alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7165** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. BYRON MITCHELL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:11

- cr - 00525

- PJM

- 1; 8:13

- cv - 01551

- PJM )

Submitted : December 16 , 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Byron Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Byron Mitchel l seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. Parties are accorded six ty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)( B ). The district court may, however, extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if a party so moves within thirty days after expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)

- (ii); Washington v. Bumgarner , 882 F.2d 899, 900

– 01 (4th Cir. 1989). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s f inal order dismissing Mitchell’s Rule 59(e) motion was entered May 22, 2014. Mitchell filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, on July 30, 2014, nine days after the appeal period expired. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988). Because Mitchell’s notice of appeal was filed beyond the expiration of the appeal period but within the thirty

- day excusable neglect period and offered some excuse for his untimeliness , we construe it as a timely request for an extension of time accompanyi ng Mitchell’s notice of appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the3 limited purpose of determining whether Mitchell has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. The record, as s upplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
##### 



Exhibit 10.24
  st
 
 Initial Public Offering
   Citigroup IPO Units Company Warrant Representative Prospectus Underwriters Section
1
 Business Combination Founders Common
Stock Founders
Shares IPO Shares Founders Warrants Founders Units Sponsors Warrants Co-Investment Units Co-Investment Shares Co-Investment Warrants




---



##### 



Locked-Up
Securities Associated With
  Consummation Date Termination Date Trust Account Claim




---



##### 



provided, however, Berggruen Holdings
  Exchange Act




---



##### 



provided, however, provided, however, Restricted Period th
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



Information
    [Signature Page to Follow]




---



##### 



By:
    Nathan GantcherName:
    Nathan Gantcher




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Nathan Gantcher
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,215
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                       487
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,453
<PP&E>                                           9,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,038
<BONDS>                                          2,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        242
<COMMON>                                        49,440
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,763)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,698
<SALES>                                         12,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,216
<CGS>                                            8,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   281
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (720)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (720)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.026)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.026)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

PETER FERRARO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:14-cv-396

)

JOHN HUMPHREY, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE

Notice is hereby given to the Court as follows:

1. The above-captioned case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit under Case No. 17-1748. All parties to this action, including Defendant 

John Humphrey, were named as parties on appeal.

2. In the appeal, Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal after appellate mediation, noting that 

“this cause of action has been amicably resolved between the parties at [m]ediation.” (Exh. 

A) (emphasis added).

3. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on June 9, 2017.

4. With all issues resolved between all parties on appeal, no issues remain to be resolved here.

5. Undersigned counsel no longer represents the Plaintiff, as he has changed affiliation in 

firms and the file for the former law firm’s representation of Plaintiff remained with that 

firm. Still, rather than bring motions, undersigned counsel is providing notice to this Court 

as requested.

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00396-TLS document 56 filed 03/02/18 page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel requests that his Court take notice of the above facts 

and take all appropriate action.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Adam J. Sedia

Adam J. Sedia, #6318987

HOEPPNER WAGNER & EVANS LLP

1000 E. 80th Place, 6th Floor

Twin Towers-South

Merrillville, IN 46410

Telephone: (219) 769-6552

Facsimile: (219) 738-2349

e-mail: asedia@hwelaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney certifies that on March 2, 2018, he electronically filed the 

foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent notification of the 

filing to the Clerk of the Court.

/s/ Adam J. Sedia

Adam J. Sedia

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00396-TLS document 56 filed 03/02/18 page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Robert G. Gargus, Chief Financial
Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/ ROBERT G. GARGUSRobert G. Gargus,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: August 6, 2010
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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW OF 

WAYMO'S ASSERTION OF

PRIVILEGE OVER DOCUMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1435 & 1507

The Court previously granted in part and denied in part Uber’s motion to compel further 

responses to requests for admission, interrogatories, and production of an unredacted document. 

(Dkt. No. 1507.) Waymo was ordered to provide an unredacted version of the document over 

which it asserted attorney-client privilege to the Court for in camera review. Waymo has since 

done so. Having reviewed the document, the Court concludes that the redacted material is not 

privileged as it does not constitute legal advice. Waymo shall produce an unredacted version of 

the document bates-stamped Waymo-Uber 00056880 by 5:00 p.m. September 11, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1511 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CR-29-PPS-PRC

 )

GARY LAMONT LINDSEY, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT GARY LAMONT LINDSEY

TO: THE HONORABLE PHILIP P. SIMON,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul

R. Cherry, on March 27, 2014, with the consent of Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey, counsel for

Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with

Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the

record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey

under oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey understands the nature of the charge against him to

which the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his

plea of not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
and his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey understands

that the sentencing guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey has been knowingly and

voluntarily made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey understands that his answers may later be used against

him in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Gary Lamont Lindsey plea of guilty to the offense

charged in Count 1 of the Information and that Defendant Gary Lamont Lindsey be adjudged guilty of

the offense charged in Count 1 of the Information and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report

has been ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Gary Lamont Lindsey be

adjudged guilty, a sentencing date before Chief Judge Philip P. Simon will be set by separate order. 

Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen

(14) days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

So ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2014.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable Rudy Lozano
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 1 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 2 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 3 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 4 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 5 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 6 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 7 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 8 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 9 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 10 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 11 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 12 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 13 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 14 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 15 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 16 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 17 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 18 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 19 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 20 of 21
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 21 of 21
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12403]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Meeting: AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on June 6-7, 1995, in the Grand 
Ballroom of the Gaithersburg Hilton Hotel, 620 Perry Parkway, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to the public from 8 a.m. until 
recess on June 6, and from 8 a.m. until adjournment on June 7. The AIDS 
Research Advisory Committee (ARAC) advises and makes recommendations to 
the Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on 
all aspects of research on HIV and AIDS related to the mission of the 
Division of AIDS (DAIDS).
    The Committee will provide advice on scientific priorities, policy, 
and program balance at the Division level. The Committee will review 
the progress and productivity of ongoing efforts, and identify critical 
gaps/obstacles to progress. Attendance by the public will be limited to 
space available.
    Ms. Anne P. Claysmith, Executive Secretary, AIDS Research Advisory 
Committee, DAIDS, NIAID, NIH, Solar Building, Room 2B06, telephone 301-
402-0755, will provide a summary of the meeting and a roster of 
committee members upon request. Individuals who plan to attend and need 
special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other 
reasonable accommodations, should contact Ms. Claysmith in advance of 
the meeting.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Immunology, Allergic and Immunologic Diseases Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health.)

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-12403 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27797-27798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12915]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    [[Page 27798]] Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Social, 
Behavioral and Economic Research (#1766).

    Date and Time: June 12-13, 1995; 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Place: Room 970, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

    Type of Meeting: Closed.

    Contact Person: John E. Yellen, Program Director for 
Archaeology, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, Virginia 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1759.

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate instrumentation development and 
acquisition proposals as part of the selection process for awards.

    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 22, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12915 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN   document 2   filed 10/10/14   page 1 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN   document 2   filed 10/10/14   page 2 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN   document 2   filed 10/10/14   page 3 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN   document 2   filed 10/10/14   page 4 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN   document 2   filed 10/10/14   page 5 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN   document 2   filed 10/10/14   page 6 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01988-PPS-CAN   document 2   filed 10/10/14   page 7 of 7
Julie HEIMESHOFF, petitioner, v. HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE, CO., et al.

No. 12-729.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

*1803Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
EXHIBIT 32

August 14,
2009

Via
EDGAR

Securities
and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Mesa Offshore Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the
Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,Trustee for Mesa Offshore Trust/s/ MIKE ULRICH Mike Ulrich Vice President and Trust OfficerThe Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.,
as attorney-in-fact for the Trustee


---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-48

)

JUAN PEREZ )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on December 11, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America. The Defendant waived in open Court prosecution by

indictment and consented that the proceedings may be by information rather than by indictment.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant’s waiver of indictment is knowing and voluntary;
(3) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and

his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(4) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the sentencing guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(5) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(6) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(7) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(8) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept both the defendant’s waiver of indictment and plea

of guilty and that the Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the Information and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 11th day of December 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Matthew CORZINE, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, at al.

No. 13-5764.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.