alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re REDLINE DETECTION, LLC, Petitioner.

No. 2014-102.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2013.

Matthew Newboles, Attorney, Stetina, Brunda, Garred & Brucker, Aliso Viejo, CA, for Redline Detection, LLC.

Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Jeremiah Helm, Scott Weidenfeller, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office of the Solicitor, Alexandria, VA, for Teresa Stanek Rea, Acting Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Brenton R. Babcock, Jared C. Bunker, Michael K. Friedland, Edward A. Schlat*995ter, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Star Envirotech, Inc.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION

ORDER

RADER, Chief Judge.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected Redline Detection, LLC’s attempts to accept into the record certain documents not part of its initial submission. Redline now asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to accept those documents. We deny the petition.

This petition arises out of Redline’s ongoing efforts to challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808, which is owned by STAR EnviroTech, Inc.

In January 2013, Redline petitioned for *inter partes*review (“IPR”) of claims 9 and 10 of that patent, alleging those claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. When it did so, Redline apparently neglected to include expert declarations in support of its arguments.

On the eve of the parties’ initial conference call with the Board, Redline moved to submit two prior art patents and two declarations providing testimony and support for combining the references of record. Redline claimed that the motion was proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a), entitled “[mjotion to submit supplemental information,” because the request was timely and the information was relevant.

After the conference call, the Board denied the motion. The Board noted, among other things, that Redline could have included the information in its petition and that the information was not merely “supplemental,” because it included arguments and responses to the Board’s decision to institute the IPR.

Redline moved the Board to reconsider its holding. The Board affirmed its holding, additionally noting that Redline had failed to demonstrate that the two prior art references were relevant to the claims at issue in the present case. This petition followed.

Redline seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to accept its submissions. But, mandamus is rarely a proper means by which an appellate court should take up such evidentiary matters. *See In re MSTG, Inc.,*675 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir.2012). An evidentiary ruling by the Board can be reviewed after the Board’s final decision, *see, e.g., Chen v. Bouchard,*347 F.3d 1299, 1307-08 (Fed.Cir.2003), and this court sees no reason to depart from that usual course here. The petition is therefore denied without prejudice to Red-line again raising its § 42.123 arguments on appeal after the Board’s final decision in the IPR.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The petition is denied.
#### Gloria VILLAFAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70311.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 22, 2011.

Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Lori Warlick, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gloria Villafan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Iturribarria v.*
      *703
      *INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA used the correct hardship standard in analyzing Villafan’s cancellation of removal application. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D).

We need not reach Villafan’s challenges to the IJ’s decision because the BIA reviewed the decision de novo. *See Brezi-lien v. Holder,*569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009) (“Any error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board’s application of the correct legal standard.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2796 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2796

To amend section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to update the 
                        family attribution rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 2021

 Mr. Panetta (for himself and Mr. Arrington) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to update the 
                        family attribution rule.

    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 ``Family Attribution Modernization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REFORM OF FAMILY ATTRIBUTION RULE.

    (a) In General.--Section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``For purposes of'' and inserting 
                the following:
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of'', and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraphs:
            ``(2) Special rules for applying family attribution.--For 
        purposes of applying the attribution rules under section 1563 
        with respect to paragraph (1), the following rules apply:
                    ``(A) Community property laws shall be disregarded 
                for purposes of determining ownership.
                    ``(B) Any ownership that is not attributed to a 
                spouse by reason of section 1563(e)(5) shall also not 
                be attributed to the minor children of the owner and 
                the attribution rule in paragraph (6)(A) shall not 
                apply to such ownership.
            ``(3) Plan shall not fail to be treated as satisfying this 
        section.--If application of paragraph (2) causes two or more 
        entities to be a controlled group, or an affiliated service 
        group, or to no longer be in a controlled group or an 
        affiliated service group, such change shall be treated as a 
        transaction to which section 410(b)(6)(C) applies.'', and
            (2) in subsection (m)(6)(B), by striking ``apply'' and 
        inserting ``apply, except that community property laws shall be 
        disregarded for purposes of determining ownership''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to plan years beginning on or after the date of the enactment of 
this section.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commission Meeting Schedule for June 20, 2013","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"88zlFFzenX\"><a href=\"\/commission-meeting-schedule-for-june-20-2013\/\">Commission Meeting Schedule for June 20, 2013<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-meeting-schedule-for-june-20-2013\/embed\/#?secret=88zlFFzenX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Meeting Schedule for June 20, 2013” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"88zlFFzenX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.
 Date: April 29, 2011
    
    /s/ Anand Vadapalli
 Anand
VadapalliChief Executive Officer,Chairman of the Board and PresidentAlaska Communications Systems Group, Inc.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"JULY 2021 ACTIVITY REPORT","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"A0LJDhvBug\"><a href=\"\/july-2021-activity-report\/\">JULY 2021 ACTIVITY REPORT<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/july-2021-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=A0LJDhvBug\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“JULY 2021 ACTIVITY REPORT” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"A0LJDhvBug\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3561 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the amount of educational 

assistance provided to certain veterans for flight training. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 

Mr. TEAGUE (for himself and Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of educational assistance provided to certain veterans for flight training. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR FLIGHT TRAINING. 

4 Subsection (e)(1) of section 3032 of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘60 percent’’ and in6 serting ‘‘75 percent’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
| 1.     | Such      Yearly Report of Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007,      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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year      ended December 31, 2007, fairly represents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of 4301,  Inc. |

| Date:      July 25,  2008                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |
| 4301,      Inc.                                                        |
|                                                                   |
| By:      /s/      Yusuke      Matsuo                                   |
| Yusuke      MatsuoChief      Executive Officer, Chief FinancialOfficer |
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"FMC Moving Quickly in Implementing OSRA 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qIN0nMtVfv\"><a href=\"\/fmc-moving-quickly-in-implementing-osra-2022\/\">FMC Moving Quickly in Implementing OSRA 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmc-moving-quickly-in-implementing-osra-2022\/embed\/#?secret=qIN0nMtVfv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Moving Quickly in Implementing OSRA 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"qIN0nMtVfv\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ENRIQUE GONZALEZ HUERTA, a.k.a.

Enrique Sierra Gonzalez, a.k.a. Gustavo

Gonzalez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50182

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00954-SVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Enrique Gonzalez-Huerta appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed

following his conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50182

 correct the judgment. 

Gonzalez-Huerta contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing adequately to discuss the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and to explain the

deviation from the Guidelines range. We disagree. See United States v. Carty, 520

F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Gonzalez-Huerta also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable because the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors were not individually applied

to his case, and because it is unduly harsh and creates an unwarranted disparity

with similarly situated defendants. In light of the totality of the circumstances and

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gonzalez-Huerta additionally contends that the district court failed to

provide notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). The record

reflects that the district court varied from the Guidelines under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), and it had no obligation to provide Gonzalez-Huerta notice. See

Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714 (2008) (limiting the Rule 32(h) notice

requirement to departures under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)).

Contrary to Gonzalez-Huerta’s contention, he is not entitled to judicial

estoppel.
3 10-50182

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062

(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it

delete from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). See United States

v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to

delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000413 06-MAR-2020 09:05 AM
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simex Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Kjell Jagelid, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|                        |  |                  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------
|Dated: October 17, 2003 |  | /s/ Kjell Jagelid
|                        |  |                  
|                        |  | By: Kjell Jagelid
|                        |  | Its: President   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simex Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Simex
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Ethan Jerome MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joel ZIEGLER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-6871.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 25, 2013.

Ethan Jerome Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ethan Jerome Moore, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2013) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Moore v. Ziegler,*No. 5:11-cv-00521, 2013 WL 2297048 (S.D.W.Va. May 29, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*