alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### February 3, 1939

HOROrebl~L. h. v&od State Superintendent of tibllo Instruction .custln,

Texas



### In reiplJrtberst0,

we nish tu sdtiss. &rtlaloBQZEa or Rerl#d airil 5tatutea, lms, Me& ln pert aa follmar

"Ill eaoh 0rgmma OoLulty tnthits stdata

aad 

### lnanyaounty mhiohrhall bereafterba organized, 

### the aauntysahooltruJBtee8 

### nbellblawthe atathorltytofo.mone or-ore ruralh%ighsahwLdlatrleta, **by** 

### groupiag aontlgprow

aamon aohool**die** triot6 

### havinglose than iour huatlred 8oholiu5tio ption and independw~t nohool dlmtrlota

bav1~ less than two hundred and 

### fifty saholastio pQpulat1on

for the purpose 0r 

### wtablishing and opemting ruralhigh aohoola.* iartiole

89eea,RevisedCivil StatulW; 19&S,reada in part a8 iolloaii

"So rumilhhighsohoo1Q%striot, asproridti for herein,shalloontofa a greatu are0 than one handrsdequare

ml&s, or 

### more than 8evwicriemntalrg sabaoldietrlots except **that** the 

### oouaty8obeol boardof sohooltrua~eeepaytonurural 

### hi@ a&oolHon. I..

A. Plood,

P'ebrunry

3, 1939, Pace 2

dlstriats,as nrovidsd in Artiale 2922a, oontainlng more than one hundred square miles, upon a vote of ii

majority of the qualifiedeleotors in t3e said proposed zural high sohool districtvoting at an electioncalled for suoh purpose." 29~~ approv~,l

of dfstriot trustees is not neoessarj* when a 

### ruralhi?3 sohool distrlot is foxmedby wgroupingwdistricts.

Bell vs. Kirkland, 41 S.K. (Zd) 443. Approval of trusteesof.dlstrlots arrected in annexing dlstricts to r0m a 

### NNl higbsohool,dlstriot is not neoessary where an eleotlonis 

### required and held under provisionof Article 29220. Cox vs. Beard, 87 SiPi.. **(2d)** 883. Tharefore,

we hold that when, the dlstriat is loaatadwholly within one oountg and the area of tha proposed diatrlot is more than ona hundred square miles, **and** not more than seven sohool diatrlots are involved,that the oounty sahool trustsea OS tha prtlaular county may aall an aleotlon for the purpoee o? fonnlng a rural high sohool distriot of more than one hundred square miles, and not to exceed aeven elementarydistrlotawlthout the oozment or the trusteesor the IIUO~~~S distriots Involved;aid if a majority of ’ all or tha **ale&ore** votin f at the aleotion held ror that purpose, and the whole of the terr tory lnvokved, vote in favor OS such formatlon OS a rural high school Uistriot, it 1s tha duty or the oounty aahool tNStOeS to (I)

Or&JaniZS

the 88mr).
Yours very truly



## GSB:FG

AlT.ORNEYGE3ERAL

OF TEXAS
Jimcy MCGIRT, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 18-9526

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
Exhibit 32





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 Quarterly Report of Cadus Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Blitz, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cadus Corporation and will be retained by Cadus Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ David BlitzDavid BlitzPresident and Chief Executive Officer (ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)Date: May 16, 2011





The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BLAKE WATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES et al., 

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00080

Judge Mazzant

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Expedited Consideration of 

the Motion to Reconsider and Modify the Court’s June 7, 2023 Order, or in the alternative, 

Expedited Consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #43). Having 

considered the motion and relevant pleadings, the Court finds the motion should be GRANTED. 

For the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s motion, as well as the reasons articulated in the Fifth 

Circuit’s recent decision in Mock v. Garland, --- F.4th ---, No. 23-10319, 2023 WL 4882763, at 

*1 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2023), the Court finds that Plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on 

the merits in this case on his claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, and there is good 

cause for expedited consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. Thus, the Court sets the 

following briefing schedule for the parties, which shall focus on the irreparable-harm, balance-ofequities, and public-interest factors pertaining to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 

(Dkt. #7): 

Plaintiff shall file any supplemental briefing, if necessary, by August 21, 2023;1

1 This is not an invitation to file unnecessary materials. To the extent Plaintiff feels he can rest on matters already 

briefed in his original motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. #7), or that are already briefed in the Plaintiff’s motion 

for reconsideration (Dkt. #42) or motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #6), he should not feel obliged to repeat those 

arguments. 

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 44 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 903
2

Defendants shall file any response or supplemental briefing by August 28, 2023; and

Plaintiff shall file any reply briefing by September 5, 2023. 

In addition to the foregoing, and to clarify the Court’s previous order, the Court notes that 

its current injunction (Dkt. #37) remains in effect until the Fifth Circuit’s mandate issues in Mock 

v. Garland. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 44 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 904
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/03/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      355,427
COMMITMENTS
  84,394  188,282   67,957  180,607   76,029  332,958  332,268   22,469   23,159

CHANGES FROM 08/27/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -27,528)
  -8,807  -15,141   -7,394  -10,839   -2,715  -27,040  -25,250     -488   -2,278

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    23.7     53.0     19.1     50.8     21.4     93.7     93.5      6.3      6.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      161)
      49       62       64       37       32      121      132
```

----

Updated September 6, 2013
JOSEPH CAIN JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-560

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 22, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Maria Ines Suber, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and RAY and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

DONALD SCOTT METOYER,

Plaintiff,

v. 

RHYEEM ROBINSON, ET AL.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-41-RWS-JBB

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Metoyer’s civil rights complaint alleging deprivations 

of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report

recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or obey an 

order of the Court. Docket No. 10. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the statute of 

limitations be suspended for 60 days following the date of entry of final judgment. Id. Plaintiff 

received the Magistrate Judge’s Report on March 5, 2024. Docket No. 11. To date, no response or 

objections have been filed. 

Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the 

District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and, 

except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings 

and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville,

Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-

RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

Case 5:23-cv-00041-RWS-JBB Document 12 Filed 06/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 34
Page 2 of 2

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. 

Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate 

Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and 

contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 10) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

for failure to prosecute or obey an order of the Court. It is further

ORDERED that the statute of limitations is suspended for a period of 60 days following 

the date of entry of final judgment. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SIGNED this 6th day of June, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00041-RWS-JBB Document 12 Filed 06/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-72-MAC

'

ABIYAN PONDRE EAGLIN '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Stetson conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued her Findings of Fact and Recommendation 

on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. Judge Stetson recommended that 

the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. She further recommended that the court adjudge 

the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment filed against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to Judge Stetson’s findings. The court ORDERS that the 

Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate Judge are 

ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea 

agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Abiyan Pondre Eaglin, is 

Case 1:23-cr-00072-MAC-CLS Document 30 Filed 08/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 83
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

922(g)(1) - Felon in Possession of a Firearm.

Case 1:23-cr-00072-MAC-CLS Document 30 Filed 08/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 84
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL., 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC 09/28/2023 /s/ Qi Tong Qi Tong, CA SBN 300347

RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025

ptong@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 260
John Benjamin CLOPTON, Jr., petitioner, v. Mary MURPHY, Judge, District Court of Grayson County, Texas.

No. 17-8867.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
**EXHIBIT32**

 

# **SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

#  

Theundersigned hereby certify that this report complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   May 9, 2005 | By:                                                               | /s/ Roger E. Gower |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                           | Roger E. Gower  President and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                           |                                                              |
|                           |                                                              |
| Dated:   May 9, 2005 | By:                                                               | /s/ Thomas P. Maun |   |
|                           | Thomas P. Maun  Chief Financial Officer  Chief Accounting Officer |

 

----
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-71

'

JASON ANTHONY MARROW (1), '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further 

recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment filed 

against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Jason Anthony Marrow (1), is 

Case 1:23-cr-00071-MAC-ZJH Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 168
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C § 2119 

(Carjacking).

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 4th day of December, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00071-MAC-ZJH Document 68 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 169
Antonio FAHIE, petitioner, v. Neil McDOWELL, Warden.

No. 18-6641.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1

      LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES           


KAYNAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             United Kingdom

K.T.I. FEMIPARI KFT
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Hungary

KT INTERNATIONAL SALES CORP.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Barbados

MARCLIFF CORPORATION
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

MARSON CANADA, INC.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Canada

MARSON CREATIVE FASTENER, INC.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

M & M MACHINE & TOOL CO.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

RECOIL AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS, INC.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

RECOIL (EUROPE) LTD.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             United Kingdom

RECOIL HOLDINGS, INC.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

RECOIL INC.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

RECOIL LIMITED
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Thailand

RECOIL MARKETING BVBA
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Belgium

RECOIL PTE LTD.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Singapore

RECOIL PTY
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Victoria, Australia
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 9:23-CR-20

'

SANTIAGO CHUMIL-TUY '

A/K/A SANTIAGO CHUMIL, '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further 

recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment filed 

against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Santiago Chumil-Tuy, is 

Case 9:23-cr-00020-MAC-CLS Document 27 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 100
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

(Reentry of a Deported Alien).

Case 9:23-cr-00020-MAC-CLS Document 27 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 101
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7811

JERRY HALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Commonwealth of

Virginia; RON ANGELONE, Director; C.D. LARSEN,

Warden; CAROL WALLACE, Associate Warden of

Operations; DR. OFOGH, Chief Physician; DR.

JACOBS, Chief Psychiatrist,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-00-243-2)

Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Hall appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint without prejudice

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court

properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42

U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 2000). Because Appellant did not

demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the

court’s dismissal of the action, without prejudice, was not an

abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the district court’s

order. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000911115
<NAME> ATCHISON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,821
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                       585
<INVENTORY>                                     65,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,824
<PP&E>                                         202,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,866
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,880
<SALES>                                        109,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,693
<CGS>                                           96,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (9)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    877
<INCOME-TAX>                                       265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                612
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       612
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
Richard ROE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 18-358.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

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