alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 22606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11345]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Deletion of Agenda Items From May 4th Open Meeting

    The following items have been deleted from the list of agenda items 
scheduled for consideration at the May 4, 1995, Open Meeting and 
previously listed in the Commission's Notice of April 27, 1995.

Item No., Bureau, and Subject

1--Mass Media--Title: Review of the Commission's Regulations 
Regarding Network Control of Station Rates and Network Advertising 
Representation Rules. Summary: The Commission will consider action 
concerning Sections 73.658 (h) and (i) of the Commission's Rules, 
which regulate a broadcast television network's relationship with 
its affiliates with regard to the affiliates; advertising rates and 
sales representation.
3--Common Carrier--Title: The NYNEX Telephone Companies Petition for 
Waiver, Transition Plan to Preserve Universal Service in a 
Competitive Environment. Summary: The Commission will consider the 
NYNEX petition for waiver of Parts 61 and 69 of the Commission's 
Rules.

    Dated: May 3, 1995.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11345 Filed 5-4-95; 10:41 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE ACCESS TO

UNDER-SEAL MATERIAL

Without prejudice to both sides agreeing to a customized protective order, the Patent

Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model Protective Order will apply in this case, effective immediately. 

As stated on the record at the case management conference today, however, the 14-day period

for parties to object to the disclosure of protected material to experts is shortened to 48 hours. 

The Court approves Attorney Nicole Bartow, in-house counsel for defendant Uber

Technologies, Inc., to review material even at the highest level of confidentiality, given that she

has agreed to be bound by the protective order and is hereby ordered to do so. Attorney Bartow

should sign on formally to the protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 60 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 1
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 1

 The Court notes that, because the instant action and the Eastern District action will

be pending in two different Districts, the appropriate procedure would appear to be a joint

motion to transfer.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHAD GLOW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

and HOWARD REDMOND, 

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-1933 MMC

ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL AND

TRIAL DATE; DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE JOINT STATUS STATEMENT

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement, filed May 12, 2008, in

which the parties request that the Court suspend all pending dates in the instant action in

anticipation of plaintiff’s filing a related action in the Eastern District of California (“Eastern

District action”), such filing to be accomplished in the current week. The parties further

state therein that the Eastern District action involves a workplace injury, as alleged in the

instant action, and to the same part of plaintiff’s body as alleged in the instant action. 

Additionally, the parties report that they will jointly seek to have the instant action

consolidated with the Eastern District action.1

In light of the parties’ representations, their joint request is hereby GRANTED, and,

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 119 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

accordingly, the pretrial date of May 27, 2008 and trial date of June 23, 2008 are hereby

VACATED. The parties are hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than June 6, 2008, a Joint

Status Statement in which the parties apprise the Court of the status of the Eastern District

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 119 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1539

In re: LARRY DAVIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:17-cv-03002-CCB)

Submitted: July 19, 2022 Decided: July 22, 2022

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1539 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has 

unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He seeks an order from this court 

directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the 

district court has now ruled on Davis’ § 2254 petition. Davis v. Bishop, No. 1:17-cv03002-CCB (D. Md. filed June 27, 2022 & entered June 28, 2022). Accordingly, because 

the district court has recently decided Davis’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1539 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID TIPPITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

NORTH AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00125-VC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court has been advised by the Joint Notice of Settlement filed on July 27, 2017 that 

the parties have resolved this case. (Re: Dkt. No. 34). Therefore, it is ORDERED that this case 

is DISMISSED without prejudice. All deadlines and hearings in the case are vacated. Any 

pending motions are moot.

The parties retain the right to reopen this action within 60 days of this Order if the 

settlement is not consummated. If a request to reinstate the case is not filed and served on 

opposing counsel within 60 days, the dismissal will be with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00125-VC Document 35 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 1
The PRESBYTERY OF OHIO VALLEY, INC., et al., petitioners, v. OPC, INC., et al.

No. 12-907.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana denied.
Andrea SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL (CR 3 05 70262 JL)

KEVIN V. RYAN (CASBN 118321)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CASBN 138549)

Chief, Criminal Division

ROBERT DAVID REES (CASBN 229441)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

Facsimile: (415) 736-7234

Email: robert.rees@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIFFANY STUART,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 3 05 70262 JL

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

With leave of the Court, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), the

United States Attorney for the Northern District of California dismisses the above complaint with

prejudice and moves that the Court quash the arrest warrant issued in connection with the

complaint in this case.

DATED: August 31, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

__________/s___________

JONATHAN SCHMIDT

Chief, Major Crimes Section

Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 74 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 76 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Leave is granted to the government to dismiss the complaint. It is further ordered that the

arrest warrant issued in connection with the complaint is quashed.

Date: _________________________________

HON. JAMES LARSON

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 74 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 2

September 5, 2006 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Larson

Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 76 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2
**B F**  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2
- 0 363 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. JOSEPH EDWARDS KNOWLES ,

Defendant and Appellant.**ORDER** Upon consideration Appellee ’s motion for a 3 0
- day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including June 17 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 8 2024

05/08/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0363
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------




                            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 Noble Roman's, Inc. (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, Paul W. Mobley,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                                     /s/ Paul W. Mobley
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Paul W. Mobley
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     of Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                                     Date:  May 6, 2010
Kingsley ARIEGWE, petitioner, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD, Warden, et al.

No. 12-9687.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy SMOTHERS

No. 2019-KK-0848

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The state failed to prove that the officer seized the weapon in this case pursuant to a valid exception to the warrant requirement. *See* La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). Although the officer answered affirmatively when asked at the suppression hearing if the weapon was in plain view, a review of his testimony reveals no supporting facts from which the trial court could have concluded that the legal standard for a plain view seizure was met. *See* *Horton v. California* , 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990) ; *see also* *State v. Gray* , 13-1326 (La. 6/28/13), 122 So.3d 531, describing that a plain view seizure is reasonable: 1) if the officer is lawfully in the place from which he views the object; 2) where the object's incriminating character or evidentiary value is immediately apparent; and 3) when the officer has a lawful right of access to the object. Because the state failed to prove the weapon was lawfully seized and because there was no probable cause for defendant's arrest upon his initial detention, the weapon and defendant's inculpatory statements must be suppressed. *See* *Wong Sun v. United States* , 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Therefore, we reverse the district court's ruling, which denied defendant's motion to suppress. We grant defendant's motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

**REVERSED AND REMANDED**

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Northern District of California

WAYMO LLC

3:17-cv-00939

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OTTOMOTTO, LLC;

OTTO TRUCKING LLC

Ottomotto LLC c/o The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209

Orange St., Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Charles K. Verhoeven

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

50 California Street, Floor 22

San Francisco, California 94111

02/23/2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-JCS Document 4 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

3:17-cv-00939

0.00

Case 3:17-cv-00939-JCS Document 4 Filed 02/23/17 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11233]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster Loan Area #8506]


Declaration of Disaster Loan Area; Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
(and Contiguous Counties in New Hampshire)

    Essex County and the contiguous counties of Middlesex and Suffolk 
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Hillsborough and Rockingham in 
the State of New Hampshire constitute an economic injury disaster area 
as a result of damages caused by a fire which occurred on February 27, 
1995 in the town of Peabody, Massachusetts. Eligible small businesses 
without credit available elsewhere and small agricultural cooperatives 
without credit available elsewhere may file applications for economic 
injury assistance until the close of business on February 1, 1996 at 
the address listed below: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster 
Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd. South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 
14303, or other locally announced locations: The interest rate for 
eligible small businesses and small agricultural cooperatives is 4 
percent.
    The economic injury number assigned to this disaster for the State 
of New Hampshire is 850700.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002)

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Cassandra M. Pulley,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-11233 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
Jorge MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-795

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Vernon DOUGLAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9057.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Gregory BROWN, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-8043.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EX-35.1
(logo) Bank of America

Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000


Annual Statement as to Compliance

Banc of America Mortgage 2007-3 Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3

I, H. Randall Chestnut, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, National
Association (the "Servicer"), hereby certify with respect to the Banc of America
Mortgage 2007-3 Trust formed pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated August 30, 2007 (the "Pooling Agreement"), among Banc of America Mortgage
Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Bank of America, National Association, as
Servicer, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, that: (a) a review of the
Servicer's activities during calendar year 2007 and of the Servicer's
performance under the Pooling Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling Agreement in all material
respects throughout calendar year 2007.


March 1, 2008

By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name: H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Texas **State Board**  **Austin 22,**  Texas

InexIt’ **opinion on**  **t**

**II 1,**  **Vamon ’** **r** ht80tfma R~vlred

morlbe end amldaln a o&am3 OF to the pualifioatlona~~oi thoao angaged, and who 168~ewa balm- In commotion w!6 in tha waatiorioi aath the aura and disposition of dead huavm bodies in this State and shall **have** t&a d&t, **to be**  **exaroissd at**  **ita &oration,**  **to** aaploy oapable sad dtlofent lecturer8 an& damnstrators in the soianoe or ambalmlng ror tha **bens iit**  **of all**  **lloanse~** embalmarre **in** this **Stats. Tfie**  said **leotunrs anddamonstratore**  **shell meet**  **not** aore than onoa in sauh pear 81th annual aeealo~Texas State Board of Embalmfnf3. page

of tha Texas ?u~ral 3ireotora' Aaeooiation." 

### 2

**and** Embeimare* 

## wNo oK~osr -a tb portertc very orwaiveanyd-it- **(2#07~,la?3# ~~~(l~~~u;~~o~;~:~:;**  **:?,:; "'**  permitted to **euistituir** hls'o& $&ant **as to**  **the best**  **lil(~ans** of perrormiaghie ofrioial duties, ii suoh is oontraryto the plainprwisicne **of** ths **statute;** although in hia doing 80 he doea not have an evil or corrupt **motive,** and **no loea**  **results** 

## to tIm publlo. Sharp Y. Brown, 38 Ida. 136, 221 P. 139.

WDieoretlonin themannsr of the performsnoe OS an aot ari8ea whan tha act map be psrr0n44a In on6 

### or two or mor4 rape, either or which muld 

### ba lawful, and whsrs 

### it ie laft to the will or Judgarntor the prrr0rrarrO to determine in 

### whioh **WSY it**  **S&S11 br**  p4rfOXQ4d. Buti **Whhm** 6 pO8itite auty l8 anjoined,aP;Ithere is but oneway in

**It** 18 ths Board.8duty "to pr4aoribeand mlnt8in a 

### d&lard of proficianoy

### as to the 

### qualifications Of” smbalmppere. TO 60,thiil.

it i8 

### aut~,oriesd 'Clt it8 &i8Or4tiOn, to employ oapab14

### and **8fSioient** 

### lsoturrrs 8nd demon8tretOrs.* Tha right 0r a414otion -- es to whom to employ -- .lealso to be exeroiead

### et Its (th4Bcmrd*a)dlaor4tlon.W

Now, the r&l4 la,when tha etatutepr4aorib48 the timewithin whhioh pub110 orflorrsar4 nq;lrrd to parrorm

## an OmO%?il not **it i.S**  **IIWely dir4OtOrp;**  **UIL~OBB~ the**  **8t4tUt4 d4dSS**  th4 4xeroiar 

### 0r th4 powrr 4ft4r oucrh 

### tha or the natur4 

### or th4 aot or tha **statutory** r454Uy 8hOW6 that the time was intended

_ a8 a 1iQl1tat10n.Stetr v. Fox, **(1939 Austin**  C. **A.)** 133 s. w. **(26)** 987.**‘ ibras**  3tate Board OS &~balming, pgo 3

It ia the v3aw of this dapartmant th8t thrr Board ix authorized to paea the resolution lnquirrdabbut.

**Yours** very truly ATFORNEY CZNERAL **OF**TSAS By (0) Devid Wuntoh

Aseistant
DW:db Dk':io AFPROPSD YBR. 21, 19i.C (8) fb’OV4r **tt813Or8** ATTOREOSY

GBNXRAL **OF**TJiXAS

APPRGVlGD

OFIRION CCMMI!J!TEE BY (8)am, CIiAIRwa
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 4 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 5 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 6 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 7 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 8 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 9 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 10 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 11 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 12 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 13 of 14
Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 14 of 14
Mackle Vincent SHELTON, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-7430.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

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