PER CURIAM.
At the time this case was docketed, Sanders was notified that the court was considering summary affirmance, and thereater appellee filed a motion to affirm, with a supporting memorandum. Sanders has taken the opportunity afforded him to file a memorandum opposing such disposition, and a motion for appointment of counsel, which motion is denied.
Examination of the file and records in this cause prompts the conclusion that a single question is presented which is so unsubstantial as not to warrant further argument. Accordingly, the motion of appellee is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order, 313 F.Supp. 1031 (D.Kan.1969). See also Whiteley v. Meacham, 416 F.2d 36 (10th Cir. 1969); and Pierce v. Wilson, 306 F.Supp. 91 (D. Utah 1969).