alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Pell Center Study Shows iCollege at the Top of Military Cyber Education

/ Published Aug. 9, 2013

The Pell Center has published a study of military cyber education on their website, and NDU, due to the iCollege's excellent cyber education, receives top scores. The report states, "Graduates of NDU iCollege clearly receive a comprehensive, national/strategic cyber education in the full spectrum of cybersecurity issues from technical to strategic leadership, and the practical knowledge needed to successfully navigate cyberspace and promote its integration with the physical domains.Furthermore, according to the author, Francesca Spidalieri, "The NDU iCollege is definitely at the forefront of cyber education at senior military schools, and I commend all your work and initiatives to include

a strong cyber component in your curriculum."Attached is the final version of the study, and here is the link to the press release:http://pellcenter.salvereginablogs.com/new-study-senior-u-s-military-schools-struggle-to-include-cyber-education-in-curricula/Copy of the full report:http://pellcenter.salvereginablogs.com/files/2013/08/JPME-Cyber-Leaders-Final.pdf
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday, August 25, 2006.

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be considered:

Surveillance Matters.

# For further information contact:

Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 06-6714 Filed 8-2-06; 10:33 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### DAVID DINKELSPIEL, EDWARD OPPENHEIMER and HENRY HYMAN, Respondents, *v.*GABRIEL LEVY, an Infant, by BERTHA LEVY, his Guardian ad litem, Appellant.

*Amendment of recitals in order*— by *what justice it should be made.*

Appeal from an order amending a preceding order, in its recital of papers read upon the hearing of a motion.

The court at General Term said: “ The application made for the correction of the order was not strictly regular, because it w*as made before a justice who did not hear the motion. But it was in no sense an application to review or modify the decision which had been made in the case. It was simply to enlarge the reciting portion of the order, by inserting a statement of certain record evidence pertinent to the case and probably considered in its disposition. It was probably what the justice deciding the preceding motion would at once have directed on a mere suggestion for that purpose; and, under the circumstances, the order should not be reversed, even if the appeal from it was proper, merely to afford the applicants an opportunity to renew the application before the justice who heard the original motion.

But as the course taken to secure the correction of the order was not entirely regular, and the practice of applying to one justice to correct the orders directed by another is not to be recommended, the order appealed from should be affirmed without costs.”

*JBenno*loewy, for the appellant. *Albert Cardoso,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.;

Davis, P. J., concurred.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.

Order affirmed, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated March 13, 2000, and published in the Federal 
Register on March 21, 2000, (65 FR 55), Organichem Corporation, 33 
Riverside Avenue, Renssalaer, New York 12144, made application to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Meperidine (9230)..........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to manufacture meperidine as bulk product for 
distribution to its customers and to manufacture methylphenidate for 
distribution to a customer.
    DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, 
Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Organichem 
Corporation to manufacture the listed controlled substances is 
consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated 
Organichem Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is 
consistent with the public interest. The investigation included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the 
application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above 
is granted.

    Dated: June 14, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-15984 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.12(b)  


 
 

FORM OF
  AMENDMENT NO. 2
  TO
  AMENDED AND RESTATED CUSTOMER AGREEMENT    
    


        WHEREAS, MORGAN STANLEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Customer"), and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED, formerly Morgan
Stanley DW Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the "Commodity Broker") have agreed to amend the Amended and Restated Customer Agreement, dated as of the 16th day of October 2000 (the
"Customer Agreement"), by and between the Customer and the Commodity Broker, to reflect the merger of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. into Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and to amend the rate
of interest income credited to the Customer's account by the Commodity Broker. Terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Customer Agreement. 


        WHEREAS,
all provisions contained in the Customer Agreement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below. 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Customer Agreement as follows: 



	1.
	Morgan
Stanley DW Inc. has been merged into Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and any references to "DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.", the predecessor to Morgan Stanley
DW Inc., shall mean "MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED".



	2.
	The
third sentence of Section 7 Investment of Customer Funds is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated will credit
the Customer with interest income on 80% of the Customer's Net Assets on deposit with Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated at each month-end at the rate equal to the monthly average of
the 4-Week U.S. Treasury bill discount rate during such month."



	3.
	This
Amendment No. 2 shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of New York. 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 to the Customer Agreement has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the [] day of
[] 2007. 



	

 	
 	

MORGAN STANLEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

Demeter Management Corporation,

General Partner
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

 Name:

Title:
	

 	
 	

MORGAN STANLEY & CO INCORPORATED
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

 Name:

Title:













QuickLinks


FORM OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CUSTOMER AGREEMENT
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1686: DEXCOM, INC. v. AGAMATRIX, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CE1prFUOwn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-18-1686-dexcom-inc-v-agamatrix-inc-rule-36-judgment-18-1686-rule_36_judgment-3-7-2019-1\/\">18-1686: DEXCOM, INC. v. AGAMATRIX, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-18-1686-dexcom-inc-v-agamatrix-inc-rule-36-judgment-18-1686-rule_36_judgment-3-7-2019-1\/embed\/#?secret=CE1prFUOwn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1686: DEXCOM, INC. v. AGAMATRIX, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"CE1prFUOwn\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: DEXCOM, INC. v. AGAMATRIX, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1686 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-10666 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Tlatoani Itzcoatl Peralta Romero, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:21-CR-124-1 

______________________________ 

Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Tlatoani Itzcoatl Peralta Romero 

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Peralta Romero has filed a response. The record is not 

sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Peralta 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 3, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-10666 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024
No. 23-10666 

2 

Romero’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Peralta Romero’s response. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 23-10666 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

APPOINTMENT TO 

ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNING BOARD 

OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 456

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DOCKET

O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2015, the Honorable Margaret T. Murphy is 

hereby appointed Chair of the Administrative Governing Board of the First Judicial District 

of Pennsylvania on an interim basis.

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
DAVID OWENS HOOFER,

Appellant, vs. RENEE BAKER, WARDEN, Respondent. No. 69107 

# FILED JUN 1 7 

## 2016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA



### ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is a pro se appeal from a district court order dismissing a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.' Seventh Judicial District Court, White Pine County; Steve L. Dobrescu, Judge.

Appellant David Owens Hooper argues that the district court erred in dismissing his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition because this court had reversed Hooper's judgment of conviction, 

### see Hooper v. State, Docket No. 63027 (NIarch 26, 2015), such that there was no conviction or sentence from which habeas relief could be granted. 

### See NRS 34.720 (setting forth the scope of petitions for postconviction habeas relief). Having reviewed the

'Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. 

### See NRAP 34(0(3).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947AJ.

record, we agree that postconviction relief is not warranted. 2 Accordingly,
we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

CC: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge David Owens Hooper Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County District Attorney Attorney General/Ely White Pine County Clerk J.

2 Even construing the petition as seeking pretrial relief, we note that relief would not be warranted because (1) a challenge asserting a lack of probable cause must be filed in a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus within 21 days of the petitioner's first appearance in district court, see NRS 34.700(1)(a), and Hooper did not file the underlying petition until more than 2 years after his first appearance and (2) Hooper's double jeopardy claim lacks merit, as double jeopardy does not bar retrial when a defendant is retried following the reversal and remand of a prior conviction, see Collier v. State, 103 Nev. 563, 565, 747 P.2d 225, 226 (1987).
3 We deny Hooper's request for publication. See NRAP 36(c).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A mettr,
No. 11-5493.

#### McCluer *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.
# Uradni list C 176A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-1045
  doi:10.3000/19771045.CA2013.176.slv |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 176A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5621. junij 2013 |

ISSN 1977-1045

doi:10.3000/19771045.CA2013.176.slv

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 176A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5621. junij 2013

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Popravki |
| 2013/C 176A/01 | Popravek razpisa javnega natečaja EPSO/AD/249/13 (UL C 75 A, 14.3.2013) | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

Popravki

2013/C 176A/01

Popravek razpisa javnega natečaja EPSO/AD/249/13 (UL C 75 A, 14.3.2013)

(UL C 75 A, 14.3.2013)

1

PREGLED NATEČAJEV UL C A

Spodaj je naveden seznam UL C A, objavljenih v tekočem letu.

Če ni drugače navedeno, so bili UL objavljeni v vseh jezikovnih različicah.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

Popravki

| 21.6.2013 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 176/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2013

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 176/1

---

Popravek razpisa javnega natečaja EPSO/AD/249/13

(
  Uradni list Evropske unije C 75 A z dne 14. marca 2013
  )

(2013/C 176 A/01)

Stran 6, oddelek VI, točka 2(d):

besedilo:

| „(d) | strukturiran razgovor o kandidatovi usposobljenosti na področju natečaja, na podlagi odgovorov iz rubrike ‚preverjanje dodatnih sposobnosti‘ (‚évaluateur de talent/talent screener/Talent Filter‘) v prijavi,“ |
| --- | --- |

„(d)

strukturiran razgovor o kandidatovi usposobljenosti na področju natečaja, na podlagi odgovorov iz rubrike ‚preverjanje dodatnih sposobnosti‘ (‚évaluateur de talent/talent screener/Talent Filter‘) v prijavi,“

se glasi:

| „(d) | strukturiran razgovor o kandidatovi usposobljenosti na področju natečaja in na podlagi odgovorov iz rubrike ‚preverjanje dodatnih sposobnosti‘ (‚évaluateur de talent/talent screener/Talent Filter‘) v prijavi,“. |
| --- | --- |

„(d)

strukturiran razgovor o kandidatovi usposobljenosti na področju natečaja in na podlagi odgovorov iz rubrike ‚preverjanje dodatnih sposobnosti‘ (‚évaluateur de talent/talent screener/Talent Filter‘) v prijavi,“.

---
No. 11-5519.

#### Burnette *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
July 29, 2015

Dear Mr. Medley:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2069). This informati on is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 8/12/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Anaylst
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

#### § 36.504 Accumulated depreciation—Property held for future telecommunications use—Account 3200.

(a) Amounts in this account are apportioned among the operations on the basis of the separation of the costs of the related items carried in Account 2002—Property Held for Future Telecommunications Use.
**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
 
 I, Richard Hersh, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Power2Ship, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Power2Ship, Inc.
 
 **POWER2SHIP, INC.**
 
 
 Dated: February 14, 2005    By:  /s/ Richard Hersh
 Name:  Richard Hersh
 Title:  Chief Executive Officer and principal financial  officer
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with this Quarterly Report of HIV-VAC Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the year period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murray, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
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 Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the
         period ending December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HIV-VAC
         Inc.

Dated: August 31, 2010

/s/ Kevin Murray
Kevin Murray
Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 2.908 Identical defined.

As used in this subpart, the term *identical* means identical within the variation that can be expected to arise as a result of quantity production techniques.

(Secs. 4, 303, 307, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1082, 1083; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307)

[46 FR 23249, Apr. 24, 1981]
No. 11-9470.

#### Harkleroad *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.