alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REPORT OF INSPECTION ON OPERATIONAL RATIONS

(ENTER TYPE OF RATION) PAGE 1 OF

PART I - INSPECTION ACTIVITY INFORMATION

INSPECTOR: DATE OF INSPECTION:

SECTION: BRANCH:

ACTIVITY: REGION:

PART II – INSPECTED UNIT INFORMATION

INSTALLATION: UNIT NAME:

STORAGE LOCATION OF RATIONS: RATIONS RECEIVED FROM:

PART III – RATION ASSEMBLER INFORMATION

CONTRACT NUMBER: NA ASSEMBLER:

PART IV – INSPECTION INFORMATION

CLASS OF INSPECTION: TYPE OF INSPECTION: ROUTINE SPECIAL

TYPE OF INSPECTION LOT:

GRAND CONTRACTORS/ASSEMBLERS

LOT SIZE: LOT INFORMATION:

PART V – INSPECTION RESULTS

CONDITION CODE: A B C H J L NEXT INSPECTION DUE:

SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED: NO YES TTI STATUS: 0 1 2 3 4 ___ 5 NA MISSING

STORAGE CONDITION: REFRIGERATED NON-REFRIGERATED STORAGE TEMPERATURE: <80*F >80*F UNKNOWN

OVERRIDE SPECIAL INSPECTION: OVERRIDE AUTHORIZED BY:

 JUSTIFICATION OF OVERRIDE:

PART VI - SAMPLING PLANS

RATION COMPONENT 

(SPECIAL ONLY)

DEFECT 

TABLE

SAMPLING 

TABLE

SAMPLE 

SIZE

DEFECT 

CLASS

ACTION 

NUMBER

TOTAL 

DEFECTS

DEFECTS BY COMPONENT 

CLASSIFICATION

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

PRIMARY -

SECONDARY - 

ANCILLARY -

DLA Troop Support Form 5117 (FRONT), Nov 2023 (FOR USE OF THIS FORM, SEE DLA Troop SupportH 4155.2, APPROPRIATE APPENDIX)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MAJ A

MAJ B

MINOR

MAJ A

MAJ B

MINOR

MAJ A

MAJ B

MINOR

MAJ B

MINOR

1

1

15

1

1

15

1

1

15

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

0

0

0
REPORT OF INSPECTION ON OPERATIONAL RATIONS (CONT)

(USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECCESSARY) PAGE OF 

PART VII – NONCONFORMANCE SUMMARY

ASSEMBLER 

LOT NO.

MENU 

NO.

COMPONENT

& 

CODE

COMPONENT 

PROCESSOR

DEFECT 

TABLE

DEFECT 

NO.

DEFECT 

CODE

DESCRIPTION

OF DEFECTS/REMARKS

DEFECT TALLY* Primary Secondary Ancillary

A B M A B M A B M

* A = MAJ A, B = MAJ B, M = MINOR, N/A = Items with no Component Classification (Primary, Secondary, Ancillary)

DEFECT TOTALS

PART VIII - NARRATIVE COMMENTS

PART IX – SIGNATURE BLOCK

NAME / SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR DATE NAME / SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR TELEPHONE NO. DATE

DLA Troop Support Form 5117 (BACK), Nov 2023 (FOR USE OF THIS FORM, SEE DLA Troop SupportH 4155.2, APPROPRIATE APPENDIX)

N/A
### SIP Submissions Currently UnderEPAAdequacy Review ( State&

### LocalTransportation


## ... Page 1

### of 1



### Clark County, Nevada, carbon monoxide maintenance 

### plan (2008,2010 

### and 2020 budgets) Posted: September 30, 2008 How can I obtain a copv of the submission? The SIP is available for public viewing at US EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 The SIP is also available electronically at ~~i?~&c~pn~ 

### htt~://www.accessclarkcountv.com/depts/daaem/aq/~aqes/co.as~x When must I submit comments? You must submit commentsto EPA by October 30, 2008. Where do I submit comments? Submit your commentsto Karina O'Connor, AIR-2, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone 775-833-1276, fax 415- 947-3579, or oconnor.karina@epa.gov.
No. 09-8747.

#### Patrick Michael O’Brien, Petitioner v. Texas.

559 U.S. 1039, 130 S. Ct. 2065,

176 L. Ed. 2d 418,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2904.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON E MERGENCY M OTION FOR T EMPORARY R ELIEF

Appellate case name: Winnie Stacey Alwazzan v. Isa Ali Alwazzan and International Agencies Co., LTD.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 589

- CV

Trial court case number: 13 FD0848

Trial court: 30 6 th District Court of G a lveston County

Appellant, Winnie Stacey Alwazzan (“Winnie”), filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s “Order Vacating May 6, 2016 Order For Judgment in Rem,” signed on July
21, 2016. On July 27, 201 6

, Winnie also filed this emergency motion for temporary

relief r equesting, among other things, that this Court stay all the underlying trial court proceedings, including the trial court’s July 21, 2016 order, pending this Court’s

resolution of its a ppeal from that order.

On July 28, 2016, appellee

, International Agenci es Co., LTD. (“IACL”)

, filed a response in opposition to Winnie’s motion. IACL contends that Winnie’s motion should be denied because, among other things, she had failed to state why emergency relief was

warranted , how the harm would be irreparable withou t a stay, and she did not cite any case law to support her motion. Also on July 28, 2016, the other appellee, Isa Ali Alwazzan, filed a notice of intent to file a response, also requesting denial of the motion.

Accordingly, after reviewing the motion and the responses , the Court denies

Winnie ’s emergency motion. See

, e.g. , Lamar Builders, Inc. v. Guardian Sav. & Loan

Ass’n , 786 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ.) (providing movant for temporary order “must make a clear showing t hat it is entitled to relief.”).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually

Date: August 2, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4862 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4862

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 
 on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2006

Mr. Campbell of California (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boustany, 
  Mr. Calvert, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Dreier, Ms. 
    Eshoo, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Ms. Harris, Mr. 
   Hayworth, Mr. Herger, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren of California, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. McHenry, Mr. 
Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. 
 Otter, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Upton, Mr. Weldon of Florida, 
  Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
 Texas, Mr. Akin, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Kline, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. 
Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Graves, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Kuhl of New 
 York, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Pitts, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Pence, Mr. 
   Fortuno, and Mr. McHugh) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 
 on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

    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 ``Internet Consumer Protection Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT.

    The Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended--
            (1) in section 1101(a) by striking ``during the period 
        beginning November 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2007'', and
            (2) by striking section 1104.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, April 23, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee will be held Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: February 26, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-4666 Filed 3-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50225

Conference Calendar

 

JUAN ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, also known as Juan Roberto 

Rodriguez,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-99-CV-890-OG

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

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Robert Rodriguez, Texas prisoner #570369, seeks a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his

petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his 1990

arson conviction, which the district court construed as a 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Rodriguez argues that the

district court erred in: treating his petition for a writ of

coram nobis as a habeas petition; failing to consider the

substance of his claims; and failing to award him coram nobis

relief.
No. 00-50225

-2-

A COA is not required for an appeal from the denial of a

petition for a writ of coram nobis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1);

United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 429 n.32 (5th Cir. 1998)

(refusing to apply habeas law to a coram nobis case). However,

“[i]t is well settled that the writ of error coram nobis is not

available in federal court to attack state criminal judgments.” 

Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir. 1982). Since

Rodriguez’s petition challenged the validity of his state arson

conviction, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant him

coram nobis relief and thus did not err in refusing to construe

his petition as seeking such relief. To the extent that

Rodriguez is challenging the district court’s denial of coram

nobis relief, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

To the extent that Rodriguez is challenging the district

court’s denial of habeas corpus relief, he has failed to

demonstrate that the district court’s rejection on the merits of

his claims of infirmities in the state habeas proceedings and

procedural dismissal of his remaining claims were debatable or

incorrect. See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Rodriguez’s motions for a COA, for appointment of appellate

counsel, and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are

DENIED.
No. 11-7516.

#### Frank Allen, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1133, 132 S. Ct. 1056,

181 L. Ed. 2d 775,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 44.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 644 F.3d 748.
Provisional 11/16 ***************************

NSN: 8940 01 585 2053 * MONOGRAPH NO:FS3-15P

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

Item: Energy Gel, Orange (Flavor III) (EGO)

Document: PCR-E-018 Energy Gel, Packaged in a Flexible Pouch, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 150 Component Classification: Secondary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance: Translucent medium to bright orange color.

Odor: Distinct orange.

Flavor: Distinct orange with moderate sweet and tart attributes.

Texture: Tender, soft, jelly-like with a smooth mouth feel.

Possible Deteriorative Changes

Appearance: Medium to dark brown; moderate to extreme syneresis or liquefaction.

Odor: Moderately fermented, rancid, scorched. Loss of orange odor.

Flavor: Moderately fermented, caramelized, rancid, burnt or scorched. Loss of sweet and tart 

orange flavor.

Texture: Moderate to extreme loss of gel structure, moderate to extreme 

syneresis liquefied (total loss of gel structure).

Unique Examination/Test Procedures:

Light kneading of package prior to opening. Squeeze contents through opening in pouch onto a white 

paper plate.

Special Notes: 

NA
# C_2017236EN.01000101.xml

| 21.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8456 — Ineos/Forties Pipeline System)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 236/01)

On 14 July 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8456. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8456. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
December 1 , 2016

Ms. Kelly Neubecker
Counsel for Justin Flowers UASolutions Group, Inc.
5651 Talbot Boulevard Cocoa, FL 32926

Re: FAA

- 2016

- 3012

Dear Ms. Neubecker :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and
have determined that we will cont inue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016 , letter posted to your docket at w ww.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petitio n, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/ Dan Ngo Progra m Analyst
** **

**Exhibit99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Dakota Growers PastaCompany, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2002 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operation of the Company.

 

Date:  December 13, 2002

 
| /s/ Thomas P. Friezen     |
|---------------------------|
| Thomas P. Friezen         |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB AND GARY WARD, Respondents

v. JACK COHEN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 670 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
# C_2017348EN.01000102.xml

| 17.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8541 — Thermo Fisher Scientific/Patheon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 348/02)

On 23 August 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8541. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8541. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
exhibit_4-12.htm










Exhibit 4.12


 



	
  

	
Date: 20/12/2011







 





 




	
  

	
BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd.







 





	
To:







 



	
Bank Leumi LeIsrael Ltd







 



	
Dear Sir/Madam,







 


Further to the Letter of Undertaking signed by the undersigned, BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd. (the “Company”), on 1.May.2011 (the “Letter of Undertaking”), and with reference to the credit facilities and other banking services that are being provided and/or will be provided to us by Bank Leumi LeIsrael Ltd (the “Bank”), we hereby wish to make the following amendments to the wording of the Letter of Undertaking, as set forth hereunder:


 



	
1.

	
In Section 2.1 of the Letter of Undertaking, in the first line of the section, the words: “from the amount of USD 3,000,000” will be written instead of the words: “from the amount of USD 6,000,000”.







 



	
2.

	
It is hereby clarified that except for the changes set forth above, all the other sections of the Letter of Undertaking will continue to be of full force and effect and will be binding at all times on the Company.







 


 





                _________________________


 



	
  

	
BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd.







 


We agree with everything stated above in this document:


 



	___________________________________


Bank Leumi LeIsrael Ltd.



	
____________________


Date
No. 08-10932.

#### Fidele Birahagaze Batekreze, Petitioner v. Arizona.

559 U.S. 935, 130 S. Ct. 1500,

176 L. Ed. 2d 108,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1139,

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, denied.
# C_2017270EN.01000101.xml

| 15.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8543 — Ardian/APG/PGGM/LBC Tank Terminals)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 270/01)

On 7 August 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8543. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8543. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 09-8399.

#### Boris Mennard Edwards, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 955, 130 S. Ct. 1549,

176 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1260.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 346 Fed. Appx. 555.