alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) 

) 

v. ) ID No. 84000200DI

) 

DURWIN HARMON, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

Date Submitted: October 9, 2023

Date Decided: November 14, 2023

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Durwin Harmon’s (“Harmon”) Letter 

Motion for Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation (“Motion”),1 Superior 

Court Criminal Rule 35(b),

2

statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case, 

IT APPEARS THAT: 

(1) On August 8, 1984, Harmon was found guilty by jury trial of First

Degree Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, First Degree Assault, First Degree Robbery, 

Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited, and three counts of 

Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony.3 Harmon was 

sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment plus an additional twenty-four years.4 

1 D.I. 112. Mr. Harmon submitted a letter to the Court asking for his GPS to be removed. While 

he did not explicitly move under Rule 35(b), the Court reviews his motion as such. 

2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 

3 D.I. 13.

4 D.I. 19. 
2

Thirty-eight years of the sentence was mandatory.

5

 After serving 39 years, Harmon 

was released from Level V incarceration.6

(2) In the instant Motion, Harmon requests the removal of his GPS monitor 

requirement.7

(3) Rule 35(b) governs motions for modification or reduction of sentence.8 

“A motion for modification of partial confinement or probation is not subject to the 

ninety-day limitation applicable to a motion for reduction of imprisonment.”

9

Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4333, any probation or suspension of sentence may be 

terminated at the Court’s discretion.10 

(4) The authority of the court to grant relief under Rule 35(b) is 

discretionary.11 Rule 35(b) does not provide specific considerations the Court must 

consider, rather “the Court exercises broad discretion in determining whether a 

situation or set of individual factors can be viewed.”12

(5) In support of his Motion, Durwin cites hardships such as the inability 

to go on vacation with his family, the inability to swim or take a bath, the monthly 

5

Id. 

6 D.I. 112.

7

Id. 

8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 

9

State v. Baily, 2017 WL 8787504 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2017); State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 

602, 609 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015). 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 609 (2015). 
3

bill associated with the GPS monitor, and the requirement to attend a group session 

every week in which he has to pay for a lie detector test.13 The Court does not find 

these “hardships” warrant modification. 

(6) The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at sentencing. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Durwin Harmon’s

Motion for Modification of Partial Confinement or Probation is DENIED. 

/s/ Jan R. Jurden

President Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary

Abigail E. Rodgers, Esq.

Durwin Harmon

13 D.I. 112.
Willie Beasley CURTIS, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 18-5498.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
Noel AQUINO-FLORENCIANI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18M14.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
ATLANTA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., fka Tenet Healthsystem GB, Inc., et al., petitioners, v. CARE IMPROVEMENT PLUS SOUTH CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 17-1283.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jeffrey VANTLIN, et al., petitioners, v. William HURT, et al.

No. 17-1655.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, a/k/a Bobby Seal, a/k/a Bobby Seals, a/k/a Ahmed Abdel Aziz, a/k/a Jerome Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith, a/k/a Cedric Ellison, a/k/a Fretral McRae, a/k/a Chreshan Allen, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-75) Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 23, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for immediate injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Abdel-Aziz , No. CR-00-75 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2002). 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
Henryk OLEKSY, petitioner, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.

No. 18-303.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2014 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2014

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                             nonresidents.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2014

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                             nonresidents.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY COMMUTER TAX ON 
              NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--A State may not impose a tax on the income earned 
in the State by nonresidents unless the tax is of substantial equality 
of treatment for the citizens of the State and the nonresidents so 
commuting.
    (b) State.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``State'' 
includes the District of Columbia and any political subdivision of a 
State.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 29, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
John E. WELLS, Sr., petitioner, v. David GRAY, Warden.

No. 18-5572.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Ryan Joe CODDINGTON, petitioner, v. NEVADA.

No. 18-372.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
**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 Beard Company’s (the “Company”) Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William M. Beard, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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, 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                     |                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  November 23, 2009 | By:  /s/ William M. Beard            

William M. BeardChairman of the Board and    Chief Executive Officer |
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1836

To properly balance the wind and water erosion criteria and the wildlife

suitability criteria to be used in the 18th signup of land in the conservation reserve program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 18, 1999

Mr. BEREUTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To properly balance the wind and water erosion criteria

and the wildlife suitability criteria to be used in the

18th signup of land in the conservation reserve program.

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

3 SECTION 1. CRITERIA FOR SIGNUP OF HIGHLY ERODIBLE

4 LANDS UNDER CONSERVATION RESERVE

5 PROGRAM.

6 (a) COVERED LANDS.—This section applies with re7 spect to highly erodible lands that—

8 (1) are included, as of the date of the enact9 ment of this section, in the conservation reserve
2

•HR 1836 IH

1 under subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of

2 title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16

3 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.);

4 (2) meet the wind and water erosion criteria es5 tablished for conservation reserve lands; and

6 (3) have an established plant cover.

7 (b) TREATMENT OF LANDS IN SIGNUP.—Highly

8 erodible lands described in subsection (a) shall be deemed

9 to meet the criteria regarding suitability for wildlife and

10 shall receive maximum points for wildlife benefits in the

11 18th signup of land in the conservation reserve and subse12 quent signups.

Æ
PENNSYLVANIA, petitioner, v. Roderick Andre JOHNSON.

No. 18-35.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District denied.
Order entered October 16, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 01007 - CV IN RE J.C. PENNEY CO MPANY INC., ET AL . , Relators Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 12 - 00735 

### O RDER The Court has received the parties’ October 14, 2013 joint status report

. The Court ORDERS the parties to submit an updated joint status report by November 4, 2013. On its own motion, the Court EXTENDS the deadline responses to the petition for writ of mandamus until thirty days from the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
CERTIFIED MAILm FIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGE AND

FEES PAID

LETTERSTREAM

CERTIFIED MAIL

Michael Moates

5764 N Orange Blossom Tri PMB 61546

Orlando FL 32810

-3007596352000011

Paul Brown

US District Court

7940 Preston Road Room 101

Plano TX 75024

USA

RECEIV D

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN district of ?EXAS

MAR 2 3 2023

BY deputy

Case 4:23-cv-00194-ALM Document 9-1 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 89
Venise METAYER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-5656.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
#### CHARLES W. BLOOMQUIST v. IDA RINEHART and Another.1

June 11, 1909.

Nos. 16,198—(161).

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover possession of certain premises and $230 for the rental of the same. The case was tried before Frederick V. Brown, J., who directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $142.15. From *526an order denying defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, they appealed.

Affirmed.

*T. P. Wormward,*for appellants.

*G. A. DaXby,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 121 N. W. 1133.

Peb Curiam.

In this action to recover rent the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and defendants appealed from an order denying a motion for a new trial. After carefully considering the records, we are satisfied that the court was correct, and the order is therefore affirmed.
IN THE 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.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF KRISTOPHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’S 

OPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 133 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5558
1

I, Kristopher Davis, declare and state as follows:

1. I am a member of the State Bar of California, an attorney at the firm of Russ August 

& Kabat, and counsel of record for Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC in the above-captioned 

action. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Certain Revenues, 

Agreements, and Documents. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called 

upon to testify, could and would testify competently thereto.

2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an email chain between counsel 

for Headwater and counsel for Defendants.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 10, 2024, at Los Angeles, California.

/s/ Kristopher Davis

Kristopher Davis

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 133 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5559
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 10, 2024, all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF System per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).

/s/ Kristopher Davis

Kristopher Davis

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 133 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5560
atnx-ex1044_923.htm



Exhibit 10.44

Mutual Letter of Termination

ATTN: ATHENEX, INC. (formerly known as "KINEX PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC.") (hereinafter "Athenex")

1001 Main Street, Suite 600, 
Buffalo, NY 14203

Date: 2018.08.20

To Whom It May Concern at Athenex

Dear Sirs,

Reference is made to the existing License Agreement by and between Athenex and Hanmi dated April 7, 2011 (hereinafter "License Agreement") concerning the compound KX01. Pursuant to Article 8.2(a) of said License Agreement, Athenex and Hanmi hereby mutually agree to terminate the License Agreement effective immediately, including any and all rights and obligations of the Parties thereunder, except for Article 8.3 of the License Agreement and those rights and obligations which shall survive termination of the License Agreement as set forth in said Article 8.3.

Sincerely yours,

By: /s/ Se Chang Kwon

Se Chang Kwon

Chief Executive Officer 

 

 

Athenex hereby expresses its acceptance and agreement to the terms of this Letter via signature by its authorized personnel below:

By: /s/ Johnson Lau

Johnson Lau

Chief Executive Officer
# Euroopa Liidu C 32/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 32 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 65. aastakäik21. jaanuar 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 32

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

65. aastakäik21. jaanuar 2022

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2022/C 32/01 | Euro vahetuskurss — 20. jaanuar 2022 | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

2022/C 32/01

Euro vahetuskurss — 20. jaanuar 2022

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

| 21.1.2022 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2022

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 32/1

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

20. jaanuar 2022

(2022/C 32/01)

1 euro =

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,1338 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 129,53 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4424 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,83265 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 10,3708 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,0382 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | 145,40 |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 9,9578 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria leev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 24,263 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 355,81 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,5228 |
| RON | Rumeenia leu | 4,9453 |
| TRY | Türgi liir | 15,2094 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,5662 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,4158 |
| HKD | Hongkongi dollar | 8,8274 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,6731 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 1,5261 |
| KRW | Korea vonn | 1 349,16 |
| ZAR | Lõuna-Aafrika rand | 17,2531 |
| CNY | Hiina jüaan | 7,1936 |
| HRK | Horvaatia kuna | 7,5250 |
| IDR | Indoneesia ruupia | 16 267,50 |
| MYR | Malaisia ringit | 4,7489 |
| PHP | Filipiini peeso | 58,285 |
| RUB | Vene rubla | 86,8952 |
| THB | Tai baat | 37,319 |
| BRL | Brasiilia reaal | 6,1621 |
| MXN | Mehhiko peeso | 23,1684 |
| INR | India ruupia | 84,3620 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,1338

JPY

Jaapani jeen

129,53

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4424

GBP

Inglise nael

0,83265

SEK

Rootsi kroon

10,3708

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,0382

ISK

Islandi kroon

145,40

NOK

Norra kroon

9,9578

BGN

Bulgaaria leev

1,9558

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

24,263

HUF

Ungari forint

355,81

PLN

Poola zlott

4,5228

RON

Rumeenia leu

4,9453

TRY

Türgi liir

15,2094

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,5662

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,4158

HKD

Hongkongi dollar

8,8274

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,6731

SGD

Singapuri dollar

1,5261

KRW

Korea vonn

1 349,16

ZAR

Lõuna-Aafrika rand

17,2531

CNY

Hiina jüaan

7,1936

HRK

Horvaatia kuna

7,5250

IDR

Indoneesia ruupia

16 267,50

MYR

Malaisia ringit

4,7489

PHP

Filipiini peeso

58,285

RUB

Vene rubla

86,8952

THB

Tai baat

37,319

BRL

Brasiilia reaal

6,1621

MXN

Mehhiko peeso

23,1684

INR

India ruupia

84,3620

---

(1)  Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---
Ikemefula Charles IBEABUCHI, petitioner, v. Paul PENZONE.

No. 18-7956.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 21


FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC. SUBSIDIARIES


Alien Towers, Inc., a California corporation
Code 99 Productions, Inc., a California corporation
Intrastate Film Distributors, Inc., a Delaware corporation
First Look Music, Inc. (f/k/a Jacaranda Music, Inc.), a Delaware corporation
Map Productions, Inc., a California corporation
Overseas Filmgroup (UK) Limited, a corporation organized under
        the laws of the United Kingdom
Walrus Pictures, Inc., a California corporation

MAP PRODUCTIONS, INC. SUBSIDIARY

Map Movies Canada, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada

OVERSEAS FILMGROUP (UK) LIMITED SUBSIDIARIES

Elphich Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom
OFG Films Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the Island of
        Jersey
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1653 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 Union Calendar No. 111
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1653

                          [Report No. 106-195]

  To approve a governing international fishery agreement between the 
               United States and the Russian Federation.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 1999

  Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Faleomavaega) 
(all by request): introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Resources

                             June 22, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To approve a governing international fishery agreement between the 
               United States and the Russian Federation.

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

SECTION 1. RUSSIAN FEDERATION FISHING AGREEMENT.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the governing 
international fishery agreement entered into between the Government of 
the United States and the Government of the Russian Federation, as 
contained in the message to Congress from the President of the United 
States dated January 20, 1999, is approved by the Congress and shall 
enter into force and effect with respect to the United States on the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                     





                                                 Union Calendar No. 111

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1653

                          [Report No. 106-195]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To approve a governing international fishery agreement between the 
               United States and the Russian Federation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 22, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed`
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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

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

April 2, 2019

d0325 

# Order

Clerk April 2, 2019

158377

MARY CLARE DUNKEL,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158377

COA: 339357

St. Clair CC: 15

- 002584

- CK

SIGNAL MEDICAL CORPORATION,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Veronica M. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA, et al.

No. 18-5590.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Dewey Lee McBRIDE, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

No. 18-9072.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jean COULTER, petitioner, v. Alexander H. LINDSAY, Jr., et al.

No. 17-1336.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.