alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16042]


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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported For Exhibition 
Determinations

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibit ``Master Drawings from the State Hermitage 
Museum, St. Petersburg and The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, 
Moscow'' (See list \1\), imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
without profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. 
These objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
lenders. I also determine that the temporary exhibition or display of 
the listed exhibit objects at the Pierpont Morgan Library from on or 
about September 25, 1998 to on or about January 10, 1999, is in the 
national interest. Public Notice of this determination is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register .

    \1\ A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. Neila 
Sheahan, Assistance General Counsel, at (202) 619-5030. The address 
is U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th St., SW, Room 700, Washington, 
DC 20547-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-16042 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
No. 10-5417.

#### Curtis Devon Harris, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 920, 131 S. Ct. 293,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7575.

178 L. Ed. 2d 192,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 377.
[Cite as State ex rel. Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio-72.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . E UBANK , A PPELLANT , v. M C D ONALD , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio-72.] Mandamus—Writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed—C ourt of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed. (No. 2012-1526—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided January 17, 2013.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-12-1143, 2012-Ohio-3728.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, James R. Eubank, for a writ of mandamus to co mpel appellee, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Judge Frederick McDonald, to issue a new sentencing entry that complies with Crim.R. 32(C). Mandamus will not lie to compel an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Culgan v. Kimbler , 132 Ohio St.3d 480, 2012-Ohio-3310, 974 N.E.2d 88. Eubank’s sent encing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and constituted a final, appealable order because it set forth the fact of his convictions, the sentence, th e judge’s signature, and the time stamp indicating its entry upon the journal by the clerk. See State ex rel. Jones v.
Ansted , 131 Ohio St.3d 125, 2012-Ohio-109, 961 N.E.2d 192, ¶ 2. Notwithstanding Eubank’s argument to the contrary, Crim.R. 32(C) did not require Judge McDonald to specify that some of the crimes for which he was
convicted were lesser included offenses of the offenses charged in his indictment. The judge’s sentencing entry contained a full resolution of the counts for which
Eubank was convicted. See State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of
Common Pleas , 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

__________________ James R. Eubank, pro se. Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kevin A. Pituch, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

______________________
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134306 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134306 

 COA: 273714 

Wayne CC: 99-007414-02 

CHARLES MILSTEAD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Hudson City Savings Bank, Appellant, v 59 Sands Point, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[57 NYS3d 399]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered May 11, 2015, as granted the cross motion of the defendants 59 Sands Point, LLC, and Eve Strausman Winston for leave to renew their prior motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served upon a nonparty, and for a protective order against further discovery from that nonparty, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated June 17, 2014, and, upon renewal, vacated the order dated June 17, 2014, and thereupon, in effect, granted the prior motion.

Ordered that the order entered May 11, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*614A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see *Rakha v Pinnacle Bus Servs.,*98 AD3d 657, 657 [2012]; *DeMarquez v Gallo,*94 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2012]; *Matter of Choy v Mai Ling Lai,*91 AD3d 772, 772 [2012]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the cross motion of the defendants 59 Sands Point, LLC, and Eve Strausman Winston for leave to renew, based upon their submission of certain discovery responses, served after the issuance of the court’s prior order dated June 17, 2014. Moreover, upon renewal, and based upon the subject discovery responses, the court properly vacated its prior order denying the motion to quash subpoenas served upon a nonparty, and for a protective order against further discovery from that nonparty, and, thereupon, in effect, granted the motion *(see generally Matter of Kapon v Koch,*23 NY3d 32 [2014]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
#### Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Appellant, v Handel S. Ferguson, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[64 NYS3d 887]

*461Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered September 23, 2015, which, upon defendant Ferguson’s motion, vacated the judgment of foreclosure and sale and the notice of pendency filed October 13, 2009, canceled the auction sale, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant established his entitlement to vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale by showing that he was not properly served with the summons and complaint in this action (CPLR 308 [2]) and that therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing of proper service, defendant raised an issue of fact as to the veracity of the affidavit with respect to personal delivery *(see NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz,*7 AD3d 459 [1st Dept 2004]). While defendant’s showing would otherwise require a traverse hearing *(id.),*it also demonstrated as a matter of law that the mailing component of CPLR 308 (2) was not strictly complied with *(see Gray-Joseph v Shuhai Liu,*90 AD3d 988, 989 [2d Dept 2011]). The affidavit of service says that the summons and complaint were mailed to defendant’s “last known address,” without identifying that address. The terms of the mortgage require that notices to defendant be sent to the address of the mortgaged property, unless defendant gives plaintiff notice of a different address. There is no evidence in the record that defendant ever gave plaintiff notice of a different address *(see Washington Mut. Bank v Murphy,*127 AD3d 1167, 1175 [2d Dept 2015]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Gische, Oing and Singh, JJ.
Honorable Tom P. Coleman,

Jr.



### the purabse or male of 8nythbg~farc%om uroountor mtaah

oouw, oity or WE, OT T&CJ S&U amet ropr

or noelve w mmy or m, or the re~se~tative or either, ar a8y emlumh ar advantage

vhatmaever In aonmib6lrtiea of mob hid.

:
.

### 261

Bono~ble TOQ F. **CO~~SU~~** Jr.,Page2

. ProRomal, mmtrwt, purchase or uh, b ah8U k fined not lesa than rlrtyMIC Y)- tin tiw h&M dollars.

" The above mtatute

vam oonatm in mucbJ T. by the court 0r Appeals, 10 S. If.

761,&j rhlah

it na State, dealaredthatmanlremtly, the LO~IS~~- in oratingthm statute,

intended

themby to proteat

CW&IW, atiu aad **tarnm from**  0rri0ial p0atitim. **~hbthbr** l **dm8iw i8**  %wniarll~ Ilnterested' am thattam lm wd in tkostatute, lm smmanll~ a qussti0n 0r r80t. ti -loud in JW r8- qwmt, the buml~emm im ow&ad and o-t& **by** tb oodsmh%ter~a **brother and**  it dow not appear tbt ti aadui- IS p$ooaoarXl?

lntawemted

in avglng

ruch pumhasu u 8@nt or the

. **We** held in auf opinion lo. 0463 radued to mu en the date or July 6, 1939,thatti am-t &W k&y **vork** between**the** board of mmqpra or tb~ somty mt8.l aad the laundry,

one or the WXHUW or thyw orvhleh tr a @ator and ineplber

o the board,

im oontruy to pb.Uc m and void. We are unmbleto bringtIm contwataad Forabuem made aa thatedIn your requbt vitbin tb holdig of tkl8 opinion

and the rule announaed in 10 Tusm Jwlme, mgraph 81.1

am ultedby you in your let-, am ve thioL tiw 011108

supporting suoh rule are olewly to be bis~- It ir thersrore

thm opid~n 0r uam depu+ant aat it Im not illegalror a aountyawmioau to OIpobru-- genay l uppllemr0r **OOnStruatlOn aad**  **rmpai.r of**  oauntf **rc-ds u**  an agent or the oounty undo? waioray or the ooort lrar

l brother vbo own8 and operator a bumlnmsm,

vhor9thed*loner 18 not peounl8rlly

lnteremted

in the aontmat.

APPROVEDDEC 3, 1940

03---+~ ATTOlU.?EY GZXEIEUL OP TEXAS
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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 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: February 11, 2011/s/ Richard L. Feinstein
Richard L. Feinstein
Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-5799.

#### James Leon Millard-Grasshorn, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 938, 131 S. Ct. 348,

178 L. Ed. 2d 225,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7297.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 603 F.3d 492.
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

★

● ●

● ●
#### Locust Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., Matter of, v Locust Val. Teachers’ Assn.

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 758 (Matter No. 2)

denied
No. 12-7574.

#### Morgan *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
161 A.3d 764

#### DAVID TIMOTHY JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. LILLIE LOUELLA HOWARD, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

March 9, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court;

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs; and it is further

*257ORDERED that the notice of appeal is dismissed.
# Women’s History Month spotlight: Yumiko Sasaki

/ Published March 13, 2020

*Editor’s note: March is Women’s History Month and this year’s Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute theme is “Honoring the Past, Securing the Future.” Throughout the month, we will spotlight Defense Logistics Agency Energy employees who are honoring their history and making a difference.*

**Describe your job:** I am a Supply Requirement and Distribution Clerk at DLA Energy Japan working as the primary truck transportation ordering officer for bulk petroleum products in mainland Japan. I have worked at DLA Energy Japan since January 2012.

**What makes you proud about your job?** My job relates to and directly impacts DLA Energy’s customers – meeting their requirements and supporting the mission makes me proud of my job. I work hard to forge strong partnerships with transportation contractors and the effectively communicate to preclude late orders/errors and ensure mission accomplishment.

**Can you share a recent professional success story?** I coordinated the transportation services of an urgent requirement (lube oils) in the last year from one Defense Fuel Support Point to another DFSP over 700 miles away. This support of the DLA Energy mission directly contributed to the on-time deployment of a U.S. Navy mission, reinforcing the United States' strategic presence in the INDOPACIFIC region.  

**How do you make a difference?** I make a difference by trying to be a good team member and help my teammates; be faithful to my own duties and never stop learning. I cherish all the great people I’ve met both professionally and personally and the all that I’ve learned from them.
##### 



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 Annual Report of Covansys Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
James S. Trouba, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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/ James S. Trouba James S. Trouba
Chief Financial Officer
August 4, 2004
No. 10-5241.

#### Phill Raije Rian, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 910, 131 S. Ct. 264,

178 L. Ed. 2d 174,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6892.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, denied.
No. 09-11138.

#### Ronal Porfirio Ordonez Orosco, Petitioner v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

562 U.S. 863, 131 S. Ct. 389,

178 L. Ed. 2d 87,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6555.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

*88Same case below, 598 F.3d 222.
#### Com. v. Pugh 38

03/22/2016

458 WAL (2015)

38

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 105
#### People v Galunas

App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74121(U) (Ulster)

denied 8/16/16 (Garcia, J.)
D E  V I S S E R  G R A Y
                    CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

                                401 - 905 West Pender Street
                                        Vancouver, BC Canada
                                                     V6C 1L6

                                         Tel: (604) 687-5447
                                         Fax: (604) 687-6737


AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Shareholders of Anooraq Resources Corporation

We  have  audited the consolidated balance sheets of Anooraq
Resources  Corporation as at October 31, 2002 and 2001,  and
the  consolidated  statements of operations,  deficit,  cash
flows  and  exploration costs for each of the years  in  the
three   year   period  ended  October   31,   2002.    These
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility  of
the  Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express
an  opinion on these consolidated financial statements based
on our audits.

We   conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally
accepted auditing standards in Canada and the United  States
of  America.   Those  standards require  that  we  plan  and
perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether  the
consolidated  financial  statements  are  free  of  material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence  supporting  the amounts  and  disclosures  in  the
consolidated  financial statements.  An audit also  includes
assessing  the  accounting principles used  and  significant
estimates  made  by  management, as well as  evaluating  the
overall financial statement presentation.

In  our  opinion,  these consolidated  financial  statements
present  fairly,  in  all material respects,  the  financial
position of the Company as at October 31, 2002 and 2001  and
the results of its operations and cash flows for each of the
years  in  the three year period ended October 31,  2002  in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles  in
Canada.   As required by the Company Act (British Columbia),
we  report that, in our opinion, these principles have  been
applied on a consistent basis.



CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Vancouver, British Columbia
March 6, 2003

COMMENTS BY AUDITORS FOR U.S. READERS ON CANADA - U.S.
REPORTING CONFLICT

In  the  United  States,  reporting standards  for  auditors
require  the addition of an explanatory paragraph (following
the  opinion  paragraph) when the financial  statements  are
affected by significant uncertainties and contingencies such
as   those   referred  to  in  note  1  to  these  financial
statements.  Although we conducted our audits in  accordance
with  both  Canadian  and U.S. generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  our  report to the shareholders dated  March  6,
2003  is  expressed  in accordance with  Canadian  reporting
standards  which do not require a reference to such  matters
when  the  uncertainties  are adequately  disclosed  in  the
financial statements.



CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Vancouver, British Columbia
March 6, 2003
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARIA LAVINIA JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3072

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CB-7121-13-0111-V-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Maria Lavinia Jones moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

 

Case: 14-3072 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/01/2014
2 JONES v. ENERGY

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-3072 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/01/2014
~ECrE~VED ~N 

_________ -7_,___-L 2 ~ Is· COURT OJ: r.Ril\JJINAf i\PPEALS 

. JUt 1-; 2~i5 

. ' . 

___ [)__~ ~ r. )11 / /-1 C_i:;-5 -/'-~ --:·:-:-·-'_· ________ _,_____ ___ ...:____. 

--~--------~---------·-L~~·;,~·~~o-·~.~~· ~7~·-~~~~=·~~~.~e~·~/~J----~ 
_ _._/l't-_3_t:adr / f) ;;21-c~.>_e. . lL t/v r c._. 5 £.r S ~ 6 ;"1. c -e._ ?v/ I J 

-~ rc.~ f 7;;_ · CA. -f2-;:2/ ec, h k d. / r1 -fA ,j /"'lit --1--fr,.---

..5~ ;rzc e/~ ~'--------­

.t;...._?p;;: 2;. lh 

7- 1'2.-()_. 

____ Qfe~~ Y~5~hC~~--~~~'------------------------~--

J1 f\J Tw ,4; r:J J ,4 1-WI J4 /!-,--=---__!_~~() i~3~·o..:__vv__!_('-=g-=-~~Lfc__!Cf~&:__?... ________ _ 

___ · -~EEL£~0-~~v~~~~~l_. -------~------~--­

l ~~ ( · E Mr 'l.O)_C-f'---. --------------~-'---­

___ /__ErJtVESjf_E CaL6/'-JV__, T.J 75KZ___,·--~---------

... 

:~-~----------------~-----~-~--

1 

I 

I. 

i----------~~-~------~-~~~-~--.~-~--

1-· -------------------~---------

1
1998 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-21-1998

United States v. Cottman

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-5492

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"United States v. Cottman" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 83.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/83
Filed April 21, 1998 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 96-5492 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

STANLEY COTTMAN, 

 Appellant. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey 

D.C. Criminal Action No. 95-cr-00661 

Before: SLOVITER and ROTH, Circuit Judges, 

LUDWIG,1 District Judge 

ORDER 

The petition for panel rehearing filed by the appellee in 

the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges 

who participated in the decision of this court and all judges 

who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, 

the petition for rehearing is granted so that the panel 

opinion and the dissent can be amended. The amended

opinion and dissent are being filed at this time. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

1. Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig, United States District Court Judge for 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 
 By the Court, 

 /s/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judge 

Dated: 4/21/98 

A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

 2
No. 10-5267.

#### Victor Cruz Gonzalez, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 912, 131 S. Ct. 268,

178 L. Ed. 2d 177,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7086,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 09-11133.

#### Jeffrey Thomas Kittka, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 863, 131 S. Ct. 145,

178 L. Ed. 2d 87,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6352.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Michigan, Oakland County, denied.
No. 09-11141.

#### Ronald T. Masko, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 863, 131 S. Ct. 146,

178 L. Ed. 2d 88,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6772.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 373.