alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

MEDLIANT INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATRINA PONCE DE LEON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 1:23–cv–00203–MAC

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-26(c), the plaintiff, Medliant Inc. (“Medliant”), provides 

notice to the Court that its Initial Disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure have been made.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ R. Brandon Bundren

R. Brandon Bundren

Texas Bar No. 24050353

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

1600 Division Street, Suite 700

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

P: 615.252.4647

F: 615.248.3047

bbundren@bradley.com

Attorney for Medliant Inc.

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 18 Filed 10/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1238
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 24, 2023, I electronically filed a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, through 

the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system, which will serve all counsel of record listed below:

David H. Seligman (pro hac vice)

Email: david@towardsjustice.org

Rachel Williams Dempsey (pro hac vice)

Email: rachel@towardsjustice.org

Juno Turner (pro hac vice)

Email: juno@towardsjustice.org

TOWARDS JUSTICE

Attorneys for Defendant

/s/ R. Brandon Bundren

R. Brandon Bundren

Case 1:23-cv-00203-MAC Document 18 Filed 10/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1239
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of Texas

ALTO DYNAMICS, LLC

2:23-cv-00590

ARITZIA INC. and ARITZIA LP

Aritzia LP

c/o Registered Agent

611 Alexander Street, STE 118

Vancouver, BC Canada-V6A 1E1

James F. McDonough

Rozier Hardt McDonough, PLLC 

659 Auburn Avenue NE, Unit 254

Atlanta, Georgia 30312

(404) 564-1866

12/13/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00590-JRG-RSP Document 4-1 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 42
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23-cv-00590

0.00

Case 2:23-cv-00590-JRG-RSP Document 4-1 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 43
Joseph KINARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 18-9765

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Aaron J. BRESSI, Petitioner, v. John GEMBIC, et al.

No. 18-9489

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IN RE Melvin BONNELL, Petitioner

No. 19-6863

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Section 1350 Certifications**

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, based on such officer's knowledge, that: 

|        |        | (i)    | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004 (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 |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |

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

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

|                  |                                                |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: August 12, 2004 | /s/ Stanley J. Musial      |
|                  | Stanley J. Musial                                   |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer                             |

23

----
Nikolai BOSYK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-860

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Gus WHO INK, aka Tevis R. Ignacio, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8810.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1476

___________________________ Sharllette Berry lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Capella University, LLC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

____________ Submitted: December 14, 2023 Filed: December 28, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In this diversity action, Sharllette Berry appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her civil action against Capella University. After de novo review, see

1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo); Ascente Bus. Consulting, LLC v. DR myCommerce, 9 F.4th 839, 844 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing futility-based denial of leave to amend de novo); we agree with the district court that Berry did not plead her fraud claim with the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), see Ascente, 9 F.4th at 845 (party alleging fraud must state with particularity circumstances constituting fraud, including who, what, where, when, and how). We also conclude Berry failed to plead facts demonstrating her entitlement to relief under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (labels and threadbare recitals of elements supported by conclusory statements is insufficient to show entitlement to relief). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and deny as moot Capella University’s motion to supplement the record.

______________________________

-2-
Paul HUSKISSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-527

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VALVE CORPORATION, GEARBOX 

SOFTWARE, L.L.C., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-419 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER 

Before the Court is Symbology and Gearbox’s Joint Stipulated Motion to Extend Time to 

Answer Complaint (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion and noting the parties’ 

agreement, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

It is therefore ordered that Defendant Gearbox Software, LLC shall file its response to the 

Complaint on or before January 2, 2024. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 18-1 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 173
Kamal Anwiya YOUKHANNA, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 19-758

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Miguel CABRERA-RANGEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-650.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Motion of Cato Institute for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     104,448,583
<SECURITIES>                                37,034,745
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,291,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                   292,619
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           125,209,959
<PP&E>                                      90,816,105
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,179,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             395,609,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,533,459
<BONDS>                                    299,909,221
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       169,467
<OTHER-SE>                                 120,284,507
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               395,609,362
<SALES>                                     11,364,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,364,828
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,600,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (7,953,522)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               292,619
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          28,087,948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (44,370,395)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (4,700,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (39,670,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (39,670,395)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.65)


</TABLE>
Tremane WOOD, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 17-6891.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.
Michael Lynn ROBERTSON, Petitioner, v. BANNER BANK.

No. 19-787

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Henry E. GOSSAGE, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

No. 19-143

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Roman Gabriel CONTRERAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5471.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Joan E. FARR, petitioner, v. Daryl DAVIS, et al.

No. 18-6780.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until February 4, 2019, 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.
Joseph JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8910.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. § 1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U.S.C. § 2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review *93with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court."

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice THOMAS, Justice GINSBURG, Justice BREYER, Justice ALITO, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
John JONES, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-8973.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

*99Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEXCOM, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00473-JRG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT DEXCOM, INC.’S 

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE 

In compliance with the Court’s standing order regarding motions under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 

Defendant DexCom, Inc. hereby files this Notice of Compliance. The joint letter is attached as 

Exhibit A. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 12 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 194
2 

Dated: January 16, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Rodeen Talebi 

Neil J. McNabnay 

Texas Bar No. 24002583 

Ricardo J. Bonilla 

Texas Bar No. 24082704 

Rodeen Talebi 

Texas Bar No. 24103958 

Sarika Patel 

Texas Bar No. 24073520 

Alexander H. Martin 

Texas Bar No. 24091828 

mcnabnay@fr.com 

rbonilla@fr.com 

talebi@fr.com 

patel@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 747-5070 (Telephone) 

(214) 747-2091 (Facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

DEXCOM, INC. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy has been electronically filed using the CM/ECF 

filing system on January 16, 2024, which automatically sends email notifications to all counsel of 

record and which will permit viewing and downloading of same from the CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ Rodeen Talebi 

 Rodeen Talebi 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 12 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 195
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

ROUTINE CARE, INC.,

a Texas corporation,

CHRONOS INVESTMENT AND CONSULTING

CORP., a Flordia corporation

Sadek Cristia, Registered Agent

Chronos Investment and Consulting Corp.

446 NW 35th Avenue, Miami, FL

Elliott J. Williams

Stoel Rives LLP

760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000

Portland, OR 97205

4:23-cv-00767

8/24/23

Case 4:23-cv-00767 Document 4 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 22
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 4:23-cv-00767 Document 4 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

)

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. 2:23-cv-00591

)

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

Defendant. )

)

NOTICE OF JOINT LETTER REGARDING MOTION TO 

DISMISS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101

Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Motions Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 

Accompanying Certifications in Cases Assigned to United States District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the 

parties in the above-captioned action hereby respectfully submit the joint letter, attached hereto.

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 255
Dated: March 14, 2024

/s/ Randall T. Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Texas Bar No.: 24038912 

rgareiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street Tyler, Texas 

75702

903-705-7420

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark A. Baghdassarian

Mark A. Baghdassarian

Shannon Hedvat

Jeffrey Coleman

mbaghdassarian@kramerlevin.com

shedvat@kramerlevin.com

jcoleman@kramerlevin.com

KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & 

 FRANKEL LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Tel: (212) 715-9100

Fax: (212) 715-8000

Melissa R. Smith

Texas Bar No. 24001351

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Sirius XM Radio 

Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service 

are being served this 14th day of March 2024, with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 256
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

COREY JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CRAIG BASS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-445-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Corey Johnson, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil 

rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

On October 23, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice as frivolous and for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket No. 9. Plaintiff 

filed written objections. Docket No. 10. 

Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 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 

Case 6:23-cv-00445-JDK-KNM Document 11 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 55
2 

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

ten to fourteen days). 

In general, Plaintiff’s objections merely repeat his claims and do not address 

any of the reasons set out by the Magistrate Judge for recommending dismissal, 

including prosecutorial immunity, the unavailability of injunctive relief, Defendant 

Craig Bass’s status as a private actor rather than a government agent, or the lack of 

a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). Accordingly, he provides no basis to set aside the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report. 

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, 

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 9) as the 

opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20th November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00445-JDK-KNM Document 11 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 56
Leonard G. MARQUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6097.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Phap BUTH, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 18-6364.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.
Carlos E. RODRIGUEZ-MILIAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7145

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

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