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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 152

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that housing assistance provided under the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996 shall be treated for purposes of the lowincome housing credit in the same manner as comparable assistance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. HAYWORTH 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 provide

that housing assistance provided under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of

1996 shall be treated for purposes of the low-income

housing credit in the same manner as comparable assistance.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 152 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSIST2 ANCE DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING

3 WHETHER BUILDING IS FEDERALLY SUB4 SIDIZED FOR PURPOSES OF THE LOW-IN5 COME HOUSING CREDIT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section

7 42(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

8 to determination of whether building is federally sub9 sidized) is amended—

10 (1) by inserting ‘‘OR NATIVE AMERICAN HOUS11 ING ASSISTANCE’’ after ‘‘HOME ASSISTANCE’’ in the

12 subparagraph heading, and

13 (2) by inserting ‘‘or the Native American Hous14 ing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996

15 (as in effect on October 1, 1997)’’ after ‘‘this sub16 paragraph)’’ in clause (i).

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

18 this section shall apply to periods after the date of the

19 enactment of this Act.

Æ
Todd F. BRITTON-HARR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5982.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until November 5, 2018, 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7761

ROBERT L. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HARRY ALLSBROOK, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-434-5-F) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Allsbrook , No. CA-97-434-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 1997). 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
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/18/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      609,729
COMMITMENTS
  59,811   18,668  142,088  384,389  432,945  586,288  593,701   23,441   16,028

CHANGES FROM 01/11/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -6,666)
  -4,299   -4,347  -12,564    8,310   12,033   -8,552   -4,878    1,886   -1,788

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.8      3.1     23.3     63.0     71.0     96.2     97.4      3.8      2.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      124)
      30       25       47       62       62      116      112
```

----

Updated January 21, 2011
Exhibit 32.2



                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

Pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Fidelity Federal Bancorp
hereby certifies that:

     1.   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fidelity Federal Bancorp for the
          quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
          and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2003 (the Report) fully
          complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
          applicable, 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 Fidelity Federal Bancorp.


Dated:  November 12, 2003




/s/ Mark A. Isaac
-----------------------------------
    Mark A. Isaac
    Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference to any filing of Fidelity Federal Bancorp, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
Exhibit
4.7


 


 


 


March 8, 2019


 


Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, NE


Washington.
D.C. 20549


 


Re: SB
Financial Group, Inc. – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018


 


Ladies and
Gentlemen:


 


SB Financial Group, Inc., an
Ohio corporation (“SB Financial”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of SB Financial for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 (“SB
Financial’s 2018 Form 10-K”).


 


Pursuant to the
instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, SB Financial hereby agrees to furnish to the
SEC, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights of holders of long-term debt and of the long-term
debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to SB Financial’s 2018 Form 10-K. None of
such long-term debt exceeds 10 percent of the total assets of SB Financial and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.


 


Very truly yours,


 


SB FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.


 


/s/ Anthony V. Cosentino


 






Anthony V. Cosentino


Executive Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer


 


401 Clinton Street |
Defiance, OH 43512


P 419.783.8950 | F 419.782.6393


YourSBFinancial.com
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JT K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R I GO B E R T O R E YE S - E S P I T I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 74590 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 279- 970 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R i go bert o R ey es -E spi t i a, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on f i ndi ng hi m i ne l i gi bl e f

ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus . O ur 

# FI LED DE C 30 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ T K / Res ea r ch 06- 74590 2 j u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We r e v i e w d e n o v o qu e s t i o n s o f l aw, A l tam i rano v. G on zales , 42 7 F . 3d 58 6, 59 1 (9th C i r. 20 05 ), and w e deny i n p art an dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. R e y e s - E s pi t i a ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tac onvi c t i on unde rC a l i f orni aH e a l th & S af ety C od e § 11 36 0(a) do es no tcat egori ca l l y c on st i tut e acontrol l ed subst ance o ffen se u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a)(2 )(A )(i )(II) i s fo recl o sedb y Mi elew cz yk v. H older , 575 F . 3d 992, 997- 98 & n. 1 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( r e m ovabi l i tyba s e d on conv i ct i on un der al aw re l at i ng t o a control l ed subst ance do es no tturn o n w hether the l aw i ncl ud es sol i ci t at i on offe nses ); se e al so H erna ndez -A gu i lar v. H

older , N o. 06- 71945, 2009 W L 4067644 ( 9th C i r . N ov. 25, 2009) ( appl y i ng s am e c onc l us i on to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I I ) ) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rR e y e s - E s pi t i a ’ s c ont e nt i on r e gar di ng the F e d e r a l F ir s t O f

f e n d e rA c t, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 0 7 , b e c au s e h e f a ile dto e x h au s t th is c o n te n tio n b e f

o r e th e a g e n c y . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 7 - 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
##### 



FIRST AMERICAN CAPITAL CORPORATION
WARRANT TO PURCHASE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK
  1. Manner of Exercise; Issuance of Certificates .




---



##### 



2. Period of Exercise .
 3. Certain Agreements of the Company .
 (a) Shares to be Fully Paid .
 (b) Reservation of Shares .
 (c) Certain Actions Prohibited .
  2




---



##### 



(d) Adjustments for Changes in Common Stock
 (e) Reorganizations, Etc.
 4. Issue Tax .
  3




---



##### 



5. No Rights as a Stockholder .
 6. Transfer, Exchange, and Replacement of Warrant; Resale of Warrant Shares .
 (a) Restriction on Transfer .
 (b) Replacement of Warrant and Cancellation .
 (c) Register .
 7. Notices .
  4




---



##### 



8. Governing Law .
 9. Miscellaneous .
 (a) Amendments .
 (b) Headings .
   5




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 FIRST AMERICAN CAPITAL CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Harland E. PriddleHarland PriddleChairman and Secretary of the Board  6




---



##### 



FORM OF EXERCISE AGREEMENT
 
   THOMAS M. FOGT
  7
```

```

----

Updated January 4, 2013
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1885** 

TATYANA ISHUTKINA , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 01290

- TSE

- JFA )

Submitted : November 22, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tatyana Ishutkina, Appellant Pro Se. Joleen Okun, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C.; Stephen William Robinson, Melissa Lee Taylormoore, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tatyana Ishutkina appeals the district court ’ s order denying her motion to transfer a case from Fairfax Circuit
Court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district
court. Ishutkina v. Gen. Dynamics Corp. , No. 1:12

- cv - 01290

- TSE

JFA (E.D. Va. filed June 27 & entered June 28 , 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
PDR NETWORK, LLC, et al., petitioners, v. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC.

No. 17-1705.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted limited to the following question: Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Keith Robert LUGO, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-5722.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Willie Riley CURRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5831.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1



[MetaSolv Letterhead]



CEO Certification



I, James P. Janicki, Chief Executive Officer of MetaSolv, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certify that the Companys report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as amended to date and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.



I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial operations and
results of operations of the Company.



/s/    James P. JanickiJames P. Janicki, Chief Executive Officer April 29, 2003




---



[MetaSolv
Letterhead]



CFO Certification



I, Glenn A. Etherington, Chief Financial
Officer of MetaSolv, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as amended to date and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.



I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial operations and
results of operations of the Company.





/s/    Glenn A. EtheringtonGlenn A. Etherington Chief Financial Officer April 29, 2003
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Michael J. CASALE, Jr.

No. D-3033.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Michael J. Casale, Jr., of Montoursville, Pennsylvania, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1419

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Robert Gerard Horn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 1, 2004

Filed: October 12, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following our remand in United States v. Horn, 76 Fed. Appx. 747 (8th Cir.

Aug. 26, 2003) (unpublished per curiam), the district court1

 determined that when

Robert Gerard Horn signed a document agreeing to modifications to the conditions

of his supervised release, his waiver of his right to a pre-modification hearing with

the assistance of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Horn appeals

again, and, having reviewed the record, which includes the hearing testimony of two

probation officers who were present when Horn signed the waiver, we find no error
-2-

in the district court’s conclusion. See United States v. Stocks, 104 F.3d 308, 312 (9th

Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 904 (1997). Although the district

court found that Horn had waived his hearing rights, the court nevertheless afforded

Horn a hearing with the assistance of counsel and a chance to oppose the new

conditions. Given the testimony of Horn’s psychological counselor at the hearing

that the new conditions were necessary to protect the community and were needed for

Horn’s rehabilitation, we conclude the district did not abuse its discretion in adopting

the proposed modifications. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (after considering designated

factors, district court may “modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised

release . . . pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure”);

United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329, 332 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review;

district courts enjoy broad discretion in imposition or modification of conditions for

terms of supervised release). Horn’s remaining contentions on appeal are meritless.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1) (requirements for modification of supervised release

conditions). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________
d.

Of

-Srf/V

OF

.-* HTce

AA/O

■ ■

sr :■■;■

\U

7/iJS

Tt*iS DocumentT

it 0** "TWvf foii.ois TO

ay

THIS, (?0t/A7's

-. jsy

Z. /Jo

Tfit

/z-TS £a. HuST DSt

7~tf

TO

*, /ft

1, C^
D*

THIS
CO

en
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000909992
<NAME> THE BEARD COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              52
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2860
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (57)
<INVENTORY>                                        621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3953
<PP&E>                                           17971
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8746)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3043
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                        8250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15656
<SALES>                                           6809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9357
<CGS>                                             4554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (176)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    74
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (403)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (403)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Eastern District of Texas

✔

2:23-cv-180 4/20/2023 Eastern District of Texas

AKOUSTIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND AKOUSTIS,

INC.

QORVO, INC.,

7,250,360 7/31/2007 Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.,

nkl

Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that

all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiffs and Defendant in the abovecaptioned

case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

12/10/2024

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/10/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

5572
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,816
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                       180
<INVENTORY>                                     35,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,110
<PP&E>                                          27,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,912
<BONDS>                                          1,736
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,964
<SALES>                                         80,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,286
<CGS>                                           67,897
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,070
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,093
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,977
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
Wesley Brian EARNEST, petitioner, v. Keith W. DAVIS, Warden, et al.

No. 18-5728.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

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