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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1384 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1384

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to update certain 
   procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain 
       Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

 Mr. Gingrey (for himself, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, 
Mr. Jindal, Mr. Souder, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Marshall, Mr. 
 McCotter, Mr. Duncan, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. 
  Musgrave, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Westmoreland, and Mr. 
Miller of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to update certain 
   procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain 
       Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions.

    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 ``Firearm Commerce Modernization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INTERSTATE FIREARMS TRANSACTIONS.

    (a) Firearms Dispositions.--Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``rifle or shotgun'' and inserting 
        ``firearm''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) by striking ``located,'' and inserting 
                ``located or temporarily located,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``both such States'' and inserting 
                ``the State in which the transfer is conducted and the 
                State of residence of the transferee''.
    (b) Dealer Location.--Section 923(j) of such title is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence by striking ``, and such location 
        is in the State which is specified on the license'';
            (2) by striking ```curios or relics'''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following: ``A licensee may 
        conduct firearms transfers and business in compliance with 
        applicable State and local law with any person not a licensee 
        at any location at which the licensee may conduct business 
        under this chapter.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                         198,285
<SECURITIES>                                   100,265
<RECEIVABLES>                                  223,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,754
<INVENTORY>                                    177,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               726,240
<PP&E>                                         386,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                 236,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 884,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          548,789
<BONDS>                                         90,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,046
<OTHER-SE>                                     249,803<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   884,661
<SALES>                                      1,206,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,206,178
<CGS>                                        1,103,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,103,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               139,041<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,621
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,867)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,867)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
<FN>
<F1>OTHER SE INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $980,837 UNREALIZED GAIN ON
INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SECURITIES OF $24,613, AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT OF
$755,647.
<F2>OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF $70,096 AND SELLING, GENERAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $42,119, AND STOCK COMPENSATION EXPENSE OF $1,497.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11225]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the collection of information listed below has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and related form 
may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's clearance officer at the 
phone number listed below. Comments and suggestions on the requirements 
should be made directly to the bureau clearance officer and to the 
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1029-
0007), Washington, DC 20503, telephone 202-395-7340.
    Title: General Performance Standards 30 CFR 715.
    OMB Approval Number: 1029-0007.
    Abstract: This information is collected to meet the requirements of 
section 502 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The 
standards contained in the regulation are applicable at sites governed 
under the initial regulatory program and is used to measure compliance 
with the performance standards.
    Bureau Form Number: None.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Coal Mine Operators.
    Estimated Completion Time: One hour.
    Annual Responses: One.
    Annual Burden Hours: One.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: John A. Trelease.

    Dated: March 31, 1995.
Andrew F. DeVito,
Chief, Branch of Environmental and Economic Analysis.
[FR Doc. 95-11225 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JOHNNY FINLEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 3:13 CV 1391

)

ZIMMER, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

On January 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Christopher Nuechterlein issued an order

recommending that this court dismiss this case without prejudice. (DE # 27.) In his

report, Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein informed the parties that any objections to the

recommended finding must be made within 14 days after being served with a copy of

the report. (DE # 27 at 2.) That time has passed, and no objections have been filed.

Therefore, the court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein’s report

and recommendation (DE # 27) and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 8, 2015

s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40908

Summary Calendar

__________________

LEON LAVARN KENDRICK,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA;

BOB KURTZ, Warden, Billy Moore UNIT;

Chief of Security, Billy Moore Unit;

JESSIE LUCAS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-584

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leon Lavarn Kendrick appeals the district court's denial of

his motion for a preliminary injunction. Kendrick argues that

the district court abused its discretion by determining that he

had not demonstrated the elements necessary for the issuance of

an injunction. We have reviewed the record and Kendrick's brief
No. 95-40908

-2-

and AFFIRM the district court's denial of the motion for the same

reasons adopted by the district court. Kendrick v. Correction

Corp., No. 6:95-CV-584 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 20, 1995).
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T N A R A Y A N P R A S A D ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 73218 A ge nc yN o. A 071- 784- 040

A 071- 784- 041 A 071- 784- 045 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N ar ay an P r a s a d and hi s f a m i l y , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of F i j i , pe t i t i on f

or r e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of 

# FI LED SEP 18 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 73218 2 d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n , T

ouf i ghi v. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 988, 992 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o nf o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y and nu m ber- barr ed because the succ es si ve m ot i on w as fi l ed o v e rth r e e y e ar s a f

te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e o r d e r , se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , an dp e titio n e r s f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te c h an g e dc ir c u m s tan c e s in F iji to q u a lif yf o rth e r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n to th e tim e an dn u m b e rlim ita tio n s , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; see a l so T ouf i ghi , 5 3 8 F .3 da t 9 9 6 ( r e qu ir in g m o v an t to pr oduc e m a t e r i a l e vi de nc e w i th m ot i on t o r e ope n tha tc ondi t i ons i n c ountryof nat i on al i ty had changed). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana

BRANDON TERRY,

Petitioner/Defendant 

v. Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-121 TLS

(Criminal Case No. 1:10-CR-32 TLS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent/Plaintiff

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

 the plaintiff 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

 dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus postjudgment interest at the rate of % along with costs.

 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff .

 X Other: The Respondent/Defendant’s Motion for Corrected Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

is GRANTED. 

This action was (check one):

 tried to a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered

a verdict.

 tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was

reached.

 X decided by Judge Theresa L. Springmann on a Motion for Corrected

Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

DATE: May 2, 2013 ROBERT N. TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

By s/C. Reed 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

case 1:13-cv-00121-TLS document 1 filed 05/02/13 page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1306 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1306

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to 
                          its pre-1991 level.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2005

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. Pomeroy) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to 
                          its pre-1991 level.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1990 TAX INCREASE ON BEER.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 5051(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition and rate of tax on beer) 
is amended by striking ``$18'' and inserting ``$9''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas E. TILLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee, and Marvin HEDGEPETH, Party-in-interest.

No. 03-2473.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2004.

Decided: May 3, 2004.

Thomas E. Tilley, Appellant pro se.

Sara Ann Ketchum, Thomas J. Clark, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Thomas E. Tilley appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his petition to quash a summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Tilley v. United States,*No. CA-03-1-5 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2003). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
1

Advin Biotech Inc.: Advin COVID-19 Antigen Test @Home

15-month to 18-month self-life extension granted by the FDA January 03, 2024

Lot Number

Tests with this printed 

expiration date 

(Year-month-day)

Now have this extended 

expiration date 

(Year-month-day)

COVN23010026, COVN23010027, 

COVN23010028, COVN23010029 2024-01-11 2024-07-11

COVN23020004 2024-02-20 2024-08-20

COVN23030001, COVN23030002 2024-03-27 2024-09-27

COVN23030003, COVN23030004, 

COVN23030005 2024-03-28 2024-09-28

COVN23030006, COVN23030007 2024-03-29 2024-09-29

COVN23040001, COVN23040002, 

COVN23040003 2024-04-03 2024-10-03

COVN23060001, COVN23060002, 

COVN23060003, COVN23060004 2024-06-05 2024-12-05

COVN23090001 2024-12-25 2025-03-25

COVN23100002, COVN23100003, 

COVN23100004 2025-01-12 2025-04-12

COVN23100007 2025-01-15 2025-04-15

COVN23110002, COVN23110003 2025-02-16 2025-05-16

COVN23120004 2025-03-12 2025-06-12

MPS23001 2025-02-28 2025-05-28

MPS23002 2025-03-01 2025-06-01

MPS23003 2025-03-03 2025-06-03

MPS24001, MPS24002 2025-04-10 2025-07-10
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12639]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-29,920]


Goody Products, Inc., Kearney, NJ; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
Operating in the Following States

TA-W-29,920A  Alabama
TA-W-29,920B  California
TA-W-29,920C  Georgia
TA-W-29,920D  Florida
TA-W-29,920E  Kentucky
TA-W-29,920F  Virginia
TA-W-29,920G  Ohio
TA-W-29,920H  Pennsylvania
TA-W-29,920I  New York
TA-W-29,920J  North Carolina
TA-W-29,920K  Washington
TA-W-29,920L  Connecticut
and Opti-Ray, Inc., Farmingdale, New York

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 10, 1994, applicable 
to all workers of the subject firm. The Notice was published in the 
Federal Register on August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43867). The certification 
was subsequently amended February 23, 1995, and published in the 
Federal Register March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13180).
    The Department is again amending the certification. The Department 
has received new information from the company that Opti-Ray located in 
Farmingdale, New York was a subsidiary of Goody Products, and was 
inadvertently omitted from the original certification. New findings 
show Opti-Ray distributed sunglasses for Goody Products promotional 
packages.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers who were adversely affected by increased imports. Accordingly, 
the Department is amending the certification to include workers at 
Opti-Ray, Inc., Farmingdale, New York.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,920 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Goody Products, Inc., Kearney, New Jersey and 
operating in the following States: Alabama, California, Georgia, 
Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, North 
Carolina, Washington and Connecticut engaged in employment related 
to the production and sale of hair barrettes; and all workers of 
Opti-Ray, Inc., Farmingdale, New York engaged in the sale and 
distribution of sunglasses, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after May 18, 1993 are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-12639 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
David Paul LORENTZEN, petitioner, v. Robert OMER, et al.

No. 13-558.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7183

ANTONIO WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THERESA BLANTON, Nurse,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JUAN VAUGHN, Sheriff at Herford County

Sheriff’s Department/Detention Center,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:05-ct-00605-H)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Walter Gregory Merritt, Jay C.

Salsman, HARRIS, CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Williams appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v.

Blanton, No. 5:05-ct-00605-H (E.D.N.C. July 24, 2007). We deny

Williams’ motion to add evidence. 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

ERIC LEON JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL NO. 2:14-cv-249

)

THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, )

INDIANA et al., )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants, by counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Procedure Rule 56, move for

judgment against Plaintiff as a matter of law and in support state:

1. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Pro Se Complaint against Defendants alleging

the officers and City violated his 4

th

, 5

th

, 6

th and 14th amendment rights when they allegedly

illegally entered his home on multiple occasions from January 2004 toMarch,2004 andeither

stole from him, wrongfully arrested him, or destroyed his property. [DE #1.]

2. After a Motion to Dismiss was filed and granted, the Plaintiff appealed the

matter, which was remanded to the trial court after the dismissal was reversed.

3. Plaintiff’s claimsallstemfromactions thatallegedly occurredin2004. However,

Plaintiff did not bring this lawsuit until 2014; over ten (10) years after the alleged incidents.

4. “Suitsunder§ 1983 usethestatuteof limitationsandtollingrules thatthestates

employ for personal injury claims.” Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7

th Cir. 2012).

5. Indiana’spersonalinjury statuteof limitations is twoyears. Ind.Code§ 34-11-2-

4.

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00249-JVB-JEM document 46 filed 04/04/17 page 1 of 2
6. Since Plaintiff did not file this claim until well over the two years statute of

limitation, the Complaint is untimely filed, and Plaintiff cannot obtain relief.

7. AMemorandumof Lawin Support of the Motion forSummary Judgmentis filed

contemporaneously herewith, and incorporated herein by reference.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, respectfully request the Court enter judgment

in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice,

and for all other just and proper relief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephanie L. Nemeth 

Stephanie L. Nemeth (#25721-71)

ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C.

131 South TaylorStreet

South Bend, IN 46601

Telephone: (574) 288-1510

Facsimile:(574) 288-1650

Email: nemeth@aaklaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,theundersigned,hereby certify thaton the 4th day of April, 2017,Ielectronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerkof the Court. Ifurtherhereby certify thatIhave mailed by United

States PostalService to the following non-CM/ECF participants:

Eric Leon Johnson

3280 Pierce Street, Apt. 615

Gary, IN 46408

s/ Stephanie L. Nemeth 

Stephanie L. Nemeth (#25721-71)

2

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00249-JVB-JEM document 46 filed 04/04/17 page 2 of 2
Vincente Sanciveri CERVANTES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6625.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

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