alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14651]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 
897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an 
instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which 
the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being 
manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import 
Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. 
Applications may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5 P.M. in Room 4211, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 01-011. Applicant: The Burnham Institute, 10901 
North Torrey Pines Road, Building #7, La Jolla, CA 92037. Instrument: 
Brain Slice Physiology Setup. Manufacturer: Luigs and Neumann, Germany. 
Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to prepare acute 
slices of the rat and mouse brain. These slices will then be visualized 
under the microscope, microelectrodes will be inserted into single, 
optically identified nerve cells and stimulation electrodes placed in 
other identified regions of the brain slice. The main research 
objective is to understand neuronal information acquisition, processing 
and storage in the mammalian brain under physiological and pathological 
conditions. A main focus will be on brain structures involved in 
sensory perception, memory storage and motor control. In addition, the 
instrument will be used for guided research training for graduate and 
undergraduate students in the course BISP 199. Application accepted by 
Commissioner of Customs: May 4, 2001.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 01-14651 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 135 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in 

the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Mr. SPRATT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

the Budget in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on the Budget 

4 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $12,701,442.00 for the One Hundred Elev9 enth Congress. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 135 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $6,350,721.00 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2009, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2010; and 

7 (2) not more than $6,350,721.00 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2010, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2011. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7147 ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a William Westbrooks, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. PITZER, BOP Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-7148 ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a Verdel Jenkins, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. PITZER, BOP Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees.2 No. 98-7149 ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a William Clemons, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. PITZER, BOP Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. No. 98-7150 ELMORE MCLEMORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. PITZER, BOP Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-1951-S, CA-98-2055-S, CA-98-2073-S, CA-98-2082-S)3 Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elmore McLemore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgments in 98-7147 and 98- 7148 are marked as “filed” on June 30, 1998, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheets on July 1, 1998. Similarly, the district court’s judgments in 98-7149 and 98- 7150 are marked as “filed” on July 2, 1998, but the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheets on July 7, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we take the date that the judgment was entered on the docket sheet as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 4 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Elmore McLemore seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petitions filedunder 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See McLemore v. Pitzer , Nos. CA-98-1951-S, CA-98-2055-S (D. Md. July 1, 1998); CA-98-2073-S, CA-98-2082-S (D. Md. July 7, 1998). *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
Pedro RANGEL, Jr., petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-5912.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,182,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  751,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,795,477
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,581,522
<PP&E>                                       4,459,526
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,616,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,228,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,036,129
<BONDS>                                      1,175,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,435
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,016,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,228,668
<SALES>                                     10,525,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,525,658
<CGS>                                        6,303,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,436,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               562,139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             820,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,776,195)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (199,868)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,576,327)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,576,327)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.3





May 9, 2016


Mr. Charles (Brad) Benge
29411 Waller Spring Creek Road
Waller, Texas 77484


Re:    Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated as of August 4, 2014, between CSI Compressco GP Inc. (the “Company”) and Charles B. Benge 


Dear Brad:


In order to address the challenges that the Company continues to face with the downturn in the oil and gas market, we are implementing workweek schedule and wage reductions. 


Please sign below to confirm your consent and agreement that your current Base Salary set forth in Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement will be reduced by 10% from $240,000 to $216,000 (on an annual basis) effective May 14, 2016. You also understand that your incentive compensation under the CICP (as defined in the Employment Agreement) for 2016 will be based on your Base Salary in effect on December 31, 2016. You further acknowledge and agree that this salary reduction does not constitute “Good Reason” for termination as defined in Section 4.4 of the Employment Agreement.


In this very difficult market, we appreciate your continued commitment and hard work. 


Sincerely, 


/s/Bass C. Wallace, Jr.            
Bass C. Wallace, Jr., General Counsel


Agreed to and acknowledged 
on May 9, 2016 by:


/s/Charles B. Benge                
Charles B. Benge




CSI Compressco LP    P.O. Box 60760, Midland, TX 79711.
1-432-563-1170    www.csicompressco.com
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 PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Salameh, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
  Date: August
7, 2008
  By: /s/ Michael J.
Salameh
 Michael J.
Salameh
 Chief
Executive Officer
  35
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          85,016                  93,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                         405,467                 405,467
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,024,916               1,881,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,024,916               1,881,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,024,916               1,881,728
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,249                  14,108
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,847                   8,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,598)                  5,393
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,598)                  5,393
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,598)                  5,393
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Paul M. TEGELER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6370.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        11


        <NAME>      Fidelity Overseas Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

3,258,631


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

3,754,218


<RECEIVABLES>

140,349


<ASSETS-OTHER>

1,744


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

3,896,311


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

64,838


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

54,021


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

118,859


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

2,996,113


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

110,720


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

100,205


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

41,157


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

246,303


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

493,879


<NET-ASSETS>

3,777,452


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

75,068


<INTEREST-INCOME>

21,652


<OTHER-INCOME>

(8,109)


<EXPENSES-NET>

43,002


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

45,609


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

255,298


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

239,293


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

540,200


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

36,607


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

161,279


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

132,728


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

128,556


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

6,343


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

662,827


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

35,462


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

205,444


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

29,985


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

1


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

43,802


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

3,574,283


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

31.080


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .430


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

4.610


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .370


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

1.630


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

34.120


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

123


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
Case 1:12-cv-05596-NRB Document 16 Filed 12/20/~~o, of3 ;==~=======il 

~SED 

MEMO ENDORSED [)(xt. n·:NT 

u.s. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION i [I ,(. rRONiC.\;.I.Y I 

Dan M. Berkovitz, General Counsel 

Jonathan L. Marcus, Deputy General Counsel i Dj\ i l· F\LED:.:_=======~ Robert B. Wasserman, Chief Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk 

Martin B. White, Assistant General Counsel 

Robert A. Schwartz, Assistant General Counsel MBERS 

OF NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD 

Three Lafayette Plaza 


1155 21st Street N.W. 
 DEC 2 1 2012 

Washington, DC 20581 

(202) 418-5000 MEMO EN~.............~~UR_TJ..:,:UD:..:;GE:...J
 rsehwartz@cftc.gov 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

KOCH SUPPLY & TRADING, L.P. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES W. GIDDENS, Trustee for the SlPA 

Liquidation of MF Global Inc., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:I2-cv-05596-NRB 

NOTICE OF CONSENT MOTION TO INTERVENE 

TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTIIERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law of the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Support of Its Consent Motion to Intervene, the 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission hereby respectfully moves, pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and (b)(2), to intervene in the above-captioned matter. The 

original parties to this action have consented to the relief requested herein. 

Case 1:12-cv-05596-NRB Document 19 Filed 12/27/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 1: 12-cv-05596-NRB Document 16 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of 3 

Respectfully submitted, 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

By: 	 lsi Robert A. Schwartz 

Dan M. Berkovitz, General Counsel 

Jonathan L. Marcus, Deputy General Counsel 

Robert B. Wasserman, 

Chief Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk 

Martin B. White, Assistant General Counsel 

Robert A. Schwartz, Assistant General Counsel 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Plaza 

1155 21st Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581 

(202) 418-5000 

jmarcus@cftc.gov 

rwasserman@cftc.gov 

mwhite@cftc.gov 

rschwartz@cftc.gov 

Dated: December 21, 2012 

2 


Case 1:12-cv-05596-NRB Document 19 Filed 12/27/12 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 22, 2015

Order 

May 22, 2015

148928-9(63)

DOUGLAS LATHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

BARTON MALOW COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 148928

COA: 312141

Oakland CC: 2004-059653-NO

________________________________________/

DOUGLAS LATHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

BARTON MALOW COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 148929

COA: 313606

Oakland CC: 2004-059653-NO

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration is considered, and it is 

DENIED.
Motion Denied; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16, 

2022

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00360-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-00441J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from a final order of termination signed March 

10, 2022. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed May 17, 2022.

An appeal from an order terminating the parent-child relationship is 

accelerated and governed by the rules for accelerated appeals in civil cases. Tex. 

Fam. Code Ann.§§ 109.002(a), 263.405(a). In an accelerated appeal, the notice of

appeal must be filed within 20 days after the judgment or order is signed. Tex. R.

App. P. 26.1(b). Moreover, neither a motion for new trial, a request for findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, nor any other post-trial motion in the trial court will 
2

extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal under rule 26.1(b) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405(c); In re K.A.F., 

160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005).

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is 

necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal 

beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period 

provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 9 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). 

However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the 

notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); 

Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within 

the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3. 

On May 26, 2022, notification was transmitted to all parties that the appeal 

was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to extend time to file

the notice of appeal wherein she alleged that she did not receive notice of her 

appointment on this appeal until May 17, 2022. This court, however, does not have 

jurisdiction to consider any appeal unless our jurisdiction has been timely invoked.

In re R.B.M., 338 S.W. 3d 755, 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no

pet.). Although appellant may pursue an out-of-time appeal on these grounds in a 

higher court, we may not suspend the rules to alter the time to perfect a civil

appeal. See id.
3

Accordingly, appellant’s motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal is 

denied and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Poissant.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1499/2004

of 24 August 2004         

on certain exceptional market support measures for eggs in Belgium

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular Article 14 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   The use for processing of hatching eggs falling within CN code 0407 00 19 between l6 April and 5 May 2003, decided on by the Belgian authorities following the application of Decision 2003/289/EC, is hereby deemed to be an exceptional market support measure within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.

2.   Under the measure referred to in paragraph 1, compensation of:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 August 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 105, 26.4.2003, p. 24.

----
Emanuel RODRIGUEZ-ISAAC, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6507.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

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