,! "!' ! ,* 2,,+"!:2 ' !''+,!8 22!2,+ @+%"9,38!+:!2+92+%,  %2 2A2 , *99!,:, @9  ,*-8:,',*2,,+%,9,*99"!+5"+2"4':%2	+,!<=<>6?2,%,*!7,)++!-"3,*:,!!2!

)2 ,* '+,2 2%%!- %2

!2+%22!%9!9!!CDC>,*!&&?44!""2"6%2,!5'%2++24""4"0',5+:9	+,!<=<>6?>=?>?%,*!72,*'3!!-,',!39%&<
	;&&E=>2A!-,,*2,+?24""2''&<
	;&&EE*2,,%,"2!2 ,!," , F,* '%!2*!-2 +++4!,*9-9*2 >E? >
	 ; <=<>6?>=?>?  	+,!99!,,,32#

2*"" 92, ,* '2%526%, 2,- ' 8!"5"!+"%!- ,* 9,!" 9+:,!2'4,!"99"2+,!!,,*	%9:%,"" 8!"5" 92,+8!+,! 99"!+,!2'2,32'@+%,!:,!2  9+%2  2', ! 2%+* +:9,9+!-2'@+%,!8,*8!"5",,*',
   

-4!,*%2!2,+!+%!,2,*,	+,!<=<>6?>=?>?

:%2,5+2,%4"3-4!,*,*!++"%2!,*,,*2,,%,2,%,*!7'"+:92,!'92,,!!2,,9+!-2 &

  E >,*!&&?. &C< =ED= >E,*!&&?.EC =E=EEE<>E,*!DDE?.! DD&&<< 

=><,*!DD ?."!#<CE&E&EC

>,*!D<D?

	+,!<=<!29,',*),!0%-)5%2)+,'DD<

%5/D&	,,=<*+,98!2'9%!2*:,'--!-!+,!%!-+!:!",9!22!8!",!''"%-"4298!2',*!:92!,!',*,*9",3!+,!+22&
	;<=<*"4"22,5"!2*2,*9+%2 '!:92!-,*,*9",3 ! '" +22  98!2 ' +%2" ''!+!""3 %5" ',2  	+,! <=<>6? !2 ,!,"F)99" ! +9!," +22. +%2" ' '!+!""3 %5"',2G)2,*+%,,!,*2,,%,F2:2

!+,,,*99"2',*9",32,+2!'"+22G  &   ,  C  48 	+,!<=<>6?>=?>?98!2',*99!,:,'+%2"!39+!-%	+,!&&E=	+,!&&EE!4*!+*,*', !2 2A!- , 2, 2!  2,,  '" ,*2,+

	*%" 4 ""4,*!,9,,! 2%--2,53 %2

%24%"5,!,",*8"0'92,*!:!3 2%",!-42,,,!"2,,99" 2,,*52+9%29+!-2!'*!2+%,2,+!28+,    '! ,*!2 992!,! %++9,5"  )2 ,*"8,*!+%!,2!!, C<

,*!-!,*"-!2",!8*!2,3!!+,2,%2,*,

-22+!,93I53922!-:3,*%-*,*'"+%,2I"432,92,',2!2,,9+!-2	+,!<=<>6?>=?>?42,,*5!""83 ", ! ,* 222!  2:!-"3 4!,*%, '"5,  * 4*" 5%2!22 ' '" +:92,!

=  

>+,""53'"+%,2?'9+!-5*"''2,,9!2!8,!8,*85",4222!2,*"-!2",!425::,   +2! !, %"!,%',*::,,*5%,,*!22%'%,*+"%2+,%""3!,'2+,!<=, '" @92, 2,, 9!9+!-2*%"!22!:9"*,49

*2,,4!""5292!5"''" -8:, 4!"" 5 9+!-2 )2,* 4!-*,' %2B26%2,,*8"0,* 2,, +%, 9+!-2 , ,*-8:,%2B2:,!,92,,! 53 !,2 '0
0

010

J2J/



"A
exhibit103.htm




 


AMENDMENTS TO


2006 EMPLOYEE, DIRECTOR AND CONSULTANT STOCK PLAN


 


     Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended to revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:







(a)      The number of Shares which may be issued from time to time pursuant to this Plan shall be 6,000,000, or the equivalent of such number of Shares after the Administrator, in its sole discretion, has interpreted the effect of any stock split, stock dividend, combination, recapitalization or similar transaction in accordance with Paragraph 24 of the Plan.  [Adopted December 6, 2010]


 


     Section 4.2(e) of the Plan is amended to add an new clause (ii), such that the Section, as amended, reads as set forth below:







(e)      Make changes to any outstanding Stock Right, including, without limitation, to reduce or increase the exercise price or purchase price, accelerate the vesting schedule or extend the expiration date, provided that (i) no such change shall impair the rights of a Participant under any grant previously made without such Participant’s consent and (ii) except in connection with a corporate transaction involving the Company (including, without limitation, any stock dividend, distribution (whether in the form of cash, Common Stock, other securities or other property), stock split, extraordinary cash dividend, recapitalization, change in control, reorganization, merger, consolidation, split-up, spin-off, combination, repurchase or exchange of Common Stock or other securities, or similar transaction(s)), the Company may not, without obtaining stockholder approval: (a) amend the terms of outstanding Stock Rights to reduce the exercise price of such outstanding Stock Rights; (b) cancel outstanding Stock Rights in exchange for Stock Rights with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the original Stock Rights; or (c) cancel outstanding Stock Rights with an exercise price above the current stock price in exchange for cash or other securities; [Adopted November 23, 2010]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando CASTANEDA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40367

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, *686Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Fernando Castaneda-Perez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert.*denied, -U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CITY OF TAMPA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-4252

)

KEITH SMITH, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 30, 2020. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Emily Peacock, 

Judge.

Gina K. Grimes, City Attorney, 

Toyin K. Aina-Hargrett, Senior Assistant

City Attorney, Tampa, for Appellant.

Alina M. Morros of Fiol Law Group, 

P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and MORRIS and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,356
<SECURITIES>                                     7,011
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,406)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,715
<PP&E>                                          21,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,002)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,542
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,771)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,491
<SALES>                                         51,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,589
<CGS>                                           18,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,596)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,916)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,916)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael C. Forman,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of FS Investment Corporation III; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 27, 2018



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN                    
|Michael C. Forman
Chief Executive Officer
|
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

485 

KA 11-00308 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WAYNE M. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ERIN TUBBS OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J.

Connell, J.), rendered June 27, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of robbery in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of robbery in the first degree

(Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a

judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the

first degree (§ 160.15 [3]) and robbery in the third degree (§

160.05). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime

in the nonjury trial in appeal No. 1 (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d

342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of

the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The

victim and another witness testified that defendant brandished a long

kitchen knife while fleeing from the robbery. Although defendant

testified that he neither brandished a knife nor had one on his person

during or in immediate flight from the robbery, it is well settled

that “[g]reat deference is to be accorded to the [factfinder’s]

resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point

and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the

testimony” (People v Aikey, 94 AD3d 1485, 1486, lv denied 19 NY3d 956

[internal quotation marks omitted]). We see no basis to disturb

County Court’s credibility determinations (see People v Maxwell, 103

AD3d 1239, 1240).

Defendant contends that, if this Court reverses the judgment of

conviction in appeal No. 1, then we should likewise reverse the

judgment of conviction in appeal No. 2. We affirm the judgment in
-2- 485

KA 11-00308 

appeal No. 2, however, in view of our determination in appeal No. 1

(cf. People v Baker, 20 NY3d 354, 364). 

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of Investcorp
Credit Management BDC, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rocco DelGuercio, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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



/s/    Rocco DelGuercioName:

Rocco DelGuercioDate:

September 21, 2020
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2426-000]


PSEG Keys Energy Center LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of PSEG Keys Energy Center LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 27, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b2d2e392824050702050e381e1b1b04191f2b0d0e1908450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0969582939fbebcb9beb583a5a0a0bfa2a490b6b5a2b3feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 7, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19409 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

60 

CA 13-01264 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

PAUL COLEMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

1093 GROUP, LLC, 10 ELLICOTT SQUARE COURT 

CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS ELLICOTT 

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND G.M. CRISALLI & 

ASSOCIATES, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

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

1093 GROUP, LLC, 10 ELLICOTT SQUARE COURT 

CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS ELLICOTT 

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND G.M. CRISALLI & 

ASSOCIATES, INC., THIRD-PARTY

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

V

 

SOLVAY IRON WORKS, INC., THIRD-PARTY 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (KRISTIN L. NORFLEET

OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MURAD AND MURAD, P.C., UTICA (FREDERICK W. MURAD OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP, SYRACUSE (SANDRA J. SABOURIN OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Norman

I. Siegel, J.), entered September 18, 2012 in a personal injury

action. The order, among other things, denied third-party defendant’s

cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party

complaint. 

Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the

attorneys for the parties on October 1 and 9, 2013, and December 9,

2013, and filed in the Oneida County Clerk’s Office on December 10,

2013,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.
-2- 60 

CA 13-01264 

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6651
BENJAMIN A. LUCCIOLA, Petitioner - Appellant, versusCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C. D. LARSEN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-1091-R) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin A. Lucciola, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Lucciola v. Virginia , No. CA-96-1091-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED