alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10207 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus
CICILY ANN LOYA , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 1:17

- CR

- 83

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Cicily L oya pleaded guilty o f aiding and abetting possessi o n with the

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 17, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10207 Document: 00515162393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2019No. 19

- 10207

2 i ntent to distrib ute mari h uana and was sentenced to 3 7 months in prison and f

our years of supervised release (“SR”)

. Loya ’s first term of SR was revoked on January 18, 2017, and t he district court sentenced h er to three months in prison and 18 months of SR

. The court revoked Loya ’s second term of SR and sentenced her to 18 months in prison, w h ich was above the recommended guide lines range of three to nine months. The court stated that the sentence addressed “the issues of adequate deterrence and protection of the public.”
On appeal , Loya contends that the sentence is both procedurally and sub stantively unreasonable. Because she did not “ contemporaneously object ”
to procedural or substantive reasonableness , our review is for plain error. United States v. F erguson , 369 F.3d 847 , 849 (5th Cir. 200 4 ).

The district court must provide “ some explanation ” if it imposes a revoca

tion sentence outside the advisory r ange. United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 262 (5th Cir. 2009)

. T he record reflects that the court “ adequately explain [ed] the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing .” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)

. Loya also maintains that the 18

- month sentence is substantivel y unreasonable because there is nothing to justify a sentence that is twice the
maximum recommended s entence. We may not second

- guess the findings of the sentencing court, which “is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553( a) with respect to a particular defendant.” United States v. Heard , 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nothing in the record compels a finding that the court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors was unreaso nable or plainly erroneous

. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10207 Document: 00515162393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2019
**EXHIBIT 32.1**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350In connection with the Annual Report of Wireless Ronin Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey C. Mack, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.Dated: March 13, 2008         By:                                                         /s/  Jeffrey C. Mack    Jeffrey C. Mack    President and Chief Executive Officer
{"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":"Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Regarding Revisions to the Commission\u2019s Passenger Vessel Regulations on September 8, 2011","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wCpHhKHz01\"><a href=\"\/statement-of-commissioner-rebecca-dye-regarding-revisions-to-the-commissions-passenger-vessel-regulations-on-september-8-2011\/\">Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Regarding Revisions to the Commission\u2019s Passenger Vessel Regulations on September 8, 2011<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-of-commissioner-rebecca-dye-regarding-revisions-to-the-commissions-passenger-vessel-regulations-on-september-8-2011\/embed\/#?secret=wCpHhKHz01\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Regarding Revisions to the Commission\u2019s Passenger Vessel Regulations on September 8, 2011” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"wCpHhKHz01\" 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 4.2**

**DE VISSER GRAY LLP**

**CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

401—905 West Pender Street 

Vancouver, BCCanada 

V6C 1L6 

Tel:(604) 687-5447 

Fax: (604) 687-6737 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

We consent to the use of our report dated March 15, 2006, except asto Note 18 which is as at November 14, 2006, with respect to the consolidated audited financial statements of New Gold Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006, filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission. 

“De Visser Gray LLP” 

DeVisser Gray, LLP 

Chartered Accountants 

Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada 

March 29, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aaron Alexander BOUTTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30774

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2010.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Aaron Alexander Boutte, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Aaron Alexander Boutte, federal prisoner # 09562-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce the 324-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of crack cocaine. Boutte contends that the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was error. Although he concedes that, because he was held *5accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, his guidelines range was unaffected by the retroactive crack cocaine amendments, he nevertheless urges that *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), *Kim-brough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), should apply in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, allowing district courts to impose sentences lower than the two-level adjustment contemplated by the crack cocaine amendments based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Boe,*117 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir.1997). As Boutte concedes, because his offense involved more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, the retroactive crack amendment does not lower his guidelines range, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reduce his sentence. *See*§ 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10, comment. (n.lA) and 2D1.1. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in *Booker*does not apply to sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) because such proceedings are not full resentencings. *United States v. Doublin,*572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009); *see also Dillon v. United States,*— U.S.-,---, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-93, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Boutte’s argument based on *Booker*and its progeny is therefore unavailing.

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.
ORIGDAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

FILE) 

PR 22-0005 

IN RE THE MOTION OF MICHAEL A. ZAHN FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA 

SEP 0 6 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Michael A. Zahn has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Zahn has provided the necessary documentation 

and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Michael A. Zahn may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this day of September, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

09/06/2022

Case Number: PR 22-0005
( 04-m/1-4°

A~M44... 

Justices 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         117,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,293
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,500
<INVENTORY>                                    307,213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               502,546
<PP&E>                                          75,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 868,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          387,335
<BONDS>                                        314,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,545
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   868,160
<SALES>                                      1,731,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,731,414
<CGS>                                        1,078,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,078,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               456,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,467
<INCOME-TAX>                                       300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,167
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,167
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Amendment to the Index License Agreement for funds, dated June 5, 2007



 Exhibit 10.8 
 Client Code/Reference No: ADD-00203 
 AMENDMENT 
 Date of Amendment: June 5 2007 
 AMENDMENT to the Index
License Agreement for Funds (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 18, 2000, by and between Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. (“MSCI”) and Barclays Global Investors, N.A (“Licensee”); as
amended. 
  

	1.	Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the Standard Country Indices listed below with the Investable Market Country Indices listed below: 


 

			
	 Standard Index
	  	 Investable Market Index

	 ****
	  	 ****

	 ****
	  	 ****

	 ****
	  	 ****

	 ****
	  	 ****


  

	2.	This Amendment is intended to amend and operate in conjunction with the Agreement and together this Amendment and the Agreement constitute the complete and exclusive statement of
the agreement between the parties and supersede in full all prior proposals and understandings, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof. No right or license of any kind is granted to Licensee except as expressly provided in the
Agreement and this Amendment. 

  

	3.	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict or choice of laws principles.


  

									
	BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS, N.A.	 		 	MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
					
	By	 	/s/ Greg Friedman	 		 	By	 	/s/ Dennis Sidlauskas
	Name	 	Greg Friedman	 		 	Name	 	Dennis Sidlauskas
		 		 		 		 	Executive Director

  

			
	BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS, N.A.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Elaine Orr
	Name:	 	Elaine Orr

 [****] Represents material which has been redacted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 53494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ18-1-000]


City of Vernon, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 30, 2017, City of Vernon, California 
submitted its tariff filing: 2018 Transmission Revenue Requirement and 
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment, to be effective 1/1/
2018.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is 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#387e7d6a7b77565451565d6b4d4848574a4c785e5d4a5b165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f696a7d6c60414346414a7c5a5f5f405d5b6f494a5d4c01484059">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 20, 2017.

    Dated: November 9, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24800 Filed 11-15-17; 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>
{"id":6809,"date":"2022-06-24T13:09:12","date_gmt":"2022-06-24T17:09:12","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=6809"},"modified":"2022-08-12T10:25:43","modified_gmt":"2022-08-12T14:25:43","slug":"industry-advisory-applicability-of-provisions-contained-in-pl-117-146","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/industry-advisory-applicability-of-provisions-contained-in-pl-117-146\/","title":{"rendered":"Industry Advisory \u2014 Applicability of Provisions Contained in PL 117-146"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On June 16, 2022, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/117th-congress\/senate-bill\/3580\/text\">Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022<\/a> became Public Law 117-146.<\/p>\n<p>Certain provisions of the statute became effective immediately upon enactment with no allowance for a phase-in period.<\/p>\n<p>Regulated entities must comply with all relevant statutory requirements.<\/p>\n<p>An <a href=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/FMCGCOpiniononOSRA22.pdf\">opinion of the General Counsel on this issue<\/a> is available. Please note that opinions of the General Counsel do not constitute the judgment of the Federal Maritime Commission, nor bind the Commission in any subsequent matter.<\/p>\n<p>Parties with questions related to their obligations should consult with their legal counsel.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On June 16, 2022, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 became Public Law 117-146. Certain provisions of the statute became effective immediately upon enactment with no allowance for a phase-in period. Regulated entities must comply with all relevant statutory requirements. An opinion of the General Counsel on this issue... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/industry-advisory-applicability-of-provisions-contained-in-pl-117-146\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[48],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6809"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6809"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6809\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6812,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6809\/revisions\/6812"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to    18    U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 of HemaCare Corporation    (the "Company") fully complies    with    the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

Very
truly yours,

|/s/JUDI IRVINGJudi Irving Chief Executive
Officer             | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ROBERT S. CHILTONRobert S. Chilton Chief Financial Officer | 
|Dated: March 25, 2005                                         | 
|                                                              | 

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

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1688

RUDIS ONAN CHICAS-SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 2, 2020 Decided: January 14, 2020

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christina A. Wilkes, WILKES LEGAL, LLC, Takoma Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, 

David J. Schor, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rudis Onan Chicas-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion for 

reconsideration and reopening. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that 

the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Urbina v. Holder, 745 

F.3d 736, 741 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED