alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the quarterly report on Form
10-Q, (the Report), of SunCom Wireless, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, Eric Haskell, Acting Interim Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as appropriate, 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.



/s/ Eric HaskellName:

Eric HaskellTitle:

Acting Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 15, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
No. 10-6783.

#### John Lawrence Stanley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1020, 131 S. Ct. 548,

178 L. Ed. 2d 401,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8420.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 805.
# C_2015096EN.01001602.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Innovation First v OHIM (NANO)

(Case T-379/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark NANO - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Innovation First, Inc. (Greenville, South Carolina, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2013 (Case R 1271/2012-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign NANO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Innovation First, Inc. to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Innovation First, Inc. to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
No. 10-5730.

#### Daniel J. Ortiz-Medina, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 936, 131 S. Ct. 339,

178 L. Ed. 2d 221,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7190.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### People v Brown (Shyron)

2d Dept: 139 AD3d 964 (Dutchess)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)
No. 10-7008.

#### Donald Duhart, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1051, 131 S. Ct. 617,

178 L. Ed. 2d 448,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8910.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 814.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 18
LETTER REGARDING CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE

February 3, 2003



Eagle-Picher Holdings, Inc.
11201 North Tatum Blvd. Suite 110,
Phoenix, Arizona 85028


Dear Sirs/Madams:

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Eagle-Picher Holdings,
Inc. as of November 30, 2002 and 2001, and for each of the three years in the
period ended November 30, 2002, included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to
the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our report thereon dated
February 3, 2003, which expresses an unqualified opinion and contains an
explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement described in Note Q. Note B to
such consolidated financial statements contains a description of your change in
accounting for certain inventories during the year ended November 30, 2002 to
the first-in first-out method of accounting from the last-in first-out method.
In our judgment, such change is to an alternative accounting principle that is
preferable under the circumstances.


Very truly yours,


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ELVIN C LYDE HAR SHAW , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15510 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-01776-B AM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arbara M c Auliffe , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 11, 2015 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GR AB ER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. M e lvin C ly de Ha

rsha w a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of his a pplic ation for disa

bility insura

nc e 

# FIL ED SEP 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Harsha w c onte nds tha

t the a d m inistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) e rre d by fa iling to c o nside r his pe s pla

nus, sc iat ic a , post-tra

um atic stre ss disorde r, and pe rsona lity disorde r whe n de te rm ining a t ste p two whe the r his im

pa irm e nts we re se ve re . Harsha w wa ive d this issue

by ra ising it for the

first tim e be fore the distric t c ourt. Se e M e ane l v . Apfe l , 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th C ir. 1999). Thee xiste n c e of som e e vide nc e in the m e dic a l re c ords re ga rding the s e c onditions is not suffic i e nt to ha ve put theALJ a

nd the Appe a ls C ounc il on notic e tha t Ha rsha w c la i m e d spe c i fic a lly that the se c onditions c onstitute d se ve re im

pa irm e nts. The ste p two de te rm ination is a finding of fa c t a

nd not a pure que stion of la

w for whic h the wa i ve r rule m ay be e xc use d. Se e Silv e ira v . Apfe l , 204 F.3d 1257, 1260 n.8 (9th C ir. 2000) (pe r c uriam ). In any e ve nt, the re c o rd fa ils to show tha t the s e c onditions c a

use d lim ita

tions be y ond thosea lre a dy

c onside re d by the ALJ in thea sse ssm e nt of Ha rsha w ’ s re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity and in these que ntia l a na ly sis of Ha

rsha w’ s c la im
. AFFIRM E D.

2
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

EAGLE-PICHER HOLDINGS, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC ("EPI")

Cincinnati Industrial Machinery Sales Company [Ohio]
Daisy Parts, Inc. [Michigan]
Eagle-Picher Acceptance Corporation [Ohio]
Eagle-Picher Development Company, Inc. [Delaware]
         EPMR Corporation [Michigan]
Eagle-Picher Far East, Inc. [Delaware]
Eagle-Picher, Inc. [Virgin Islands]
Eagle-Picher Industries of Canada Limited [Canada]
Eagle-Picher Industries Europe B.V. [Netherlands]
         Eagle-Picher Automotive GmbH [Germany]
         Eagle-Picher UK Limited [England and Wales]
              Eagle-Picher Hillsdale Limited [England and Wales]
         Eagle-Picher Wolverine GmbH [Germany]
              Eagle-Picher Technologies GmbH [Germany]
Eagle-Picher Minerals, Inc. [Nevada]
         Eagle-Picher Minerals International S.A.R.L. [France]
              Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe GmbH & Co. KG [Germany]
              Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe Verwaltungs- und Beteiligungs
                 GmbH [Germany]
Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC [Delaware]
         Eagle-Picher Energy Products Corp. [Canada]
         Chemsyn LLC [Delaware]
EPTEC, S.A. de C.V. [Mexico]
Equipos de Acuna, S.A. de C.V. [Mexico]
Hillsdale Tool & Manufacturing Co. [Michigan]
         Carpenter Enterprises Limited [Michigan]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEONNI ORDELLI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MARK J. FARRELL; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35303

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01791-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Geonni Ordelli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action, alleging, among other claims, violations of the Fair Housing Act

(“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim, Barrett v.

FILED

DEC 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ordelli’s FHA claim because Ordelli

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants engaged in any

discriminatory housing practice or treated her differently than her roommates based

on her sex or familial status. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(b) (prohibiting

discrimination based on sex and familial status by landlords in connection with a

dwelling); Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997)

(applying Title VII discrimination analysis to FHA claims). 

We reject Ordelli’s contentions that the district judge was biased against her,

and that the district court could have exercised jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

because Ordelli did not sue any state actors. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-

08 (9th Cir. 1991).

We deny as moot appellees’ motion to strike, set forth in their answering

brief.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-35303
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-421-CR

TWYNA LYNN SHIELDS A/K/A						APPELLANT

TWYNA LYNN MCGINNIS A/K/A 

TWYNA COLLINS MCGINNIS	

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Twyna Lynn Shields, a/k/a Twyna Lynn McGinnis, a/k/a Twyna Collins McGinnis is attempting to appeal her conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance.  Appellant’s sentence was imposed on July 28, 2005, and no motion for new trial was filed.  Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due August 29, 2005;2 however, the notice of appeal was not filed until October 31, 2005.

	Because appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.3  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  December 8, 2005
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 18



                                                               December 31, 1996



Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc.
901 Tatnall Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your 
Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have read management's justification for the change in accounting from the
"amortization" revenue recognition method to the "point of publication" method
contained in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.
Based on our reading of the data and discussions with Company officials of the
business judgment and business planning factors relating to the change, we
believe management's justification is reasonable.  Accordingly,  we concur that
the newly adopted accounting principle described above is preferable in the
Company's circumstances to the method previously applied.



/s/  Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Exhibit 32.1








The following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and is not filed as provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange Commission.




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 on Form 10-K of Dynamics Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:




(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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 28, 2011
/s/ James P. ReganPresident, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2015262EN.01003901.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/39

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Z v Court of Justice

(Case F-64/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - Delay in drawing up staff report - Action for annulment - Action for compensation))

(2015/C 262/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Z (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008, and an order that the defendant pay to the applicant a sum in compensation for the non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Z to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Z to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 30.

1

---
Public Copy

2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program October 30, 2009 DuPont Submission Page 1 of 1 Index of Documents – Public Version Document Number Document Number of On CD Date Document Pages

__ 001 10.30.09 Transmittal letter for report 1 002- 006 10.30.09 CBI 5 007 10.30.09 Appendix D - Facility Report on Product Content - Aqueous Fluoropolymer Dispersion 5 008 10.30.09 Appendix D – Facility Report on Product Content – Fluoroelastomer 6 009 10.30.09 Appendix D – Facility Report on Product Content – Fluorotelomer 7 010 10.30.09 Appendix F – Company Annual Report Summary of Reductions in Emissions and Product Content 3 011 10.30.09 CBI (Attachments) 4 1 012 10.30.09 Appendix 1 – OECD Survey 144
# DLA Troop Support hosts US Army Central Command Food Advisor visit

/ Published Oct. 20, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Subsistence supply chain hosted a visit from United States Army Central Command Food Advisor Chief Warrant Officer 5 George Davis in Philadelphia on Oct. 19, 2023. The purpose of his visit was to reinforce a longstanding relationship between ARCENT and Troop Support.
No. 10-6119.

#### Eldon G. Tinsley, Petitioner v. Larry Denney, Warden.

562 U.S. 986, 131 S. Ct. 424,

178 L. Ed. 2d 331,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8216.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-135.

#### B. R. Hudson, Petitioner v. Hilarie G. Scarbro, Administratrix of the Estate of Gary Eugene Rummer.

562 U.S. 981, 131 S. Ct. 415,

178 L. Ed. 2d 323,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8149.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 366.
No. 10-6163.

#### Arthur Anthony Gonzales, Petitioner v. Lowell Clark, Warden.

562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 524,

178 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8582.

November 1, 2010.

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

*385Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 942.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3574-3575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1658]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Public Information Collection(s) Approved by Office of Management 
and Budget

January 16, 1998.
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public 
information collection(s) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Pub. L. 96-511. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection 
of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Not 
withstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall

[[Page 3575]]

be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of 
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not 
display a valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control 
numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, (202) 418-0214.

Federal Communications Commission

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0812.
    Expiration Date: 06/30/1998.
    Title: Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 
1997--MD Docket No. 96-186.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 635,738 responses; 317,869 total annual 
hours; 0.5 hours per respondent.
    Description: This information is required to: (1) facilitate the 
statutory provisions that non-profit entities be exempt from payment of 
regulatory fees, and (2) facilitate the FCC's ability to audit 
regulatory fee payment compliance in the Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services (CMRS) industry.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1658 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 North American Gaming and
Entertainment Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I E. H. Hawes II, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as
adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ E.H. HAWES, II
--------------------------------
E.H. HAWES, II
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


April 14, 2003
Order entered May 7 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00485
- CR CLEVELAND NIXON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. F11
- 21243
- X



### O RDER Appellant is appealing the trial court’s order April 2, 2015 order denying his request for a bond pending appeal. This is an accelerated criminal appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31. We note that the reporter’s rec ord from the October 14, 2014 hearing on appellant’s motion for an appeal bond was filed with the record for the appeal of appellant’s underlying conviction, docketed as cause no. 05

- 14

- 01627

- CR. Accordingly, we DIRECT the Clerk to transfer the reporter’s record of the October 14, 2014 hearing, designated as Volume 5 of 5, from cause no. 05

- 14

- 01627

- CR into the above appeal. We received a clerk’s record in this appeal on April 29, 2015. However, the clerk’s
record does not contain the documents related to appellant’s motion for an appeal bond.Specifically, it does not contain appellant’s , appellant’s January 2, 2015 “motion for reasonable

bail pending appeal,” the trial court’s April 2, 2015 order denying appellant’s motion for an release on an appeal bond, or the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal in this proceeding. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of appellant’s right to appeal, for inclusion in the clerk’s record, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v. State , 420 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within MAY 29, 2015 a supplemental clerk’s record containing all of the documents related to appellan t’s motion for bond on appeal, including the motion, the trial court’s order, and the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal. Appellant’s brief is due by JUNE 17, 2015 . The State’s brief is due by JULY 6, 2015

. If any party does not f

ile its brief by the date specified, the appeal will be submitted without that party’s brief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 31.1. The appeal will be submitted, without argument, on AUGUST 3, 2015 to a panel consisting of Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 31.2
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Jeanine Howard, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 6; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
No. 10-5886.

#### In re Jimmy Roy Davidson, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 960, 131 S. Ct. 473,

178 L. Ed. 2d 317,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7921.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.