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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7159

In Re: RAYMOND OUTLER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-213-5)

Submitted: August 14, 2001 Decided: September 20, 2001

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Outler, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Outler filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking

an order directing the district court to appoint him counsel and

hold an evidentiary hearing in regards to his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). A magistrate judge filed findings and a

recommendation on November 7, 2000, but the district court has

taken no action since that time. The body of Outler's mandamus

petition leads us to construe it as also requesting that we compel

the district court to act on the magistrate judge's findings and

recommendations.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987)

(citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)).

We decline to exercise our supervisory power to take the extraordinary action of issuing a writ of mandamus in this case. Therefore, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the

petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to Outler’s right

to file another mandamus petition if the district court does not

act within a reasonable time. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Vernon FAGAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7612.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
NO. 07

- 12

- 00389

- CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A JANUARY 7 , 201 3

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MANUEL A. VIDALES AND NELDA NORA VIDALES

FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY; NO. 11

- 10

- 22811 ; HONORABLE PAT PHELAN , JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Manuel A. Vidales, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s judgment or order signed on June 21, 2012. We dismiss for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a directive of this Court.
After Vidales filed his notice of appeal, the Clerk of the 286th District Co urt of Hockley County filed a request for an extension of time to file the clerk’s record on the basis that Vidales had not paid or made arrangements to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record. This motion was granted and, by letter dated October 23, th is Court notified Vidales that the clerk’s record for this appeal had not been paid for nor had arrangements been made to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record. This letter further2 directed Vidales to make arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s r ecord, and to submit a status report regarding the appeal on or before November 19. The letter also notified Vidales that failure to comply with the directive of the Court could result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b). On November 20, this Court again notified Vidales that the clerk’s record had neither been paid for nor had payment arrangements been made for preparation of the clerk’s record. By this letter, Vidales was directed to ensure that the clerk’s record was filed or to certify that payment had been made or that arrangements for payment had been made for preparation of the clerk’s record by December 19, or the appeal might be dismissed for want of prosecution . To date, Vidales has not responded to either directive. Further, by motion filed December 19, the trial court clerk again requested an extension of time to file the clerk’s record on the basis that Vidales has still failed to pay for or make
arrangemen ts to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record.

Because no clerk = s record has been filed in this appeal due to the fault of Vidales and Vidales has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requisites, we now dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with a directive of this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c), 42.3(b), (c).

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
APP4U-AU CftW« rfo. * JJJ Cdwlt of AfPfAl. A>W«. ^^STATBrABNT of P(l£Vlo\M How£) 

### COHTI Kfaw Fo(LTrt)A&w*U> (Um LAMotT€/JR., ^Uff/^m 

# W ^tyWAj ^A^^— k> U* ^5U Vis14Chj Tcxoo Jl(UM 

# CAwiHUKWc-i-ua.3o6^3 j*AgACttp /*»*o* (& O-v-4-tfiA(^l£S> Pros ecu,I-urn U Hk(_ Skk ol^v ^l^>v>7 n> k^vx (vo4-cytj

### Uj' ^UdwUffwx frvCCv^^ IWP^kBc£cdl**4 tft \W\\ &}dnc ^H(A (UflVfa Joy S T^U t \U St4t y^oBikktfr rforoJci^K^J; |WJia0v>M"W y,K VvC lot. bcXcrCjA loc-cAt \tfO\* VU- "^1 B^J UcW^ f^VUwU 6* j &T Ai^rc^r U^ S\*>k tf,U Wy (-V Gn^vi^ Cw^ TvJ^. rWlW .— 

## j>rtr(U.U f^A d**J <*kr^ cy»>rj^. ^ ^V ^lUUjWUa ^| ^ ScrvJ V> ^T^^^* C^vJv^ Afpii &v«cic.iJ Clcrltj oCvcl ,Sxfcut-^S

\3/AffBllAIC CAWSi^, QUEERS AbTutC-^^ A*s bScars THAT*. 

## caa(^ fcpr\u-k p^a(k:\ lovJ^toll* jc j Um

©

### Wc r<~tW0v4 o^- <$ SkkV Cwhky tuwv ^Yj^d ^l^ ^^^1 ^ rOv^isv/f <s SlCv*^TttA5_ bJvYof 2.01s 

### f^V^Vis^1*^ 

# fr^^
£>•---> 

### \ n/iPPUlAl\f CAiAJtf is/o. Pr^i*. Ap(M.\Ur.\- in v\ yj ^dJ GOlAflT Of APP^^LS Ap**awj i^ 

### That l}AWiVD My lam^tt€)7d,Ifctsirihrm ^iU P^ 

### APr\WA\ CoMf5Fa<crU H g«*U„ H*«wak Afr»M g<J,{U. 4k G-^VM-vA *w«,Vnl rA^-K^ f^kiy^UJi frUcor.„k;wvP/lJ f

KVI/lW-cOWJ <J ' ' • \pp-viVM*i- Wivwrupg WlA-Vr-COW^wc^w^^C 1CMZ3 00x21 -ti £ I i\ <s , 

## g; Wj UW^A^ l^^/Xly U w,OJ UrH W ^ froci. VvVA* |V,cfr A(lf<d uj p^-Xtaj ev^A/ar ^v^Vj ?i^a\ cA^poj<i\ oi"\\xx.xf CofV fru*4 ©iMfclHA*. &

# *!«> Uiici-5Us)MoSS.v/.2i.uUTc,.C^,Vhuli TKo JuAm. ^Cou^f cicely cLv , L! 

## S'ww BT c^;} cr.^U ofi^ ^ , , ^ ^ frd^^ tt-^cn^iii1;^Ytru^AlMT<^aviKArV>l4) Ri\ (W) Uc<mM»- «t-Wa oU^t cv.rc^ Uvi Vl.'-w ,'« *r .Jo- FJ^ «-60'jh»X-C

fcopy Troaa odV£vw)\t-

### np^<j-3 \b< ^V Ure-WTA^ d--iUrrVUJfn, MvifV-iV (vdU-J f^-crU for TWi~^^ W Vr)\ird\ c\Jr 4 r (A UTrw* r»Vogf*\t>w\ d- S^Ut,S Ll IW T«Ujj£jiA*oF Z/oU J £5(111* \cMtfor ifcffl\r)c\f

r« p~ \.TTT7 pr.*• • & &W*^ V*'Vwt-Vwtorv r* °rA o^itiNAk-y\PpCU-ATf CAiXSf inTo. _ App-cl/U^j oJ 

# ur *u ^ -1 ^ 'v ^-Uf^iU' ^°ArvAiJ 

# U^Uc.T,:* W5-7 Ko^^Ah A^lUkUI,hJ M^ io,^aC^ r^W sUx* <^fJyjj^J^ ^u Vjf^ d 

## C 3Tku rtbU» ,\ iiSMi! OteBRgp OfiNjjj^ krj^Uw^ &S0Y TH6M ORie»«JAU

rf'OPV OOU ^.l.lLintUfa flllitoU) LAlA&TT\S,3Ai GoAiv^r<o1)S0']^S3

Tf«-viV Couwh| G^^r^diToX G>n.flk.-x

bcJYJk.Ycy^HO AUS i in *x /w/ > 28..APR 2D1S PM5 I. .,»-•*" To- TH'irUj co^Tof APPlAl^ C-USiUW offiaf AvaVw5Tt>^n«7M .r-Vv * ;X.-..«. • ?8 :• 1 I 254 P4 :"• 4 :Vn'i/l1f",'!iiili"j'iiiiiil"Ji'"'l|i'i',l'l!i'l,l1'1T'lli
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jimmy S.M. Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/ Jimmy S.M. LeeJimmy S.M. Lee Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer June 5, 2007


I, Scott D. Howarth, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in such Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/ Scott D. HowarthScott D. Howarth Chief Financial Officer
June 5, 2007
Marcus Geoward WOODS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6254.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 26, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Robel PHILLIPOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6654.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
# L_2008257EN.01004701.xml

| 25.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 257/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 257/47

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 78/2008

of 6 June 2008

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 23/2005 of 8 February 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 23/2005 of 8 February 2005 (1).

| (2) | It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Commission Decision 2007/875/EC of 18 December 2007 amending Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision 2000/96/EC as regards communicable diseases listed in those decisions (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Commission Decision 2007/875/EC of 18 December 2007 amending Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision 2000/96/EC as regards communicable diseases listed in those decisions (2).

| (3) | Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in the second indent of Article 16(1) (Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Protocol 31 to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32007 D 0875: Commission Decision 2007/875/EC of 18 December 2007 (OJ L 344, 28.12.2007, p. 48).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32007 D 0875: Commission Decision 2007/875/EC of 18 December 2007 (OJ L 344, 28.12.2007, p. 48).’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement (*1).

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 6 June 2008.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 161, 23.6.2005, p. 52.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 344, 28.12.2007, p. 48.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Exhibit 32.2

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Financial
Federal Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended October 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exhange Commission (the
"Report"), Steven F. Groth, Chief Financial 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 to
his knowledge:

     (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

     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 or its
staff upon request.



December 4, 2008                  /s/ Steven F. Groth
----------------                  ----------------------------------
Date                              Steven F. Groth
                                  Chief Financial Officer and Senior
                                  Vice President
Julie P. WHITCHURCH, petitioner, v. VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al.

No. 17-679.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT
      99.3**




**Certification
      Pursuant to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**







The
      undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Northcore Technologies Inc.
      (the “Company”) hereby certifies that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) which this certification accompanies,
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




(2)
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as
      at, and for the fiscal year ended on, December 31, 2006.




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 or its staff upon request.







Dated**:**October
                5, 2007
            /s/
                Duncan CopelandDuncan
                CopelandChief
                Executive Officer














8
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1

October 26, 2000


Board of Directors
Varian, Inc.,

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form
10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2000 and issued our
report thereon dated October 26, 2000. Note 4 to the consolidated financial
statements describes a change in accounting principle from the Last-In-First-Out
("LIFO") method to the average cost method of accounting for the Company's
inventory. It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable
method of accounting over another for inventory has not been addressed in any
authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we
have relied on management's determination that this change in accounting
principle is preferable. Based on our reading of management's stated reasons and
justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our
discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business
planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that such
change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the adoption of a preferable
accounting principle in conformity with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No.
20.

Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00411-CR

Dominique Paul GRAHAM,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL-11-1291

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 17, 2013.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/15/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       49,459
COMMITMENTS
  15,272    4,524    8,321   14,734   20,738   38,327   33,583   11,132   15,876

CHANGES FROM 06/08/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,565)
   2,152   -1,317      556     -799    3,196    1,909    2,435     -344     -870

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    30.9      9.1     16.8     29.8     41.9     77.5     67.9     22.5     32.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       66)
      20       12       13       30       23       56       43
```

----

Updated June 18, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996              
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996             
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996              
<CASH>                          728482              
<SECURITIES>                    0               
<RECEIVABLES>                   11345892               
<ALLOWANCES>                    226122               
<INVENTORY>                     0               
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0               
<PP&E>                          0               
<DEPRECIATION>                  0               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  141190455               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0              
<BONDS>                         0               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           1472              
<PREFERRED>                     0               
<COMMON>                        0               
<OTHER-SE>                      14188983               
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    14190455              
<SALES>                         0               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1122726               
<CGS>                           0              
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   62410               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                285591              
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              127066                
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 647659              
<INCOME-TAX>                    0               
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             647659               
<DISCONTINUED>                  0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0               
<CHANGES>                       0              
<NET-INCOME>                    647659               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .00              
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .00              
        


</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 13, 2011 

# Order

June 13, 2011

141932(68)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 141932 v COA: 294054 Livingston CC: 08-017643-FC JEROME WALTER KOWALSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ __________________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by defendant -appellant for extension to June 10, 2011 of the time for filing his brief a nd appendix is consider ed and it is granted.
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)I, Edward J. Puisis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dayton Superior Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        August 14, 2006 /s/ Edward J. Puisis   Edward J. Puisis   Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer
Christian ADAIR, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 16-8457.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona denied.