alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-28-TLS 

 ) 

DAMIAN DUBOSE ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 51], filed on September 16, 2015. The Defendant has waived 

objection to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the 

Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 51] in its entirety and accepts the recommended 

disposition. Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count Two (2) of the 

Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on October 2, 2015. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 122 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 122

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
  participate in the Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water 
              System Pressurization and Expansion Project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

   Mr. Issa (for himself, Mr. Calvert, and Mrs. Bono) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
  participate in the Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water 
              System Pressurization and Expansion Project.

    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 ``Eastern Municipal Water District 
Recycled Water System Pressurization and Expansion Project''.

SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by adding after section 1636 the following:

``SEC. 1637. EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM 
              PRESSURIZATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
Eastern Municipal Water District, California, may participate in the 
design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities needed to 
establish operational pressure zones that will be used to provide 
recycled water in the district.
    ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost of the project.
    ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall not be 
used for operation or maintenance of the project described in 
subsection (a).
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of 
Public Law 102-575 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
section 1634 the following:

``1637. Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water System 
                            Pressurization and Expansion Project, 
                            California.''.
                                 <all>
```
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

August 14, 2015

Hon. Abel Acosta, Clerk 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

201 West 14th St., Room 106 

Austin, TX 78701

Re: Cause No. 13-11-00442-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 07-06200-CRF-272

Style: DAVID SAMARIPAS JR. v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

The record in the above cause was this day electronically submitted to the Court 

of Criminal Appeals.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

DER:ch

cc: Judge Travis B. Bryan III

Hon. Marc Hamlin (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Richard E. Wetzel (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
#### Randy Lee ARTIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ennis OAKS, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7772.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 18, 2004.

Randy Lee Artis, Appellant pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Randy Lee Artis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Artis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.2
 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Textron Financial CorporationDate: July 31, 2009
    /s/ Thomas J. CullenThomas J. CullenExecutive Vice President and Chief
     Financial Officer
Biosimilars: Are they 

the same quality? 

What are biologics? 

Biologics (also called biological products) 

include a wide range of products 

such as vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, 

blood components, allergenics, 

gene therapy, tissues, and proteins. 

Biologics are medicines that generally 

come from living organisms, which can 

include animal cells and microorganisms, 

such as yeast and bacteria1. 

They are used to treat a variety of 

diseases and conditions, such as cancer, 

kidney diseases, and autoimmune 

diseases. 

What are biosimilars? 

A biosimilar is a biologic that is highly 

similar to another biologic that’s already 

FDA-approved, called a reference product. 

Biosimilars have no clinically meaningful 

differences from their reference product in 

terms of safety, purity, and potency. 

Biosimilars have the same: 

Route of 

administration 

to patients 

Strength and 

dosage form 

Potential 

side effects 

Biosimilars are approved for many biologic reference products2, including: 

• Avastin • Humira • Lucentis • Remicade 

• Epogen/Procrit • Herceptin Neulasta • Rituxan 

• Enbrel • Lantus • Neupogen 

Biosimilars can improve patient access to quality medicines 

Biosimilars are versions of brand name biologics that may offer more 

affordable treatment options to patients, similar to generic drugs. 

Understanding the quality 

of biosimilar products 

Biosimilars are: 

Rigorously tested by their manufacturers following the same robust 

quality assessments as their reference products. These assessments 

are performed in accordance with the Current Good Manufacturing 

Practice regulations enforced by FDA. 

What steps are involved to help 

ensure quality biosimilars? 

Interchangeable 

products 

An interchangeable biosimilar 

product is a biosimilar that may 

be substituted for the reference 

product without the intervention 

of the health care professional 

who prescribed the reference 

product. This is similar to how 

generic drugs are substituted 

for brand name drugs at the 

pharmacy and is subject to 

state laws. Interchangeable 

biosimilars must meet 

additional requirements related 

to the potential for automatic 

substitution. However, both 

biosimilar and interchangeable 

biosimilars meet the same high 

standards for quality and 

similarity to the reference 

product. 

Extensive research and comparative studies 

by the manufacturer to demonstrate high 

similarity to the reference product. 

Studies directly comparing the biosimilar 

to the reference product to demonstrate 

no clinically meaningful differences 

in safety, purity, and potency. 

FDA review of data required 

for approval of a biosimilar. 

FDA inspections of the biosimilar 

manufacturing facilities. 

Post-market drug safety surveillance 

by FDA and biosimilar manufacturers. 

Learn more 

www.usp.org/about/convention-membership 

www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/patient-materials 

References 

1 www.fda.gov/biosimilars 

2 https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/biosimilars-in-the-united-states-2020-2024
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

NOTICE RE CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE ON MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Attorney Arturo Gonzalez telephoned the Courtroom Deputy to state that he had a

scheduling conflict and to request that the case management conference currently scheduled for

March 16 at 11:30 a.m. be set for a different date or time. In the future, counsel should not

telephone the Courtroom Deputy with scheduling requests but should file an administrative

motion instead. Nevertheless, if both sides agree, the case management conference will be

advanced to March 16 at 8:30 a.m. Otherwise, a different lawyer from defendants’ long roster

will have to appear. The Court asks both sides to cooperate on this matter.

Dated: March 14, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 47 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 1
Christopher Joseph ATKINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10091.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

*2785Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jason David COOPER, petitioner, v. Tom GRAMIAK, Warden.

No. 12-8635.

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.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of the Principal 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 amended annual report of Liberty Silver Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Geoff Browne, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Geoff BrowneChief Executive Officer Date: August 19, 2011
Benjamin J. ASHMORE, Sr., petitioner, v. NEW YORK, et al.

No. 12-1161.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1564

HARRY LAWRENCE QUIGLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STEVE WILLIAMS; SCOTT DAMRON; JOYCE CLARK; CHARLES 

MCCOMAS; ALEX VENCE; JENNIFER WHEELER; TONIA PAGE; MARK 

BATES; MIKE SHOCKLEY; TOM MCGUFFIN; TINA BROOKS; REBECCA 

HOWE; CAROL POLAN, each and all in both their official and individual 

capacities; CITY OF HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA; DENVER C. OFFUTT, 

JR.; STEVEN K. NORD; RYAN Q. ASHWORTH, each and all in both their official 

and individual capacities; ROBERT C. CHAMBERS; CHERYL A. EIFERT; 

OMAR ABOULHOSN, each and all in their individual, non-judicial capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Huntington. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-01323)

Submitted: June 30, 2020 Decided: July 13, 2020

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Lawrence Quigley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harry Lawrence Quigley appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and dismissing Quigley’s civil action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 (2018). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Quigley v. Williams, No. 3:18-cv-01323 (S.D.W. Va., Apr. 25, 2019). 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.

AFFIRMED
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Barclay Petroleum, Inc. v. Bailey, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5136.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Oh io 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2018-O HIO -5136
B ARCLAY P ETROLEUM , I NC ., A PPELLANT , v. B AILEY , T RUSTEE , ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Barclay Petroleum, Inc. v. Bailey, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5136.] Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. (No. 2017-1387—Submitted July 17, 2018—Decided December 21, 2018.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hocking County, No. 16CA14,
2017-Ohio-7547.

__________________ {¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.
O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , and D E G ENARO , JJ., concur.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and F RENCH and D E W INE , JJ., dissent.

__________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Organ Cole, L.L.P., Douglas R. Cole, Shawn J. Organ, and Joshua M. Feasel, for appellant. Tzangas Plakas Mannos, Ltd., and Joshua E. O’Farrell, for appellees. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Gregory D. Russell, Thomas H. Fusonie, Daniel D. Shuey, and Ilya Bati kov, urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio
Oil and Gas Association and Southeaste rn Ohio Oil and Gas Association.

__________________
Jacqueline T. ROBINSON-REEDER, petitioner, v. Christine N. KEARNS, et al.

No. 12-9644.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO. 

### 2022 Kw 0450
DERRICK PIERRE 

## JULY 5, 2022
In Re: Derrick Pierre, applying 

### for supervisory writs, 18th Judicial 

### District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Nos. 

### 06-97- 0846 & 06-98- 0961. BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. The records of the Clerk of Court of East 

## Baton Rouge Parish reflect that the district court is proceeding toward 

### disposition of relator' s application for postconviction relief, as 

## on May 19, 

### 2022, the State of Louisiana was ordered to 

### file any procedural objections 

### it 

## may have and/ or an answer to relator' s application. PMC JEW CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# C CA-nrsz,-

# S. DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11625]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Injury Research Grant Review Committee: Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Name: Injury Research Grant Review Committee (IRGRC).
    Times and Dates: 6 p.m.-9 p.m., June 4, 1995; 8 a.m.-5 p.m., 
June 5, 1995; 8 a.m.-12 noon, June 6, 1995.
    Place: Wyndham Garden Hotel-Midtown, 125 10th Street, NE, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
    Status: Open: 6 p.m.-7 p.m., June 4, 1995; closed: 7 p.m.-9 
p.m., June 4, 1995, through 12 noon, June 6, 1995.
    Purpose: This committee is charged with advising the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, the Assistant Secretary for Health, 
and the Director, CDC, regarding the scientific merit and technical 
feasibility of grant applications relating to the support of injury 
control research and demonstration projects and injury prevention 
research centers.
    Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items for the meeting will 
include announcements, discussion of review procedures, future 
meeting dates, and review of grant applications.
    Beginning at 7 p.m., June 4, through 12 noon, June 6, the 
committee will meet to conduct a review of grant applications. This 
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Associate Director for 
Management and Operations, CDC, pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Richard W. Sattin, M.D., 
Executive Secretary, IRGRC, National Center for Injury Prevention 
and Control, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop K58, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 404/488-4580.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Officer, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 95-11625 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-M
1

Case No. 17-CV-00141-LHK 

ORDER OF RECUSAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROSALENE MULLINS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.17-CV-00141-LHK 

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I, the undersigned Judge of the court, finding myself disqualified in the above-entitled action, 

hereby recuse myself from this case. The matter is hereby referred to the Assignment Committee for 

reassignment to another United States District Judge for all further proceedings. All pending dates of 

motions, pretrial conferences and trial are hereby vacated and will be reset by the newly assigned 

judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00141-EJD Document 25 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 180-1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

RICHARD TALLMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY, INC. d/b/a NEW 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

CENTER; BARRY AND LISA 

CADDEN; AND GREGORY 

CONIGLIARO, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 CAUSE NO.: 3:12-CV-741-JD-CAN 

NOTICE OF STAY BY REASON OF BANKRUPTCY

 The defendant, New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a New England 

Compounding Center (“NECC”), hereby notifies the Court that NECC filed a voluntary petition 

under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts (Eastern Division) No. 12-19882-HJB. 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), all actions against NECC are stayed. 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Dina M. Cox 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49 

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49 

 Attorneys for Defendant, New England 

Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. 

 

case 3:12-cv-00741-JD-CAN document 8 filed 12/27/12 page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on December 27, 2012 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas D. Small / Edmond W. Foley 

FOLEY & SMALL 

1002 East Jefferson Blvd. 

South Bend, IN 46617 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

/s/ Dina M. Cox 

 DINA M. COX 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

Phone: (317) 237-0500 

FAX: (317) 630-2790 

dcox@lewiswagner.com Q:\NECC\8 - Tallman\Federal Court Pleadings\Notice of Stay_Bankruptcy.docx

case 3:12-cv-00741-JD-CAN document 8 filed 12/27/12 page 2 of 2
Fannie GARCIA, petitioner, v. CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS, et al.

No. 12-1264.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

*2860Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Claude Louis DUBOC, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7926.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.