alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
gonorablr Chr1.r 8. Imillan, PIN L 

l f umld llk0 to know whet&r the last 

ordrr IO 0 ~a116 a r dor ln that lt ia mandatory 

to publl8h 8 0097 Of rooh order 48 proridab by 

Artl81e 2%52? 

"TO makr 6 OlMrOr lo@11 Q88@tiOO it right 

ba put 08 tOllO881 'Eorr an or&or of the Coad88104Or8 court e8t8bliohl~ l loOtio4 prOObOt8 

harm to bo pabll4bd 48 roqdrd by Attiolo 

;LoSS rod if it 18 4Ot pPbllA d, I8 it void?' 

"It 18 a7 OpiaiO4 thmt the 8t4LUt.3 Fu*,Uiir48 

such publiO8tion ir woos8ary and mandatory u&or 

the term@ 0r Article t93, broaum tha U80 0r 

the word '#hall' ln 8tatdory ooa8truokion hr 

alrap boon 0048trUed 88 IpcMhg 8 lundat8ry proT18104 and h48 tV ba 4tlrrled out bdom the ioroo 

en6 JfiOOt Of 8UOIl dtiOOtlO4 084 br 8OOGE~li8hsd. 

-If 8uch bo true the4 the or&or OS urguot, 

1940 by th8 COPzi88104Orr ot 314 AUUU8ti40 County, 

TeX48 would bo l f?vCtlrs a4O not the ordoc o: tko 

coaml8rlo4or8 court or 881c eou4ty 14 duguab, 

1941, thOrOror0 the s-atu or the olootion proOhWt8 WOUlb be the 8-e 48 Gi the dot.0 Of the 

AU@A8t, 1940 ordm. 

*I have aada M .ttort to check 6 6ecl~lon 

rheroln 8UU.i ca80 Would bo io point, e4C I harm 

rouaa :.OM uadar 8ald Artlele e9.3S. I hato on 

#e\oml O0OS81048 b?en rOqU@8tOb to 8UbJllt 6 briar 

x-here ouah 18 the oaee et the xeaent time, but 

due to the prensnt 4eOee8ity t)?:t such opbl1on 

fr03: ycur do~rtmnt 1s lm;srstlve 14 th?t your 

OFi4iOlI 18 nse&ed to drtrr%lne the Otnt91r of the 

oleotion prooinctr in this oou4t7 before the Osnem1 Prlacrr in July', 19G', I ho?@ t!mt pou will 

&to thir pair imwllato etterrtlcii en. an 0p14104 

rl‘ll be forthooning.' 

Artlelo W.%, vorno4~8 Annotated Tess8 Clvll Statutol, read8 88 follour: 

it 

V!aoh oo&ml88lLnerr oourt my, if they ds~m 

P 

riipor, rt saoh Augu8t term or the oourt 

dlv de their re8peOtlve cotmtie8, 8md OmA4tiel 

tittaohbd thsroto ror judlolal purp08e8, into 004- 

ronlent slaatlon preel40t0, each OS whloh 4)ral.l 
‘kc) 

.,. 

noaonblr Charlrr 8. uamillan, RIO 8 

ba &ifrO?s4t4 AUmbetod 8Dd d88Ortbod by 

utuml or 8rtirioi8i bOWtOri or 8Ul'V~ 

1im8 b7 aa ardor to bs entered upon the sinatH of th8 Ooart. '?bO7 8h811 iaWdi8t.4 

thero8rtor pablirh mob ardor 18 8-a nffmpepor 14 the oouaty for threo soa88outirr 

woekr , If thorn bo ao aearpapor in the 

than 8Uah 0097 el 8W0 ordor 8h11 bo 

wzty, 

in 8OQO pub110 91800 in oaoh prooiart r a tho 

0oulIty. NO olOOtlm prOOlOOt 8h8ll bo forrd 

out of two or mor0 jurtico proolwtr, nor out 

Of tho 94tt8 ot two Or aOr0 JtI8tiOe &ar@oiaOt8. 

The OO-&88iOnOt# OoUrt 8h411 c&U80 to bo mdo 

out and ddivOr8d to th8 cowty tu oolleotor, 

beSore the lint by ot l 8Oh Bepteabar a *orCifiOd OOpf Of 8UOh 188t OfdOt iOr the JOW 

following.' 

ii0 hST0 bOOm UMbiO t0 riad 8~7 8PthOrltiO8 IM th0 

queattoar propoundob. &OWOtOl, it i8 O&U OpicliOa thEt YOU 

hare OornotlY
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6925** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. OTIS LEON STORY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Patrick Michael Duffy , Senior District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00738

- PMD

- 1; 2:10

- cv - 70280

- PMD )

Submitted : November 10, 2011 Decided: December 13, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un publish ed per curiam opinion
. Otis Leon Story, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Otis Leon S tory seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A c ertificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies r elief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently re viewed the record and conclude that Story has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in t he materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0132

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MATTHEW ROBERT ALLEN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Upon consideration of Appellant Matthew Robert Allen’s Motion for Extension of 

Time and good cause appearing therefore, Allen is GRANTED an extension of time within 

which to file his Reply Brief to and including July 6, 2023.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 15 2023

06/15/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0132
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8888 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8888

To amend the Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016 to extend 
 the Secret Service overtime pay exception through 2025, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2020

    Mr. Katko (for himself and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016 to extend 
 the Secret Service overtime pay exception through 2025, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Secret Service Overtime Pay 
Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF OVERTIME PAY EXCEPTION THROUGH 2020 FOR PROTECTIVE 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Overtime Pay for Protective 
Services Act of 2016 (5 U.S.C. 5547 note) is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by striking ``2020'' and 
        inserting ``2025'';
            (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``or 2020'' and 
        inserting ``2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025''; and
            (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``and 2020'' and 
        inserting ``2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025''.
    (b) Report on Extensions.--Not later than January 30 of each of 
calendar years 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026, the Director of the 
Secret Service shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Homeland 
Security and the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the effects of the 
amendments made by subsection (a). The report shall include, with 
respect to the previous calendar year, the information described under 
paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 2(c) of Public Law 115-160.
    (c) Repeal of Superseded Reporting Requirement.--Section 2(b) of 
the Secret Service Overtime Pay Extension Act (Public Law 115-383; 132 
Stat. 5121) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5501]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Corps of Engineers


Grant of Exclusive License

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), announcement is made 
of a prospective exclusive license of Japanese Patent Application No. 
7-510293, entitled ``Concrete Armor Unit to Protect Coastal and 
Hydraulic Structures and Shorelines'' filed August 17, 1994.

DATES: Written objections must be filed not later than May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: .U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry 
Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, ATTN: CEWES-OC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Phil Stewart (601) 634-4113, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fecebfae8feedefdffae7aeb1e8faecb1feedf2e6b1f2f6f3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="621116071503101222071a534c1507114c03100f1b4c0f0b0e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Concrete Armor Unit was invented by 
Jeffrey A. Melby and George F. Turk (Japanese Patent Application No. 7-
510293, Filed August 17, 1994. Rights to the Japanese patent 
application have been assigned to the United States of America as 
represented by the Secretary of the Army. The United States of America 
as represented by the Secretary of the Army intends to grant an 
exclusive license for all fields of use, in the manufacture, use, and 
sale in the territories and possessions, including territorial waters 
of Japan to TETRA Co., LTD, Shinjuku I-Land Wing, 6-3-1, Nishishinjuku, 
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan.
    Pursuant to 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), any interested party may file a 
written objection to this prospective exclusive license agreement.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5501 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
ex10-10.htm




Exhibit 10.10


Heska Corporation


2014 Management Incentive Plan







1.            The Category Percentages for the 2014 MIP are as follows:








	
Title

	
Heska MIP


	
Executive Vice President-level

	
35.0% of base pay


	
Vice Presidents

	
35.0% of base pay


	
Managing Director(s)

	
25.0% of base pay


	
Directors

	
25.0% of base pay













	
  

	
Note: Due to role transitions, Category Percentages for Robert B. Grieve, Ph.D. and Kevin S. Wilson will be as provided in their respective employment agreements.












2.           The Plan Allocation for the 2014 MIP is as follows:








	
  

	
75% on overall achievement of the company-wide financial objective and 25% on individual performance












3.           The Key Parameters for the 2014 MIP are as follows:







1) Pre-MIP Operating Income and 2) Revenue







4.            The Payout Structure for the 2014 MIP is as follows:








	
  

	
50% of Pre-MIP Operating Income in excess of $2,000,000, subject to an MIP Payout maximum contribution of $1,350,000












Plus







If Pre-MIP Operating Income is $3,250,000 or more, 2.50% of Revenue in excess of $85,000,000, subject to an MIP Payout maximum contribution of $450,000







The combined maximum payouts based on Pre-MIP Operating Income ($1,350,000) and Revenue ($450,000), total $1,800,000 and shall be known as the "Maximum MIP Payout".  Any MIP payment in excess of the Maximum MIP Payout shall be at the sole and absolute discretion of the Compensation Committee.
Exhibit 32.2

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of JB Oxford Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael J. Chiodo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Michael J. Chiodo
Chief Financial Officer
May 19, 2005


                                       30
# C_2023321EN.01001201.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2023 — Debrégeas et associés Pharma SAS (D & A Pharma) v European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Case C-136/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Decision by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) not to renew a scientific advisory group - Action for annulment brought by the applicant for a marketing authorisation - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Vested and current interest which may arise from another legal action - Conditions)

(2023/C 321/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Debrégeas et associés Pharma SAS (D & A Pharma) (represented initially by E. Gouesse, D. Krzisch and N. Viguié, avocats, and subsequently by E. Gouesse and N. Viguié, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: C. Bortoluzzi, S. Drosos, H. Kerr and S. Marino, acting as Agents,)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Debrégeas et associés Pharma SAS (D & A Pharma) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) relating to the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Debrégeas et associés Pharma SAS (D & A Pharma) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) relating to the appeal.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 171, 25.4.2022.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Patrick OSWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4521

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 5, 2018

Decided: February 9, 2018

Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jamie L, Schoen, OFFICE OF *618THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sean Patrick Oswell pled guilty without a written plea agreement to using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct in order to produce child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (2012), and was sentenced to 262 months in prison. Oswell appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Oswell was advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

We conclude that Oswell’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Oswell stated at the Rule 11 hearing that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, was 51 years old, had a tenth-grade education, and understood the nature of the proceedings. He expressed complete satisfaction with his attorney’s services. A factual basis for the plea was presented to the court, Oswell stated that the factual basis was accurate, and he admitted his guilt. Finally, the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11.

With respect to sentencing, the court properly calculated Oswell’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. In imposing sentence, the court remarked on the seriousness of the offense, noting the ongoing nature of the abuse perpetrated on the victim and stating that such crimes are toxic and corrosive. We hold that the within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Carter,*564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pursuant to *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Oswell’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Oswell, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Oswell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Oswell. 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*
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Griffin, J Daniel (Dan)" <JDGriffin@rrienergy.com> Date: 7/20/2010 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Attachments: pic00704.jpg

Greetings, EPA has reviewed your extension requ est for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire for the RRI Energy's Cheswick Generation Station. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 1 or Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. Please note that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and remains 120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. No extensions are granted for Versions 3 or 4 of the questionnaire; the deadline for plants receiving these questionnaires remains 90 days after receipt. If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560. Sincerely, (Embedded image moved to file: pic00704.jpg)

From: "Griffin, J Daniel (Dan)" <JDGriffin@rrienergy.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Ethridge Jr., Benjamin" <BEthridge@rrienergy.com>, "Baldi, Sara Marie" <SMBaldi@rrienergy.com>

Date: 06/23/2010 12:24 PM Subject:

Dear Ms. AliceaPlease find attached a letter from Benjamin Ethridge, General Manager of RRI Energy's Cheswick Generation Station. Sincerely,

J. Daniel Griffin 724-275-1501 Office 724-323-4624 Cell[attachment "Steam Electric ELG Questionaire.pdf" deleted by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US]
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5358]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-83; RM-8948]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Westport, WA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by 
Chehalis Broadcasting Company proposing the allotment of Channel 267A 
at Westport, Washington, as the community's first local aural 
transmission service. Channel 267A can be allotted to Westport in 
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation 
requirements at city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 
267A at Westport are North Latitude 46-53-24 and West Longitude 124-06-
06. Since Westport is located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the 
U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of the Canadian government has been 
requested.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 21, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before May 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Henry 
E. Crawford, Esq., 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 900, Washington, 
DC 20036 (Counsel for Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-83, adopted February 
21, 1997, and released February 28, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5358 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 20, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00064

- CV

ROBSTOWN HARDWARE COMPANY and Deere & Company,

Appellants

v.

Heather J. IDEUS and Arlen Ideus,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court

, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 21

- 175

Honorable Baldemar Garza , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this case is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION. Costs are assessed against appellants, Robstown Hardware Com pany and

Deere & Company.

It is so ORDERED on July 20, 2022

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of July, 20 22

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
No. 11-10172.

#### Drew *v.*Manpower of Southern Nevada, Inc., et al.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.