alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 21, 2022

Nos. 04-22-00513-CR, 04-22-00514-CR, 04-22-00515-CR, 04-22-00516-CR, 04-22-00517-CR, 

04-22-00518-CR, and 04-22-00519-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Jaime Francisco FLORES, Gracie Yvette Lopez, Cristal Ann Ramirez, Martin Eli Perez, 

Rodney Anthony Ortiz, and Enrique Cibrian,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 19-CRD-43, 21-CRD-07, 21-CRD-12, 21-CRD-93, 22-CRD-15, 22-CRD-16, 

and 22-CRD-07

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On September 9, 2022, appellant filed an unopposed motion to consolidate appeal 

numbers 04-22-00513-CR, 04-22-00514-CR, 04-22-00515-CR, 04-22-00516-CR, 04-22-00517-

CR, 04-22-00518-CR, and 04-22-00519-CR. Due to the similarities between the cases, this court 

has determined that the seven cases should be consolidated for briefing and argument. It is 

therefore ORDERED that the motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The parties shall file all 

motions, briefs, and other documents as if the seven appeals were one case, but shall include all 

appeal numbers with the style of the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a). The records for the seven 

appeals shall remain separated. If the court hears oral argument in these appeal numbers, all of 

the cases shall be argued together, as a single appeal, and the total time limit for each side at oral 

argument shall equal the ordinary time limit for a single appeal. The court will dispose of the 

entire case with the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.

It is so ORDERED September 21, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
Exhibit 99-2



                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF 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 Annual Report of MIAD Systems, Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael A. S.
Green, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of
2002 that to the best of my 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 issuer.



December 19, 2002                                /s/ Michael A. S. Green
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 Michael A. S. Green
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest        PrincipaL        Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>               <C>            <C>           <C>
A1            11385269.81      23710099.68             0      2094479633.21
A2             7715987.14      18968142.94             0      1524229287.18
A3                 756800                0             0          151360000
A4              1290240.8                0             0          236380000
A5                      0                0             0           13620000
A6             2594410.46        423499.27             0       497703309.74
APO                     0          2428.33             0         1607056.89
AR                   0.52              100             0                  0
B1              363217.45         59289.89             0        69678463.36
B2              350245.42         57172.41             0        67189946.81
B3              116748.48         19057.47             0        22396648.93
B4               77832.31         12704.99             0         14931099.3
B5               51888.19          8469.97             0         9954066.23
B6               51896.57          5560.66       2910.72         9955669.81


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1674 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1674

  To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act with respect to civil actions 
  against public waters systems that are in compliance with national 
  drinking water regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the 
                    Environmental Protection Agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 1999

Mr. Gary Miller of California introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act with respect to civil actions 
  against public waters systems that are in compliance with national 
  drinking water regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the 
                    Environmental Protection Agency.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC 
              WATER SYSTEMS.

    (a) In General.--Part E of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
300j et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following section:

              ``prohibition against certain civil actions

    ``Sec. 1459. In a civil action seeking relief on the basis of the 
level of a contaminant in water in a public water system, relief may 
not be provided by any Federal or State court (whether the defendant is 
a public or a private entity) if, as applicable (1) the level of the 
contaminant in such water is at or below the applicable maximum 
contaminant level established in national drinking water regulations 
promulgated by the Administrator under section 1412; or (2) the public 
water system is using treatment techniques in accordance with such 
regulations. This section applies notwithstanding any other provision 
of Federal or State law.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1414(e) of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(e)) is amended by striking ``Nothing in 
this title'' and inserting ``Subject to section 1459, nothing in this 
title''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 (the Report), I,  James A. Cochran, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of TurboChef Technologies, Inc. (the Company), do
hereby  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

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

| | (ii) | the
information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and  results of operation of the Company.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  March
30, 2004

| | /s/ James
        A. Cochran                                           
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | James A Cochran
      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1787

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the

Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1999

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deschutes Resources

5 Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 1787 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF

2 RECLAMATION IN DESCHUTES RESOURCES

3 CONSERVANCY.

4 Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act

5 of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat.

6 3009–534) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the

8 period at the end the following: ‘‘, and up to a total

9 amount of $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years

10 2002 through 2006’’; and

11 (2) in subsection (h), by inserting before the pe12 riod at the end the following: ‘‘and $2,000,000 for

13 each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006’’.

Æ
Anthony L. VIOLA, petitioner, v. Mark S. BENNETT.

No. 17-9352.

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.
Musonda MULENGA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6216.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LUIS RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellant

,

v

.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 053

- CR

Appeal from the

41 st District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20160D00948 )

O R D E R

The Court G RANTS the Court Reporter’s fourth request for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter’s Record until July 2 8 , 201 8

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BECONSIDERED

BY THIS COURT.

It is furth er ORDERED that Bertha A. Prieto

, Official Court Reporter for the 41 st District

Court, for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the above styled and

numbered cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before July 2 8 , 2018

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18 th day of Ju ly , 20 18

.

PER CURIAM

B efore McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 5, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20427 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NHAN KIEM (TONY) TRAN, also known as Tony Tran, also known as Larry Tran, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-89-CR-135-2

-------------------- Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nhan Kiem Tran (“Tran”), federal prisoner # 48684-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion to reduce his sentence based on amendment 640 to the sentencing guidelines. Amendment 640 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3) is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). Therefore, this amendment may not be applied retroactively to reduce Tran’s sentence. See UnitedNo. 03-20427 -2- States v. Drath , 89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1996). Tran has not shown that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a modification of sentence. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
In Re Tatyana Evgenievna DREVALEVA, petitioner.

No. 18-8919.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP

JURY DEMANDED

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DKT. 40)

The Court having considered Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC’s Response to 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, is of the opinion that Defendants’ 

Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim (Dkt. 40) should be DENIED.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 42-1 Filed 08/23/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1801
Randy A. JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6163.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1956 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1956

 To prohibit the Department of State from imposing a charge or fee for 
         providing passport information to the general public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1999

   Mr. Davis of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Shays, Mr. 
    Sensenbrenner, Mr. Gutierrez, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. McHugh, Mr. 
   McNulty, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Traficant, Mr. 
Holden, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Clement, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Moore, Mr. English, 
 Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Farr of California, Mrs. 
 Kelly, Mr. Ackerman, and Mr. Shimkus) introduced the following bill; 
     which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Department of State from imposing a charge or fee for 
         providing passport information to the general public.

    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 ``Freedom of Passport Information Act 
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AND REQUIREMENT CONCERNING DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
              PASSPORT INFORMATION SERVICES.

    For fiscal year 2000 and for each subsequent fiscal year, the 
Secretary of State shall provide for a United States passport 
information telephone inquiry service for the general public which 
shall be available without charge or fee imposed by the Department of 
State or any other entity under contract to the Department of State.
                                 <all>
```
OFFICIALNOTICEFROM COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITOLSTATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 FILE COPY


### cV*'-'
5/13/2015 COA No. 12-14-00356-CR 

### MCCREARY, JODYFORD Tr. Ct. No. 007-1110-10 PD-0147-15 

## On this day, the Appellant's Pro Se petition for discretionary review has been 

# refused. ^^£# Abel Acosta, Clerk 12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 

### 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 

### TYLER, TX 75701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * -n O



## LED 12th 5

• rrc



# IN COURT 

# Court of Ap C£T ~"-\ (;"S*=3 _-^ "o .-% 5*>•*£ ca «i O SB T) 

## ^-SH 0» J;, "^>v P*****,^ 5T TJ sr m o >**»-♦■** p" ' \
Hunter Vaughan EURE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5630.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

SCOTTY LEMOND BARKER, #2768, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-189-JDK-KNM

§

HENDERSON COUNTY JAIL, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Henderson County Jail proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

about alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. 

On June 7, 2023, the Magistrate Judge ordered service upon and a response 

from Defendant Colton Alsobrook in this case. Docket No. 14. On that same day, the 

Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff’s claims 

against the Henderson County Jail be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). Docket No. 15. A copy of this Report was 

mailed to Plaintiff, who received it on June 14, 2023, and did not file written 

objections. Docket No. 18. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00189-JDK-KNM Document 21 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 63
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the Henderson County Jail are 

dismissed from this suit for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)

and 1915(e)(2). The Clerk shall terminate the Henderson County Jail as a Defendant 

on this docket.

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1st August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00189-JDK-KNM Document 21 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 64
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP

JURY DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

PROPOSED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AND DISCOVERY ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Headwater Research, LLC (“Headwater”) and 

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, 

“Defendants” or “Samsung”), (collectively, the “Parties”) Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Proposed Docket Control Order and Discovery Order. The Court, having considered the joint

motion, and for good cause shown, finds that the motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for filing the proposed docket control order 

and discovery order is extended to October 19, 2023. All other deadlines shall remain in place 

absent further leave of Court.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 48-1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1834
Harry CRAWFORD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9462.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
Certified Public Accountant
330 E. Warm Springs
Las Vegas, NV 89119
702.528.1984

March 27, 2000


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report of
March 27, 2000, on the Financial Statements of JobSort, Inc. from the inception
date of October 15, 1998 through December 31, 1999, in any filings which are
necessary now or in the near future to be filed with the US Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Signed,

G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
Nevada License #2701
{A72/07713/0131/W1840715.1 }

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC §

§

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-103 [JRG/RSP]

§

SAMSUNG ELECTTONICS CO., LTD., § JURY DEMANDED

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., §

SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD. §

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. file

this Notice of Appearance of Counsel and hereby notify the Court that Shaun W. Hassett of the law 

firm Potter Minton, P.C., 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900, Tyler, Texas 75702 is appearing as

counsel for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Electronics America, Inc. All 

pleadings, discovery, correspondence and other material should be served upon counsel at the

address referenced above.

Dated: July 26, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Shaun W. Hassett

Shaun W. Hassett

State Bar No. 24074372

shaunhassett@potterminton.com

POTTER MINTON, P.C. 

102 N. College Ave., Suite 900

Tyler, Texas 75702

Tel: (903) 597-8311

Fax: (903) 593-0846

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 38 Filed 07/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1751
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/25/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      393,602
COMMITMENTS
  77,309  172,505   61,554  227,523  134,241  366,386  368,300   27,216   25,302

CHANGES FROM 09/18/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -37,663)
   6,842    9,935  -11,904  -28,269  -30,946  -33,331  -32,915   -4,332   -4,748

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    19.6     43.8     15.6     57.8     34.1     93.1     93.6      6.9      6.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      166)
      47       69       71       34       37      127      141
```

----

Updated September 28, 2012
GOTECH INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, et al., petitioners, v. NAGRAVISION SA.

No. 18-119.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Paul GRIMSTAD, petitioner, v. DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, et al.

No. 18-126.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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