alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32 5 85 (f rev)

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Joshua R

. BROUSSARD Senior Airman (E

- 4) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Upon Further Review Decided 29 July 20 20

________________________ Military Judge: Jennifer E. Powell

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 150 days , reduction to E

- 1 , and a reprimand . Sentence adjudged 12 March 2019 by SpCM convened at Nellis Air Force Base , Nevada

. For Appellant : None

. *

* On 12 March 2019 , the same date as the announcement of sentence, Appellant executed an Air Force Form 304, Request for Appellate Defense Counsel (May 2000) ( AF Form 304 ) , electing to not request appellate defense counsel to represent him before this court. The AF Form 304 not only provides a means by which an appellant may request or decline appellate counsel, but also includes a declaration that the signatory understands that he or she is entitled to request appellate defense counsel, and that he or she is also entitled t o retain civilian counsel at no expense to the Government. In United States v. Xu , 70 M.J. 140 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (mem.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces concluded that an appellant’s waiver of counsel prior to the convening authority’ s action was premature ; therefore, an appellant is required to be provided an other opportunity to elect if he or she requests appellate defense counsel after the convening authority takes action. This did not occur in Appellant’s case

. On 24 March 2020, th is court remanded Appellant’s case to The Judge Advocate General for a determination as to whether Appellant desire d appellate defense counsel repre-United States v. Broussard , No. ACM S325 85

2 Before MINK, LEWIS , and D. JOHN S ON , Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30 .4.

_______ _______ __________ PE R CURIAM :The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materiall y prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Arti cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c)

. Manual for Courts

- Martial , United States ( 2016 ed. ) . Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFI RMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

sentation and ordered the record of trial returned to this court for completion of appellate review

. On 27 M arch 2020, Appellant signed a second AF Form 304 indicating he did not want appell ate defense counsel representation.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018210EN.01000701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/7 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8987 — HPS/MDP/HAPS)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 210/07)

1.

On 11 June 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018210EN.01000701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | HPS Investment Partners, LLC (USA) (‘HPS’), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC (USA) (‘MDP’), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Health and Protection Solutions Limited (United Kingdom) (‘HAPS’) |

HPS and MDP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of HAPS.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for HPS: a US-based investment firm with a focus on acquisitions and strategic financing or recapitalisation of companies that require financial assistance,

—   for MDP: a US-based private equity investment firm,

—   for HAPS: a UK provider of private medical, dental and travel insurance and related services to individuals and corporate groups.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018210EN.01000701-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8987 — HPS/MDP/HAPS

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018210EN.01000701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018210EN.01000701-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
___________ No. 95-2323

___________ John Rust; Otha Hart; Jerry * Bussard; James Wichman, * * Appellants, * * Leslie Bussard, * * Plaintiff, * * William Durand, * * Appellant, * * Gary Durand, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Plaintiff, * District of Nebraska. * Robert Sams; Colin Allen; James * [UNPUBLISHED] Harlow; Terrence Tager; Robert * Costello, * * Appellants, * * Roy Lyman, * *

Plaintiff, * * v. * * Harold W. Clarke, Individually * and as Director of Nebraska * Department of Correctional * Services; Gary Grammer, * Individually and as Assistant * Director of Adult Institutions * for the Nebraska Department of * Correctional Services; Frank X. * Hopkins, Individually and as * Warden of the Nebraska State * Penitentiary; Robert Houston, * Individually and as Deputy * Warden of the Nebraska State * Penitentiary; Mark W. Rosenau, * Individually and as the * Protestant Chaplain and Head of * the Religion Department for the * State of Nebraska; Dean Naylor, *

### -2-

Individually and as the Major * for Custody Force for the * Nebraska State Penitentiary; * Mario Peart, Individually and * as Associate Warden/External * Operations for the Nebraska * State Penitentiary; Kathleen R. * Taylor, Individually and as * Food Service Director for the * Nebraska State Penitentiary; * Mike Kenney, Individually and * as Deputy Warden of the NE * State Penitentiary, * * Appellees.

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1996 Filed: May 10, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
JohnRust and other prisoners at the Nebraska State Penitentiary (NSP), practitioners of the Asatru religion, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action, alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (1994). Following a bench tri al, the District Court entered judgment in favor of defendant prison officials, and plaint iffs appeal. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court that defendantsdid not violate the RFRA. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6392

JOHNNY RAY GAMBRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SC, STATE OF; WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-02911-JMC)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Ray Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Ray Gambrell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate 

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gambrell

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation 

could waive appellate review of a district court order based 

upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 

been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gambrell has waived 

appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving 

proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2017421EN.01001801.xml

| 8.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/18

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2017/C 421/10)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 23.10.2017 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 23.10.2017-31.12.2017 |
| Member State | Portugal |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SBR/09- (including special condition SBR/*678-) |
| Species | Red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of IX |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 32/TQ2285 |

Date and time of closure

23.10.2017

Duration

23.10.2017-31.12.2017

Member State

Portugal

Stock or Group of stocks

SBR/09- (including special condition SBR/*678-)

Species

Red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo)

Pagellus bogaraveo

Zone

Union and international waters of IX

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

32/TQ2285

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
Roy WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 18-9585

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for *328a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
# C_2018119EN.01000102.xml

| 5.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8742 — IBM/Maersk/GTD JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 119/02)

On 23 March 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8742. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8742. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of the
High Income Opportunity Fund Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the High Income Opportunity Fund Inc. (the "Fund") for the
year ended September 30, 1999, we considered its internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
the internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than the specified parties.



November 16, 1999
```

```

----

Updated January 24, 2014
WEIXING WANG, Petitioner, v. Robert MARCOTTE.

No. 19-8061.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until June 8, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a).
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Smith Barney Small Cap Blend Fund, Inc.:
(formerly known as Smith Barney Disciplined
Small Cap Fund, Inc.)

We consent to the reference to our Firm under the heading "Financial 
Highlights" in the Supplement dated January 30, 1998 to the Prospectus dated 
June 23, 1997.
 



	KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
January 30, 1998
# C_2017331EN.01000401.xml

| 3.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/4

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2017/C 331/05)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 19 August 2017 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 19 August 2017 – 31 December 2017 |
| Member State | Portugal |
| Stock or Group of stocks | BFT/AE45WM |
| Species | Bluefin tuna (thunnus thynnus) |
| Zone | Atlantic Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 15/TQ127 |

Date and time of closure

19 August 2017

Duration

19 August 2017 – 31 December 2017

Member State

Portugal

Stock or Group of stocks

BFT/AE45WM

Species

Bluefin tuna (thunnus thynnus)

thunnus thynnus

Zone

Atlantic Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

15/TQ127

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
Daryll Keith SHUMAKE, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA

No. 19-5152

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6758

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEVEN JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (3:95-0488)

Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Steven Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong

and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is

likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Johnson’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Johnson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DONNA L. MEANOR, AS EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT WAGNER, 

SR., DECEASED; FAIRMAN DRILLING 

COMPANY; ALAN R. FAIRMAN; SANDRA 

R. FAIRMAN; RONALD R. FAIRMAN; 

BEVERLY A. FAIRMAN; RICHARD M. 

FAIRMAN; GARY D. FAIRMAN; FRANK 

G. FAIRMAN;TERRY L. FAIRMAN; 

WILLIAM WOOD AND BETTY WOOD, 

HIS WIFE; DOLORES M. WAGNER; 

DOLORES J. WAGNER; COUNTY-WIDE 

REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC.; B. 

LEONARD BRODY; PATRICK F. 

MCCARTHY; E. JAMES TRIMARCHI; 

DAVID R. TOMB; WAGNER AND 

WAGNER; JAMES CARSON AND 

SUSAN CARSON, HIS WIFE

v.

PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY, 

LLC, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO 

EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, A 

DIVISION OF THE FORMER EQUITABLE 

RESOURCES, INC.

PETITION OF: FAIRMAN DRILLING 

COMPANY, ALAN R. FAIRMAN, 

SANDRA R. FAIRMAN, RONALD R. 

FAIRMAN, BEVERLY A. FAIRMAN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 151 WAL 2019

Cross Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court

DONNA L. MEANOR, AS EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT WAGNER, 

SR., DECEASED; FAIRMAN DRILLING 

COMPANY; ALAN R. FAIRMAN; SANDRA 

R. FAIRMAN; RONALD R. FAIRMAN; 

BEVERLY A. FAIRMAN; RICHARD M. 

FAIRMAN; GARY D. FAIRMAN; FRANK 

G. FAIRMAN;TERRY L. FAIRMAN; 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 152 WAL 2019

Cross Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court
[151 WAL 2019 and 152 WAL 2019] - 2

WILLIAM WOOD AND BETTY WOOD, 

HIS WIFE; DOLORES M. WAGNER; 

DOLORES J. WAGNER; COUNTY-WIDE 

REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC.; B. 

LEONARD BRODY; PATRICK F. 

MCCARTHY; E. JAMES TRIMARCHI; 

DAVID R. TOMB; WAGNER AND 

WAGNER; JAMES CARSON AND 

SUSAN CARSON, HIS WIFE

v.

PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY, 

LLC, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO 

EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, A 

DIVISION OF THE FORMER EQUITABLE 

RESOURCES, INC.

PETITION OF: FAIRMAN DRILLING 

COMPANY, ALAN R. FAIRMAN, SANDRA 

R. FAIRMAN, RONALD R. FAIRMAN, 

BEVERLY A. FAIRMAN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2019, the Cross Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Donte ISLAND, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5891

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Arthur RATHBURN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5819

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Junior Jean BAPTISTE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7988.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

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