alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, the undersigned officers of AmericasBank Corp. (the Company) each certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark H. Anders                             
|Mark H. Anders                                 
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|March 30, 2006                                 



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ A. Gary Rever                                   
|A. Gary Rever                                       
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|March 30, 2006                                      

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge
standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, W. Bradley Blair, II, certify that:

1.            I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GTA-IB, LLC;

2.            Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.            Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)          Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| August 16, 2007 |     | /s/ W. Bradley Blair, II           |   |
|-----------------|----------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|            |     | W. Bradley Blair, II               |
|            | * * | *Chief Executive Officer and President* |

 

----
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF CONTACT INFORMATION

CASE NO. ; PAGE 1 OF 1 [JDC TEMPLATE Rev.6/2017]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Your name:

Address:

Phone Number:

E-mail Address:

Pro se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Division [check one]:  San Francisco  Oakland  San Jose  Eureka

 

 

Plaintiff,

vs.

 

 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Number: 

[Name] 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF [check box]:

 ADDRESS

 PHONE NUMBER

 EMAIL

Judge: Hon. _

As of [date of change] _______________________________________________________, 

my contact information has changed [check box and fill in]:

 Address: _______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 Phone number: __________________________________________________________

 Email: _________________________________________________________________

Date: Signature: 

Printed name:

Pro Se

Brian T. Noack

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

111 E Wacker, Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60601

312-836-4007

bnoack@taftlaw.com

✔

Parkridge Limited et al.

Brian Noack

Indyzen, Inc. et al.

Kandis Westmore

✔

✔

✔

July 21

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, 111 East Wacker Dr., Ste. 2800

Chicago, Illinois 60601

312-836-4007

✔

✔

✔ bnoack@taftlaw.com

7/21/17

Brian T. Noack

4:16-cv-7387

/s/ Brian T. Noack

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW Document 30 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 1
EX PARTE Woodburck NOE

CR-17-0129

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018 Reh. denied February 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSELYN LISETH LEMUS

- QUINTEROS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71777

Agency No. A205

- 639

- 856

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Joselyn Liseth Lemus

- Quinteros , a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

her motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discret ion the denial of a

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71777

motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d

575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lemus

- Quinteros’s

motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings where her challenge to the

agency’s jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is

foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) ( “the lack

of time

, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the

immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”)

.

In light of this disposition, w e lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of

sua sponte reopening, where Lemus

- Quinteros has not raised a legal or

constitutional error. See Bonilla , 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to

review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of

reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”)

.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lemus

- Quinteros’s contentions concerning

timeliness , changed circumstances, and prima facie eligibility because she did not

raise them before the BIA

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir.

2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).3 19

- 71777

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate

. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise

denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# The Mexico City Policy

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary of Defense[,] the Secretary of Health and Human Services[, and] the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development

I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of January 28, 2021, for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Protecting Women's Health at Home and Abroad), and reinstate the Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2017, for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (The Mexico City Policy).

I direct the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.

I further direct the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                    The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2025-02176

Billing code 4710-10-P
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 Golden West Brewing Company, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.   __/s/ John C. Power_____ John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer August 14, 2008
John Thomas PAYNE, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4013

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0814. BRIAN C. LAVERNEZ v. CELIA A. LAVERNEZ.

Brian C. Lavernez and Celia A. Lavernez were divorced in 2006. Brian

Lavernez filed a motion to modify his child support obligations. The trial court denied

his motion. Lavernez thereafter filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court also

denied. He now seeks to appeal the denial of his motion for new trial.

The Georgia Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all divorce and

alimony cases, including those cases ancillary to the divorce proceedings. See Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6); Morris v. Surges, 284 Ga. 748, 750 (2)

(670 SE2d 84) (2008); see also Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250, 251-252 (1) (696 SE2d

323) (2010). In Georgia, when the obligation to pay child support arises from a prior

divorce proceeding, child support is a form of alimony. See Spurlock v. Dept. of

Human Resources, 286 Ga. 512, 513-514 (1) (690 SE2d 378) (2010); Jones v. Jones,

280 Ga. 712, 715-716 (2) (632 SE2d 121) (2006). Because Lavernez’s appeal of the

child support order falls within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, this appeal is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for resolution.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 20, 2016

12/20/2016
Exhibit 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-30677 and
333-69792) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-33527) of our report dated March 15, 2006,
on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Four Oaks Fincorp,
Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the years in the three
year period ended December 31, 2005, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC

Sanford, North Carolina
March 15, 2006
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re C.B., Individually and as Next Friend 

for J.B., a Minor

No. 06-22-00062-CV

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Year

Eigen Values

Figure 5: Time Plot of Eigenvalues Based on R*

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3 3

3

3

3

3 3

3

3

4

4

4

4 4

4

4

4

4

4 4 5

5

5

5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5

m

m

m

m m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Year

Eigen Values

Figure 6: Time Plot of Eigenvalues Based on R*=I

2

2

2 2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3 3

3

3 3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4 4

4

4

4

4

4

4 5

5

5

5 5

5

5

5

5

5 5

m m m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4
Robert Evans LEWIS III v. Ana FRANKLIN, Sheriff of Morgan County

2170490

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 2, 2018

Transferred to Ct. of Crim. App. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
CIVIL TRIAL MINUTES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Honorable WILLIAM H. ALSUP

Date: April 17, 2006

Case No. C 05-01938 WHA

Case Name:CHIRON CORPORATION v. SOURCECF, INC. ET AL

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Benjamin Hsing; Jeffrey Horowitz; Sumir Sennik; Mark Petersen; Nan Joesten;

 Lucas Huizar

Defendant’s Counsel: Richard Doyle, Jr; Howard Janssen; Neda Shabahang

Clerk: Dawn K. Toland Court Reporter: Leo Mankiewicz

Trial Began: April 17, 2006 Further Trial: April 18, 2006 at 7:30am 

Trial Motions Heard: Disposition

1. 

2. 

3. 

Other:

Plaintiff and defendant made opening statements. Plaintiff called witnesses Dr. Peter Challoner,

Keith Sledge (be video tape); Dr. Gerald Smaldone; and Michael Walters (by video tape).

Case3:05-cv-01938-WHA Document112 Filed04/17/06 Page1 of 1
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

A.A.A., a Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2601

[November 14, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Gregory M. Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-CJ001459-XXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer 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 Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Steven Santo, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive 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, to my
knowledge:




(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.




Date: May
13, 2010





/s/
      Steven SantoName:
            
            Steven
      SantoTitle:
            
            Chief
      Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2279

ROSITHA OFFELIA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-611-603)

Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 6, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,

Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, William C.

Minick, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rositha Offelia, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board).

The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge’s ruling

denying Offelia’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the

reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. 

Offelia first challenges the immigration judge’s finding

that her asylum application was untimely with no showing of changed

or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late filing. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5) (2004).

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336

F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d

1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen.,

278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2002); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d

851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001).

Offelia next challenges the immigration judge’s finding

that she failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for

withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against

Torture. Based on our review of the record and the immigration

judge’s decision, we find that the immigration judge did not err in

finding that Offelia failed to show that it is “more likely than

not” that she would face torture if returned to Haiti, or show a
- 3 -

“clear probability of persecution.” See 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2)

(2004) (stating that to qualify for protection under the Convention

Against Torture, an alien must show that “it is more likely than

not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed

country of removal”); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir.

2002) (“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must

show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of

his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion.”).

Accordingly, we deny Offelia’s petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
1

Opinion issued November 16, 2021

In The



## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 007 13
- CV

——————————— IN RE MID
- CON ENERGY OPERATING , LLC, MID
- CON ENERGY PARTNERS , LP, REPUBLIC INDUSTRIAL AND ENERGY SOLUTIONS

LLC, AND QUAIL WELL SERVICE , INC. , Relators
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators, Mid

- Con Energy Operating , LLC, Mid

- Con Energy Partners , LP, Republic Industrial and Energy Solutions LLC, and Quail Well Service , Inc. , have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court’s May 5 , 20202

order denying their “Joint Motion to Compel Independent M edical Examinations and Request for Neuropsychologic Raw Test Data.” 1 We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Farris

.

1 The underlying case is Fernando Lawhon v. Republic Industrial and Energy Solutions LLC, Mid

- Con Energy Operating, LLC , Mid

- Con Energy Partners, LP, Smart Move LLC, and Quail Well Service, Inc. , Cause No. 201 8

- 26435 , in the 6 1st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Fredericka Phillips presiding.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 907 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Rhode Island Fisher5 men’s Fairness Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 907 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLAN2 TIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. 

3 Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fish4 ery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

5 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘States 

7 of’’; 

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘except 

9 North Carolina,’’; 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘21’’ and inserting ‘‘23’’; and 

11 (4) by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting ‘‘14’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Roderick Rashad GIVENS v. STATE

CR-16-1243

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Donald BISHOP v. STATE

CR-16-1154

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
EX PARTE William N. LUCY

1161104 (2160354)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.