alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DARRYL CARTER,

Debtor.

______________________________

DARRYL CARTER,

Appellant,

v.

RON L. BARBER,

Appellee. No. 16

- 60034

BAP No. 14

- 1581

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kurtz, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Darryl Carter appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

(“BAP”) judgment d ismissing as moot Carter’s request for injunctive relief

, and

* This disposi tion is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 60034

vacating and remanding the remainder of the bankruptcy court’s judgment in

Carter’s adversary proceeding . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).

We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the

BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re

Boyajian) , 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The BAP properly concluded that Carter’s request for injunctive relief was

moot because Carter sought to enjoin an unlawful detainer proceeding that had

concluded. See Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l

Mass Media T

elecomm. Sys., Inc.) , 152 F.3d 1178, 1180

- 81 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting

forth standard of review and explaining that a case is constitutionally moot when

“an event occurs while a case is pending appeal that makes it impossible for the

court to grant any effectual relief” ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Carter’s contention that the BAP erred by

construing his “time expenditures” as a request for attorney ’s fees.

To the e xtent Carter contends that the BAP improperly remanded his

damages claims to the bankruptcy court instead o f resolving them in the first

instance, we reject such contention as without merit.

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Jordan Alexander CLEMONS, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 18-9361

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                APRIL 30                     APRIL 30
                                          1998           1997          1998            1997
                                      -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                     <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>      
Primary:
    Average shares outstanding          3,656,258      3,656,258      3,656,258      3,613,116

Net effect of dilutive common stock
    equivalents - based on treasury
    stock method (A)                         --             --             --             --

Total weighted average number
    of common and common
    equivalent shares outstanding       3,656,258      3,656,258      3,656,258      3,613,116
                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Net loss                              $   (45,193)   $  (377,355)   $  (865,854)   $   (94,031)
                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Per share amount                      $     (0.01)   $     (0.10)   $     (0.24)   $     (0.03)
                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>

(A) Common stock equivalents are excluded in the three months ended April 30,
1998 and 1997 and in the nine months ended April 30, 1998 and 1997 due to anti
dilutive effect.
Rafael Jacob STOFFEL, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA

No. 19-5112

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
# C_2017048EN.01000301.xml

| 15.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/3

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

1

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 48/04)

Decisions granting an authorisation

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2017) 649 | 8 February 2017 | Trichloroethylene
  EC No 201-167-4
  CAS No 79-01-6 | Grupa Azoty S.A., ul. Kwiatkowskiego 8, 33-101 Tarnów, Poland. | REACH/17/2/0 | Industrial use of trichloroethylene as a process chemical in caprolactam purification | 21 April 2028 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility. |

Reference of the decision (2)

2

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2017) 649

8 February 2017

Trichloroethylene

EC No 201-167-4

CAS No 79-01-6

Grupa Azoty S.A., ul. Kwiatkowskiego 8, 33-101 Tarnów, Poland.

REACH/17/2/0

Industrial use of trichloroethylene as a process chemical in caprolactam purification

21 April 2028

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

2

---
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ANDRES CACERES

- SOLAR I, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1693

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:18

- cv

- 00539

- EJD, Senior Judge Edward J. Damich.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

W ILLIAM C ASSARA
, Cassara Law Office, Evans, GA, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

S ONIA W. M URPHY , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U nited S tates Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by J OSEPH H. H UNT , S TEVEN J OHN G ILLINGHAM
, R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN
, J R

.

______________________ Case: 19-1693 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 02/07/2020T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, Chief Judge, O’M ALLEY and R EYNA
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 7, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 19-1693 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 02/07/2020
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/27/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       82,380
COMMITMENTS
  27,821    2,481    3,614   44,019   73,916   75,454   80,011    6,926    2,369

CHANGES FROM 08/20/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -570)
    -419       27       32      278     -907     -109     -848     -461      278

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    33.8      3.0      4.4     53.4     89.7     91.6     97.1      8.4      2.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       82)
      15        4        1       39       39       54       44
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/27/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      237,497
COMMITMENTS
  67,166   45,668    9,820  144,832  170,558  221,818  226,046   15,679   11,451

CHANGES FROM 08/20/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     13,421)
     297    4,946    7,999    4,115   -3,623   12,411    9,322    1,010    4,099

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    28.3     19.2      4.1     61.0     71.8     93.4     95.2      6.6      4.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      169)
      39       32       13       67       61      114       98
```

----

Updated August 30, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-126-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB

SERVICES,INC., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-123-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

BROADCOM INC., 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-134-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-150-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

F5, INC. 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-26-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING SECOND AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES

AND CONTINUATION OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 31 Filed 03/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 551
Before the Court is Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc.’s Second Agreed Motion for Extension of 

Deadlines and Continuation of Scheduling Conferences. Cause No. 5:23cv126, Dkt. No. 23; 

Cause No. 5:23cv123, Dkt. No. 30; Cause No. 5:23cv134, Dkt. No. 27; Cause No. 5:23cv150, 

Dkt. No. 15; Cause No. 5:24cv26, Dkt. No. 11. The Court, having considered the motion and 

noting it is unopposed, is of the opinion the motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

The Court will set a joint scheduling conference in the 5:23-cv-126, 5:23-cv-123, 5:23-

cv-134, 5:23-cv-150, and 5:24-cv-26 matters after the final defendant, F5, Inc., answers or 

otherwise responds to the complaint in 5:24-cv-26. This will allow all Parties to participate in 

the meet and confer process and propose a joint case schedule to the Court. 

.

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 8th day of March, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 31 Filed 03/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 552
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, No. 333-10017 and 333-58403) pertaining to the ACT Teleconferencing,
Inc. Stock Option Plans of 1991 and 1996, of our report dated February 16, 1999,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ACT Teleconferencing,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31,
1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Denver, Colorado
July 2, 1999
Jimmie Eugene WHITE, II, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-587.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Richard C. ANGINO, et ux., Petitioners, v. TRANSUNION LLC.

No. 19-763.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HANSHOW TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

AND SHANGHAI HANSHI 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., 

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SES-IMAGOTAG SA, SES-IMAGOTAG 

GMBH AND CAPTANA GMBH

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:23-CV-00617-RWS-RSP

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Heather M. Crabill of Platt Richmond PLLC hereby enters 

her appearance as Counsel for Defendants VusionGroup SA, VusionGroup GMBH (formerly 

SES-IMAGOTAG SA, and SES-IMAGOTAG GMBH) and Captana GMBH (collectively, 

“Defendants”) in the above-styled and numbered cause. Copies of all notices, orders, 

correspondence, and any other case-related information in this action should be provided to and 

served at the following address:

HEATHER M. CRABILL

Texas State Bar No. 24131151

hcrabill@plattrichmond.com

1201 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 150

Dallas, Texas 75207

214.559.2700 Main

214.559.4390 Fax

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 33 Filed 04/24/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 391
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE PAGE 2

Dated: April 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heather M. Crabill

Matthew C. Acosta

Texas Bar No. 24062577

macosta@plattrichmond.com

Alex Jacobs

Texas Bar No. 24124175

ajacobs@plattrichmond.com

Heather M. Crabill

Texas State Bar No. 24131151

hcrabill@plattrichmond.com

PLATT RICHMOND PLLC

1201 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 150

Dallas, TX 75207

Tel. (214) 559-2700

Fax: (214) 559-4390

Grant E. Kinsel

Washington State Bar No. 49576

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900

Seattle, WA 98101

Tel: (206) 359-3516

Fax: (206) 359-9000

Eric H. Findlay

State Bar No. 00789886

Findlay Craft, P.C.

7270 Crosswater Avenue

Suite B

Tyler, TX 75703

Tel: (903) 534-1100

Fax: (903) 534-1137

Attorneys for Defendants VusionGroup SA and 

VusionGroup GmbH.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 24, 2024, a true and correct copy of the

above foregoing document was served on the counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF

system.

/s/ Heather M. Crabill

Heather M. Crabill

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 33 Filed 04/24/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 392
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/30/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      362,693
COMMITMENTS
  98,874  170,474   75,187  167,673   92,743  341,734  338,404   20,959   24,289

CHANGES FROM 07/23/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,264)
   3,976   16,421       68   -1,089  -12,867    2,955    3,622      309     -358

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    27.3     47.0     20.7     46.2     25.6     94.2     93.3      5.8      6.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      168)
      48       74       75       36       30      130      139
```

----

Updated August 2, 2013
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Equity Marketing, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Report), I,
Donald A. Kurz, 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 results of operations of the Company /s/ Donald A. KurzDonald A. KurzChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
 Dated: August 16, 2004
William James SPRINGER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7305

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.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

I, Dennis M. Hanson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SteinwayMusical Instruments, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 4, 2004 |                                |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                   | /s/ Dennis M. Hanson                |   |
|                   | Dennis M. Hanson                    |
|                   | Senior Executive Vice President and |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer             |

 

----
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 72 

Recognizing the artistic and cultural contributions of the Alvin Ailey American 

Dance Theater and the 50th Anniversary of the first performance of 

Alvin Ailey’s masterwork, ‘‘Revelations’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted 

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the artistic and cultural contributions of the 

Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater and the 50th Anniversary of the first performance of Alvin Ailey’s 

masterwork, ‘‘Revelations’’. 

Whereas Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater is recognized 

as one of the world’s great dance companies; 

Whereas Congress has recognized the Alvin Ailey American 

Dance Theater as one of our Nation’s most important 

cultural ambassadors; 

Whereas at the age of 29, founder Alvin Ailey first premiered 

the dance work, Revelations, on January 31, 1960, at the 

famed 92nd Street Y in New York City; 

Whereas Revelations is set to spirituals and draws inspiration 

from Ailey’s memories as a child growing up in Texas, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 72 ATS 

and from the work of African-American writers such as 

James Baldwin and Langston Hughes; 

Whereas since its premiere, Revelations has been seen by 

more than 23 million theatergoers, in 71 countries, and 

on 6 continents, making it the most widely seen works of 

modern dance; 

Whereas Revelations was performed in front of a worldwide 

audience as part of the opening ceremonies of the 1968 

Olympic Games in Mexico City; 

Whereas Revelations has been performed for 5 U.S. Presidents, including at the inaugurals of President Carter in 

1977 and President Clinton in 1993; 

Whereas Revelations captures the faith and perseverance of 

the African-American people, and has influenced, and 

was influenced by, African-American cultural heritage 

and the social fabric of the United States; and 

Whereas Revelations is beloved by people around the world, 

and its universal themes illustrate the strength and humanity within all of us: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors the Alvin Ailey 

2 American Dance Theater as it celebrates the 50th anniver3 sary of the dance work Revelations. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
John D. WARD, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6818

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *2627Brown v. United States, 586 U.S. ---- (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
John Stephen ROUTT, Petitioner v. Latanya HOWARD, et al.

No. 18-9714

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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