alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry A. Caesar and Another v. William M. Bernard. Henry A. Caesar and Another v. W. C. Runyon. Henry A. Caesar and Another v. Robert W. Bernard.

Motions granted; questions certified. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. •
Number 7 Pumphouse WaterdistributionNo. 7 PumphouseNo. 7 Blast furnace and No. 4 BOFOperationsIndiana Harbor Ship Canal viaoutfall 018
§ 676.2 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions of the following terms used in this part are set forth in subpart A of the Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668: Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program Academic year Award year Clock hour Enrolled Expected family contribution (EFC) Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Federal Pell Grant Program Federal Perkins Loan Program Federal PLUS Program Federal SLS Program Federal Work-Study (FWS) Program Full-time student HEA National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) Program Payment period Secretary Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program TEACH Grant Undergraduate student
( b ) The Secretary defines other terms used in this part as follows:
**Financial need:* The difference between a student's cost of attendance and his or her EFC.
**Institution of higher education (institution):* A public or private nonprofit institution of higher education, a proprietary institution of higher education, or a postsecondary vocational institution. * *Need-based employment:* Employment provided by an institution itself or by another entity to a student who has demonstrated to the institution or the entity (through standards or methods it establishes) a financial need for the earnings from that employment for the purpose of defraying educational costs of attendance for the award year for which the employment is provided. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1087aa-1087ii)
[52 FR 45778, Dec. 1, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 52582, Dec. 28, 1988; 57 FR 32357, July 21, 1992; 59 FR 61421, Nov. 30, 1994; 60 FR 61815, Dec. 1, 1995; 61 FR 60608, Nov. 29, 1996; 69 FR 12276, Mar. 16, 2004; 71 FR 38003, July 3, 2006; 72 FR 62030, Nov. 1, 2007; 73 FR 35495, June 23, 2008]
§ 682.701 Definitions of terms used in this subpart. The following definitions apply to terms used in this subpart: *Designated Departmental Official:* An official of the Department of Education to whom the Secretary has delegated the responsibility for initiating and pursuing disqualification or limitation, suspension, or termination proceedings.
*Disqualification.* The removal of a lender's eligibility for an indefinite period of time by the Secretary on review of limitation, suspension, or termination action taken against the lender by a guaranty agency.
*Limitation.* The continuation of a lender's or third-party servicer's eligibility subject to compliance with special conditions established by agreement with the Secretary or a guaranty agency, as applicable, or imposed as the result of a limitation or termination proceeding.
*Suspension.* The removal of a lender's eligibility, or a third-party servicer's eligibility to contract with a lender or guaranty agency, for a specified period of time or until the lender or servicer fulfills certain requirements.
*Termination.* ( 1 ) The removal of a lender's eligibility for an indefinite period of time— ( i ) By a guaranty agency; or
( ii ) By the Secretary, based on an action taken by the Secretary, or a designated Departmental official under § 682.706; or
( 2 ) The removal of a third-party servicer's eligibility to contract with a lender or guaranty agency for an indefinite period of time by the Secretary based on an action taken by the Secretary, or a designated Departmental official under § 682.706.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1080, 1082, 1085, 1094)
[57 FR 60323, Dec. 18, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 22457, Apr. 29, 1994; 78 FR 65822, Nov. 1, 2013]
#### § 600.12 Severability.

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.

[84 FR 58916, Nov. 1, 2019]
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 9 -00315-CV Ca r los Bank s , A ppe lla nt

v . Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s , Appellee F ROM THE DIST RICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO . D- 1-FM-0 7-0 06 15 7, HO NO RAB LE S CO TT H. JE NKIN S , J UDGE PRES ID IN G

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt C arl os B ank s h a s f

ile d an un op po se d mo tio n r e qu e sti ngthi s Co ur t to dismiss the instant appea l and is sue m andate immediately upon dismiss al. We grant the moti on and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) . We further instruct the cler

k of this Court to is sue the mand ate up on

dis mis sa l of

the a pp e a l.

__________________________________________

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: September

11, 2009
### §1504. Influencing juror by writing

Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §243 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §137, 35 Stat. 1113).

Last paragraph was added to remove the possibility that a proper request to appear before a grand jury might be construed as a technical violation of this section.

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000" in first par.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 106557

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATRICK R. VIELE, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: June 1, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ Linda A. Berkowitz, Saratoga Springs, for appellant. G. Scott Walling, Special Prosecutor, Schenectady, for respondent.

__________ Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered January 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced him to time served and five years of probation. Defendant now appeals. We affirm. To the extent that defendant challenges the validity of his appeal waiver, the plea colloquy and the counseled written waiver demonstrate that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see-2- 106557

People v Long, 117 AD3d 1326, 1326 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1003 [2014]; People v Frasier, 105 AD3d 1079, 1080 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1088 [2014]). Defendant's valid appeal waiver forecloses his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, except insofar as the alleged ineffective assistance impacted upon the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Brooks, 118 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959 [2014]; People v Livziey, 117 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]). Such claims regarding the voluntariness of his plea are unpreserved for our review, however, as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Terry, 122 AD3d 955, 956 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]). Further, to the extent that defendant alleges that his plea was not voluntary due to counsel's failure to move to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds, the record on appeal is inadequate to assess the merits of the claim, given the lack of any motion before County Court on the issue, and, therefore, it could only be raised in a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Slingerland, 101 AD3d 1265, 1267 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1104 [2013]; People v Obert, 1 AD3d 631, 632 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 764 [2004]). Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 of North American Van
Lines, Inc. (the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                                                          
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/BRIAN P. KELLEYBrian P. Kelley
Chief Executive Officer

November 21,
2003

---

QuickLinks
### §701. Official badges, identification cards, other insignia

Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 731; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(E), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§76a, 76b (June 29, 1932, ch. 306, §§1, 2, 47 Stat. 342; May 22, 1939, ch. 141, 53 Stat. 752).

Sections were consolidated.

The term "department or agency" was substituted for "department or independent office" in two places to embrace all properly constituted agencies as defined in section 6 of this title and to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section.

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $250".
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

 

IN RE: ) 

 ) 

CHARLES EDWARD ANDREWS JR. ) Case No. 19−35231−KRH 

 ) Chapter 7 

 Debtor ) 

STATEMENT OF NO UNPAID DEBTS INCURRED 

AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ORIGINAL BANKRUPTCY CASE 

The undersigned debtor hereby states, under penalty of perjury there have been no additional 

debts incurred since the commencement of the original bankruptcy case. 

/s/ CHARLES EDWARD ANDREWS JR. 

CHARLES EDWARD ANDREWS JR. 

 

 

Dated: December 9, 2019 

 

Case 19-35231-KRH Doc 27 Filed 01/03/20 Entered 01/03/20 13:54:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 5193 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NE

- 35

- - AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Labor to remov e affected part 0.5 $ 42.50 $ 42.50 

### 190 $ 8,075.00


### Prorated cost of life limit reduction $ 0.00 $160 $ 160.00 

### 190 $ 30,400.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 38,475 

### Costs covered under w arranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or mig ht not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
**lb/yr tpy**  **lb/yr tpy** 

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals ChamplainNY 22,577 11.3 1,128,000 564.0 Ferro Corp Zachary LA 18,019 9.0 795,000 397.5 DuPont Teijin Films FayettevilleNC 21,310 10.7 757,000 378.5

Roche-Carolina Florence SC 23,650 11.8 440,000 220.0 Boehringer Ingelheim ChemicalsPetersburgVA 15,523 7.8 407,000 203.5 Cyro Industries Sanford ME 9,632 4.8 300,000 150.0 BASF Corp Monaca PA 4,772 2.4 230,000 115.0 **Total HAP Emissions (uncontrolled)**  **Total HAP Emissions (controlled)**  **Facility Name City**  **State**
§ 694.18 What requirements must be met by a Partnership or State participating in GEAR UP with respect to 21st Century Scholarship Certificates? ( a ) A State or Partnership must provide, in accordance with procedures the Secretary may specify, a 21st Century Scholar Certificate to each student participating in its GEAR UP project.
( b ) 21st Century Scholarship Certificates must be personalized and indicate the amount of Federal financial aid for college and the estimated amount of any scholarship provided under section 404E of the HEA, if applicable, that a student may be eligible to receive.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-26)
[75 FR 65801, Oct. 26, 2010]
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Donald Randall Carter, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00213

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10

- 0080X ). Memorandum Opinion delivere d by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of thi s date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note tha t the appellant, Donald Randall Carter, has adequately indicated his inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 17, 20 13

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1290, -1315

Steven Chu, SECRETARY OF ENERGY,

Appellant,

v.

THE BOEING COMPANY

(Successor-in-Interest of Rockwell International Corporation),

Appellee.

THE BOEING COMPANY

(Successor-in-Interest of Rockwell International Corporation),

Appellant,

v.

Steven Chu, SECRETARY OF ENERGY,

Appellee.

Appeals from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals in case nos.

337, 338, 339, and 978, Administrative Judge R. Anthony McCann.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Secretary of Energy moves for a 21-day extension of time, until August 5,

2009, to file his response to The Boeing Company's motion to dismiss.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.
FOR THE COURT

JUL 1 7 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date	

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Domenique Kirchner, Esq.

Richard J. Ney, Esq.

s17

IP

u.s.coURT

FOFL APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 1 7 2009

JHn HUI1DHLY

CLERK

2009-1290, -1315	2
Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary: IBC Mistakenly Paid More Than $300,000 to the Wrong 

Entity 

Report Date: May 6, 2020 Report Number: 18-0526 

The OIG investigated an allegation that an information technology services contractor intentionally 

diverted a payment made by the Interior Business Center (IBC) away from the contractor’s 

assignee—an entity to which the contractor owed money—into its own bank account. As a result, 

the IBC paid the contractor instead of the assignee, and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

lost more than $300,000. 

We found that the contractor changed its default bank account information in the system of 

award management to its own bank account, which caused the payment diversion, but we could 

not show the contractor changed the account information with the intent of diverting the 

payment. Furthermore, we found the IBC paid the wrong entity because it did not properly enter 

the assignee as the payment recipient in its contract management system. 

We presented this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which declined prosecution. The 

contractor filed for bankruptcy protection and could not return the money to the DOI or the 

assignee. As a result, the DOI paid an additional $324,544 to the assignee to fulfill the money 

owed under the contract. 

This is a summary of an investigative report we issued to the IBC Director.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 10.24


                           SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS INC.
                     SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY'S
                LONG-TERM EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


SunGard Data Systems Inc. has a long-term incentive compensation plan for its
executive officers and other key management employees. The principal purposes of
this plan are to further align the interests of the executives and key employees
with those of the Company's stockholders and to further reward successful
performance.

The plan currently involves the grant of performance accelerated stock options
("PASOs") to purchase shares of the Company's common stock. PASOs are
nonqualified options (i.e., will not qualify as incentive stock options for tax
purposes) that are granted annually at the beginning of a three-year performance
period and have a term of ten years beginning on the date of grant. Shares vest
under PASOs nine and one-half years after the date of grant, except that vesting
may be accelerated in part or in full at the end of the three-year performance
period to the extent that certain financial performance goals are met. In
addition, if performance goals for the three-year performance period are
exceeded, the recipient will receive additional cash compensation at the time
the PASO is exercised.

The number of option shares granted to each participant under a PASO is
determined on the basis of an analysis of competitive equity compensation
programs, and is subject to subjective adjustments based upon individual
factors.  The financial performance goals for each PASO are based upon the
cumulative growth, during the three-year period covered by the PASO, in the
operating income of the business unit(s) managed by the participant, with the
growth targets for all PASOs, taken together, being consistent with the
Company's overall growth objectives.

The Company currently plans, but will have no legal obligation or commitment, to
continue granting such PASOs (or comparable awards) on an annual basis, subject
to approval by the Equity Award Subcommittee of the Compensation Committee of
the Company's Board of Directors.
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

September-12

Note: Shaded area not verified with DFG data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,182 4,380 9,562 10,279 8,688 

2-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,505 4,372 9,877 10,920 8,671 

3-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,256 4,367 9,623 10,425 8,662 

4-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,691 4,368 11,059 13,272 8,663 

5-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,995 4,361 11,356 13,874 8,651 

6-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,924 4,363 11,287 13,733 8,655 

7-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,065 4,356 11,421 14,013 8,640 

8-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,065 4,357 11,422 14,013 8,642 

9-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,037 4,351 11,388 13,957 8,631 

10-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,409 4,345 10,754 12,712 8,618 11-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,452 4,360 9,812 10,814 8,649 12-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,492 4,362 9,855 10,894 8,653 

13-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,429 4,354 9,783 10,768 8,636 

14-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,430 4,370 9,800 10,771 8,668 

15-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,343 4,369 9,711 10,597 8,665 

16-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,943 4,359 8,302 7,821 8,646 

17-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,821 3,774 7,595 7,579 7,485 

18-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,928 3,509 7,437 7,791 6,961 

19-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,336 3,501 6,837 6,617 6,944 

20-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,331 3,260 6,591 6,608 6,466 

21-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,471 3,349 6,819 6,884 6,642 

22-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,430 3,514 6,944 6,804 6,970 

23-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,568 3,519 7,087 7,078 6,980 

24-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,460 3,450 6,911 6,863 6,844 

25-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,727 4,008 7,734 7,392 7,949 

26-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,941 4,099 8,039 7,816 8,130 

27-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 3,514 4,336 7,850 6,971 8,600 28-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 3,521 4,420 7,941 6,983 8,767 

29-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,409 4,347 7,756 6,762 8,623 

30-Sep-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,473 4,362 7,835 6,889 8,652 

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 6 0 6 XXXX 0 0 145,147 123,242 268,390 287,900 244,451 5

Official data is posted on DFG's webpage.

Banks Tracy Combined Banks

Tracy Com
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

s0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139529 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139529 

 COA: 290849 

Wayne CC: 03-008075 

SUSAN BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 25, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).