alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNIÓN DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA ELÉCTRICA RIEGO, INC., petitioner, v. FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, et al.

No. 18-1521.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 20, 2019.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The case is consolidated, and will be set for argument in the second week of the October 2019 argument session.

Parties challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointment Clause issue shall file an opening brief on that issue on or before Thursday, July 25, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light blue cover and is limited to 15,000 words.

Parties supporting the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointment Clause issue and challenging the ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue shall file a consolidated opening brief on or before Thursday, August 22, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light red cover and is limited to 20,000 words.

Parties challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointment Clause issue and supporting the ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue shall file a consolidated opening brief and reply on or before Thursday, September 19, 2019. The briefs are to bear a yellow cover and is limited to 13,000 words.

Parties challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue shall file with the Clerk and serve upon counsel a reply brief limited to that issue on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, October 8, 2019. The briefs are to bear a tan cover and is limited to 6,000 words.

*Amicus curiae* briefs challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and/or supporting the ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue is to be filed on or before Thursday, August 1, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light green cover and is limited to 9,000 words. *Amicus curiae* briefs supporting the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and/or challenging the ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue is to be filed on or before Thursday, August 29, 2019. The briefs are to bear a dark green cover and is limited to 9,000 words. An *amicus curiae* shall file only a single brief.
William RAMIREZ, et ux., petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, et al.

No. 18-8608.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Annual Report of Dominos Pizza, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, L. David Mounts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ L. David MountsL. David MountsChief Financial Officer




Dated: March 3, 2006



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Dominos Pizza, Inc. and will be retained by Dominos Pizza, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1211

_____________________________
T ERRANCE H ARTLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

. October 24, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_____________________________2 Terrance Hartley, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Motion Granted; Order filed March 12, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 12
- 00683
- CV NO. 14
- 12
- 00702
- CV

____________ WASHINGTON SQUARE FI NANCIAL, L.L.C. D/B/ A IMPERIAL

STRUCTURED SETTLEMEN TS , Appellant

V. RSL FUNDING, LLC , Appellee
On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010
- 49166



### ORDER
Cross

- a ppellant RSL Funding , LLC ’s brief was originally due November 29, 2012

. We granted three extension s of time to file cross - appellant’s brief until March 1, 2013 . When we granted th e final extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed. On March 1, 2013 , counsel filed a further request for extension of tim e to filecross - appellant’s brief. We grant the request for extension. Accordingly, we

order cross - appellant RSL Funding to file a brief with the clerk of this court on or before March 22 , 201 3 . If RSL Funding does not timely file the brief as ordered , the court will consider dismiss ing the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Busby.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No.**  **DA 21 -**  **0397** Edward J. Guza Lance F. Carl Attorneys for Appellant E.J. GUZA & ASSOCIATES 25 Apex Drive, Suite A Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 586 - 2228 eguza@ejguzalaw.com lcarl@ejguzalaw.com TAMARA A. DOWNING ,

Appellant, and JOHN H. DOWNING ,

Appellee. **ORDER DISMISSING APP EAL** 

Ha ving considered the Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Di smiss Appeal an d good cause being found, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: that the above captioned appeal is dismissed wi th prejudice each side to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees . ORDERED this

___ day of

_______________ 20 21 . cc: Katha rine Donnelly Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 16 2021

11/16/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0397
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1389

XULI ZHANG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

POLICE S. REGAN; POLICE PEC. M. GREEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Theresa C. Buchanan, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:10-cv-01329-TCB)

Submitted: July 10, 2012 Decided: July 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xuli Zhang, Appellant Pro Se. Karen L. Gibbons, COUNTY 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xuli Zhang appeals the magistrate judge’s order 

denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the 

magistrate judge’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2006) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s 

order. See Zhang v. Regan, No. 1:10-cv-01329-TCB (E.D. Va. 

Mar. 20, 2012). We deny Zhang’s motion for a remand. 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

 * The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
# Úradný vestník C 17/2022

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 17 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6513. januára 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 17

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6513. januára 2022

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informácie |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2022/C 17/01 | Výmenný kurz eura — 12. januára 2022 | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2022/C 17/01

Výmenný kurz eura — 12. januára 2022

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 13.1.2022 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 17/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2022

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 17/1

---

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

12. januára 2022

(2022/C 17/01)

1 euro =

| | Mena | Výmenný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Americký dolár | 1,1370 |
| JPY | Japonský jen | 131,19 |
| DKK | Dánska koruna | 7,4414 |
| GBP | Britská libra | 0,83338 |
| SEK | Švédska koruna | 10,2640 |
| CHF | Švajčiarsky frank | 1,0486 |
| ISK | Islandská koruna | 147,00 |
| NOK | Nórska koruna | 9,9270 |
| BGN | Bulharský lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Česká koruna | 24,423 |
| HUF | Maďarský forint | 355,98 |
| PLN | Poľský zlotý | 4,5359 |
| RON | Rumunský lei | 4,9453 |
| TRY | Turecká líra | 15,5922 |
| AUD | Austrálsky dolár | 1,5762 |
| CAD | Kanadský dolár | 1,4261 |
| HKD | Hongkongský dolár | 8,8630 |
| NZD | Novozélandský dolár | 1,6775 |
| SGD | Singapurský dolár | 1,5358 |
| KRW | Juhokórejský won | 1 353,27 |
| ZAR | Juhoafrický rand | 17,5645 |
| CNY | Čínsky juan | 7,2379 |
| HRK | Chorvátska kuna | 7,5240 |
| IDR | Indonézska rupia | 16 295,93 |
| MYR | Malajzijský ringgit | 4,7595 |
| PHP | Filipínske peso | 58,080 |
| RUB | Ruský rubeľ | 84,7559 |
| THB | Thajský baht | 37,936 |
| BRL | Brazílsky real | 6,3458 |
| MXN | Mexické peso | 23,1852 |
| INR | Indická rupia | 84,0285 |

Mena

Výmenný kurz

USD

Americký dolár

1,1370

JPY

Japonský jen

131,19

DKK

Dánska koruna

7,4414

GBP

Britská libra

0,83338

SEK

Švédska koruna

10,2640

CHF

Švajčiarsky frank

1,0486

ISK

Islandská koruna

147,00

NOK

Nórska koruna

9,9270

BGN

Bulharský lev

1,9558

CZK

Česká koruna

24,423

HUF

Maďarský forint

355,98

PLN

Poľský zlotý

4,5359

RON

Rumunský lei

4,9453

TRY

Turecká líra

15,5922

AUD

Austrálsky dolár

1,5762

CAD

Kanadský dolár

1,4261

HKD

Hongkongský dolár

8,8630

NZD

Novozélandský dolár

1,6775

SGD

Singapurský dolár

1,5358

KRW

Juhokórejský won

1 353,27

ZAR

Juhoafrický rand

17,5645

CNY

Čínsky juan

7,2379

HRK

Chorvátska kuna

7,5240

IDR

Indonézska rupia

16 295,93

MYR

Malajzijský ringgit

4,7595

PHP

Filipínske peso

58,080

RUB

Ruský rubeľ

84,7559

THB

Thajský baht

37,936

BRL

Brazílsky real

6,3458

MXN

Mexické peso

23,1852

INR

Indická rupia

84,0285

---

(1)  Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

---
Jill M. EVANS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5072.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

*213Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<MULTIPLIER>          1000



<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                      1193
<SECURITIES>                                222
<RECEIVABLES>                               4056
<ALLOWANCES>                                540
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5244
<PP&E>                                      4467
<DEPRECIATION>                              1169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              8610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1722
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    1
<OTHER-SE>                                  5685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                8610
<SALES>                                     7218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            7218
<CGS>                                       2520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            3741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             949
<INCOME-TAX>                                380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         569
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                569
<EPS-BASIC>                               .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .11





</TABLE>
H. R. 1693

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the overtime exemption

for employees engaged in fire protection activities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF FIRE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES.

Section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.

203) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(y) ‘Employee in fire protection activities’ means an employee,

including a firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician,

rescue worker, ambulance personnel, or hazardous materials

worker, who—

‘‘(1) is trained in fire suppression, has the legal authority

and responsibility to engage in fire suppression, and is

employed by a fire department of a municipality, county, fire

district, or State; and

‘‘(2) is engaged in the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires or response to emergency situations where life,

property, or the environment is at risk.’’.

SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION.

The amendment made by section 1 shall not be construed

to reduce or substitute for compensation standards: (1) contained

in any existing or future agreement or memorandum of understanding reached through collective bargaining by a bona fide representative of employees in accordance with the laws of a State

or political subdivision of a State; and (2) which result in compensation greater than the compensation available to employees under
H. R. 1693—2

the overtime exemption under section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Yassine BAOUCH, et al., petitioners, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., dba Werner Trucking, et al.

No. 18M167.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Motion of respondents to file the petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1466 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1466

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal estate, gift, and 
                  generation-skipping transfer taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 1999

 Mr. Sandlin  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 repeal estate, gift, and 
                  generation-skipping transfer taxes.

    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 ``Death Tax Elimination Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER TAXES.

    (a) Repeal of Estate, Gift, and Generation-Skipping Transfer 
Taxes.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and generation-skipping 
transfers made, after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN
THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-11-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      171,384
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,427,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                172,001
<INVENTORY>                              10,557,482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         22,438,715
<PP&E>                                    6,725,246
<DEPRECIATION>                           (3,318,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           48,256,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    24,424,427
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                              16,113,107
<COMMON>                                      1,100
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             48,256,664
<SALES>                                  57,118,755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         57,118,755
<CGS>                                    26,029,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         28,018,326
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          958,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           2,112,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       2,112,304
<DISCONTINUED>                           (2,311,691)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (199,387)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        


</TABLE>
In Re Cliven BUNDY, petitioner.

No. 18-140.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Matthew HEARN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7573.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
David BRANDON, petitioner, v. Sarah BRANDON.

No. 18-930.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# Official Journal L 315/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.315.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 315 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5429 November 2011 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.315.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 315

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5429 November 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 1193/2011 of 18 November 2011 establishing a Union Registry for the trading period commencing on 1 January 2013, and subsequent trading periods, of the Union emissions trading scheme pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 2216/2004 and (EU) No 920/2010 (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1193/2011 of 18 November 2011 establishing a Union Registry for the trading period commencing on 1 January 2013, and subsequent trading periods, of the Union emissions trading scheme pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 2216/2004 and (EU) No 920/2010 (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2611
SAMUEL B. WALLACE, IV, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA93-2536-PJM) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 24, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel B. Wallace IV, Appellant Pro Se. George Levi Russell, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Samuel B. Wallace appeals from the district court's orders granting Defendant's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and dismissing his employment discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1994). Wallace alleged discrimination on the basis of his race (black) and sex (male). Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that this appeal is without merit. Wallace failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees , 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Wallace's class action claim of discrimination and his various antitrust claims were properly dismissed by the district court. We therefore affirm the district court's orders on the reasoning of the district court. Wallace v. Shalala , No. CA-93-2536-PJM (D. Md. Apr. 11, 1996; Sept. 10, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Brian MERRIWEATHER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9553.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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