alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17953]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 98-087]


NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Space Science Advisory Committee 
(SScAC); Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Space 
Science Advisory Committee.

DATES: Wednesday, July 29, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Thursday, July 
30, 1998, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Friday, July 31, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 
12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: MIC 6, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jeffrey Rosendhal, Code S, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 
202/358-2470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

--OSS Program and Budget Status
--Science Metrics/FY 2000 Performance Plan
--Final Report of the R&A and MO&DA Task Force
--Theme Status Reports/Reports from Subcommittees
--Research Program Update
--Technology Program Status and Planning

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate 
the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be 
requested to sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: June 24, 1998.
Matthew Crouch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-17953 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3098 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 

allowed for student loan interest. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2019 

Mr. SWALWELL of California (for himself, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. 

PETERS, Mr. VARGAS, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. PAYNE, Miss RICE of New 

York, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. MOORE, Ms. MENG, 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. VEASEY, 

Mr. COHEN, and Ms. KAPTUR) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the deduction allowed for student loan interest. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Interest 

5 Deduction Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3098 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR STUDENT LOAN IN2 TEREST. 

3 (a) INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION AND REPEAL

4 OF LIMITATION BASED ON INCOME.—Section 221(b) of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘(b) MAXIMUM DEDUCTION.—The deduction allowed 

8 by subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not exceed 

9 $5,000 ($10,000 in the case of a joint return).’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 221 of 

11 such Code is amended by striking subsections (e) and (f) 

12 (relating to special rules and inflation adjustments, re13 spectively) and inserting the following new subsection: 

14 ‘‘(e) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—No deduction 

15 shall be allowed under this section for any amount for 

16 which a deduction is allowable under any other provision 

17 of this chapter.’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1302 

TP 12-01172 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF SHAMEL DAVIS, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (WILLIAM E. STORRS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H.

Dadd, A.J.], entered June 20, 2012) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
6309

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

DISTRIBUTION 

5430 MIFFLIN AVENUE 

NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070-5004 

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES 

POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

An Agency of the United States Government

This Notice is posted pursuant to an order by the United States Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission February 02, 2024, which found that a violation of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., has occurred at the 

Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency at Robins Air Force Base, in Georgia 

(hereinafter this facility).

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for 

employment because of the person’s RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, 

AGE, or DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, or other terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment. This facility was found to have discriminated against an 

employee based on reprisal for having engaged in protected EEO activity. This facility was 

ordered to pay compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. This facility was also ordered to 

provide EEO training to this facility. 

This facility will ensure that officials responsible for personnel decisions and terms and 

conditions of employment will abide by the requirements of all federal equal employment 

opportunity laws and will not retaliate against employees who file EEO complaints. This facility 

will comply with federal law and will not in any manner restrain, interfere, coerce, or retaliate 

against any individual who exercises his or her right to oppose practices made unlawful by, or 

who participates in proceedings pursuant to, federal equal employment opportunity law. 

Duly Authorized Agency Representative: Mr. Joe Arnold, DLA Distribution Director,

Warner Robins, GA

Date Posted: February 22, 

2024

Posting Expires: May 01, 2024

29 C.F.R. Part 1614

Digitally signed by

ARNOLD.JOE.EAR ARNOLD.JOE.EARL.JR.111573

L.JR.1115736309 Date: 2024.02.21 20:02:01

-05'00'
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 0930 V

Filed: November 4, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JAMES SCAMMAN

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza (“flu”) V accine; Shoulder Injury

* Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amber Wilson, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC , for petitioner.

Lara Englund , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On August 26, 2015

, p etitioner filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq.

, 2 (the

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”)

. The petition alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder

injury as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on October 22,

2014

. Petition at 1

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of

the Office of Special Masters.

On November 2, 2015, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report in which she conceded

entitlement to compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 2. Specifically,

respondent determined that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury

rela ted to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) and that it was caused

- in

- fact by the flu

vaccine he received on October 22, 2014. Id. Respondent identified no other causes

for petitioner’s SIRVA and determined, based on the medical evidence of record, that

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codif ied as amended

at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, up on review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, fo r

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).peti tioner has suffered the condition for more than six months. Id. R espondent

therefore concluded that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation

under the Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record, the

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
AP5.12 APPENDIX 5.1 2 

SHIPMENT PERFORMANCE NOTICE 

SERVICES LINE ITEM 

Record 

Data Element Name Positionls) 

Document Identifier 1-3 

Purchasing Office (4-9) 

Fiscal Year (I 0-1 1 ) 

Type of Instrument (1 2) 

Serial Number (1 3-1 6) 

SPIIN: CallIOrder 17-20 

CLlN or ELIN: 21 -26 

CLlN 

ELlN 

CLINIELIN Subline (25-26) 

Identity Code: 

Performed-At 

Data Entries 

PJR. 

Must match the contract number to which it 

applies. 

A six-position DFARS, appendix G code. 

Numeric. 

A, C-H, K-M, P, S, V, 01 W. 

Rp 13-1 6: 0001 -9999; 

or rp 13: A-Z and rp 14-1 6: 001 -999; 

or rp 13-1 4: AA-ZZ and rp 15-16: 01 -99. 

I and 0 cannot be used. 

When required, it must match the master file 

for this procurement instrument. If the Type 

of Instrument in rp 12 is A, D, or G, then rp 

17-20 is four positions, alphanumeric. 

Otherwise, leave blank. 

Must match the contract line to which it 

applies. 

0001 -9999. 

Rp 21 must an be alpha and rp 22-24 may be 

any alphanumeric combination. I and 0 

cannot be used. 

AA-ZZ or blank. I and 0 cannot be used. 

Must be a valid DoDAAC. 
Data Element Name 

Reserved 

Date Completed: 

Year 

Month 

Day 

Received 

Shipment Identification 

Data: Shipment Number 

Reserved 

Contract Shipment Advice 

Text: 

Description of Services 

Transaction Status 

Indicator 

Record 

 position!^) 

33-38 

39-45 

(39-40) 

(41 -43) 

(44-45) 

46-51 

52-58 

59-60 

6 1 

62-79 

8 0 

Data Entries 

Blank. 

Numeric year, with a possible X-overpunch in 

rp 39. 

JAN, FEE, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, 

JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC. 

Applicable day for the month in rp 41-43. 

Blank. 

52-54 alpha; 55-58 alphanumeric. 

Blank. 

A-H or Z. 

No validation. 

C or blank.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Trimcos, LLC v. Compass Bank

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 01000

- CV

Trial court case number: 2018

- 42334

Trial court: 15 7 th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Trimcos LLC,

, has filed a motion for rehearing

. The Court requests a response

to the motion for rehearing from appellee, Compass B ank

. The response must be filed no later

than 30 days from the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.2.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Julie Countiss

______ Acting individually

Date: January 27, 2022
#### Whittenburge, Petitioner, v. Department of Social and Health Services, Respondent,

No. 92028-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72914-4-I, July 6, 2015. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3130 

To amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to extend 

protection to additional employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2019 

Mr. GROTHMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 

1967 to extend protection to additional employees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Age Discrimination 

5 in Employment Parity Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 11(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employ8 ment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 630(b)) is amended by strik9 ing ‘‘twenty’’ the 1st place it appears and inserting ‘‘15’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3130 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall 

3 take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

4 Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Irizzary, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 30]

*320Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered May 10, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 31/2 years and 2 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly denied defendant’s request to discharge a sworn juror. During jury selection, a panelist who ultimately became a sworn juror had a brief encounter with defendant’s father. This encounter was sufficiently innocuous so that it did not require replacement of the juror, who clearly stated that the incident would not affect his ability to render an impartial verdict *(see People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]). The court’s inquiry also established that the events in question had no effect on any other jurors. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

BRIAN MARTIN KURTYKA

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT 

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 44

 September Term, 2023 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent, filed by Bar 

Counsel and Respondent, Brian Martin Kurtyka, on March 18, 2024 in the above-captioned 

case, in which the parties jointly petition this Court to disbar Respondent pursuant to Rule 

19-736,

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, the Attorney Grievance Commission filed a 

Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging that Respondent had been found 

guilty of a serious crime within the meaning of Maryland Rule 19-701(t) and 19-738(a),

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, this Court issued a show cause order pursuant 

to Maryland Rule 19-738(d) directing Respondent within fifteen days of the date of the 

order to show cause in writing why he should not be immediately suspended from the 

practice of law in the State of Maryland pending further order of this Court and, to date, no 

response has been received,

WHEREAS, in the joint petition, the parties advise that Respondent was charged in 

the Circuit Court for Washington County in State of Maryland vs. Brian M. Kurtyka, Case 

No. C-21-CR-22-000725, with two counts of “Embezzlement Misappropriate” and one 

count of “Forgery, Private Documents,” pled guilty to all three counts on January 16, 2024, 

and was sentenced to fifteen years of incarceration with all but five years suspended and 

five years’ supervised probation with restitution in the amount of $672,354.51 to be paid, 
WHEREAS, the parties advise that Respondent agrees that his conduct as described 

in the joint petition violates Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 

8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d) (misconduct) and that Respondent consents to disbarment, it is this 

20th day of March 2024,

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that the Joint Petition for 

Disbarment by Consent is GRANTED, and the Respondent, Brian Martin Kurtyka, is

DISBARRED, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Brian Martin 

Kurtyka from the register of attorneys in the Court, certify that fact to the Client Protection

Fund of the Maryland, and send notice to all Clerks of Court and other persons as required

by Maryland Rule 19-761.

 /s/ Shirley M. Watts

 Senior Justice
No. 11-5516.

#### Samuel Juvon Bowens, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 912, 132 S. Ct. 323,

181 L. Ed. 2d 200,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6111.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 205.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36192-36193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17549]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-31, RM-9227]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Johnstown and Altamount, NY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document reallots Channel 285A from Johnstown to 
Altamount, New York, and modifies the Station WSRD license to specify 
operation on Channel 285A at Altamount, New York. See 63 FR 13158, 
March 18, 1998. The reference coordinates for Channel 285A at 
Altamount, New York, are 42-38-07 and 74-04-30. With this action, the 
proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202) 
418-2177.


[[Page 36193]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order adopted June 24, 1998, and released June 29, 1998. The 
full text of this 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) 857-3805, 1231 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is 
amended by removing Channel 285A at Johnstown, and adding Channel 285A 
at Altamount.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-17549 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7239
ALEXANDER WOODARD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-453-MU) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Woodard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Woodard v. Jackson , No. CA-95-453-MU (W.D.N.C. July 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    [Intentionally omitted];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 April 25, 2008
    /s/ J. Per BrodinJ. Per BrodinChief Financial Officer
No. 11-1.

#### Evelyne Janto, et vir, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 878, 132 S. Ct. 241,

181 L. Ed. 2d 137,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7047.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 396.