alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
YULEIDIS VEGA

, Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION AND SEABOARD MARINE LTD. INC.

, Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISP OSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4354

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

. Frank E. Brown, Chairman

. Yuleidis Vega, pro se

, Appellant.

Norman A. Blessing, General Counsel, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Durando v. Palm Beach County , 719 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1998).

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Appellate case name: Humble Surgical Hospital, L.L.C. v. Courtney Johnson, as Representative of the Estate of John V. Johnson, III, Deceased and As Next Friend of Minor, P.J., B.J. and K.J.

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 004 33

- C V

Trial court case number: 2015

- 20512

Trial court: 333th District Court of Harris County

On November 15, 2016, th is Court had granted the agreed motion of the parties to abate this appeal and remand to the trial court to explore settlement through a mediation

scheduled for December 2016. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C). That Order also stated that this appeal would be rei nstated within 60 days of that Order unless either party filed a motion to extend the abatement or to reinstate this appeal. On January 20, 2017, the parties filed this agreed motion to reinstate this appeal

, stating that, although mediation was completed on December 19, 2016, the case was not resolved, and further request that this Court reinstate this accelerated appeal. Also on January 20, 2017, the appellee, Courtney Johnson, as Representative of the Estate of John V. Johnson, III, Deceased and As Next Friend of Minor, P.J., B.J. and K.J., filed her appellee’s brief in this Court. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the agreed motion to reinstate . T he Clerk of

this Court is directed to REINSTATE this appeal on the active docket and to mark it as ready to be set at issue

. Appellant’s reply brief, if any, is due within 20 days of the date

of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 2, 38

. 6(c), 39.8. Th e Clerk of this Court will set this

case at a later date for submission at the soonest practicable time and may set it without the reply brief being filed

. See id. 38.3, 39.8.

It is so ORDERED

. Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually

Date: January 26, 2017
## THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. PONS 10900 N ORTHWEST FRWY . H OUSTON, TX . 77092 P (832) 372 - 8138 F (713) 869 - 8330 April 23 , 2015 Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308

– Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 RE: KEVIN LAVELLE KENT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Case No.: PD

- 1340

- 14 Trial Court No.: 1253665 Dear Mr. Acosta: I plan to present oral argument in the above c ase in Austin on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 9:00 AM. A copy of this notice is being sent to the attorney of record.

/s/ James Pons JAMES F. PONS SBN: 24041707 10900 Northwest Frwy., Ste. 230 Houston, TX 77092 PH (832)372

- 8138 F (713)869

- 8330 PD-1340-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/23/2015 9:28:59 AM Accepted 4/23/2015 9:31:55 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,197.18

 1,197.24

 1,197.30

 1,197.35

 1,197.40

 1,197.61

 1,198.16

 1,198.36

 1,198.66

 1,198.77

 1,198.59

 1,198.51

 1,198.46

 1,198.42

 1,198.42

 1,198.83

 1,199.87

 1,199.13

 1,198.85

 1,198.73

 1,198.77

 1,198.69

 1,198.61

 1,198.56

 1,198.52

 1,198.48

 1,198.47

 1,198.45

 1,198.44

 1,198.43

 1,198.42

 46.47

 46.58

 46.68

 46.77

 46.85

 47.22

 48.18

 48.53

 49.06

 49.25

 48.94

 48.79

 48.71

 48.63

 48.63

 49.36

 51.23

 49.90

 49.40

 49.18

 49.25

 49.11

 48.97

 48.88

 48.81

 48.74

 48.72

 48.69

 48.67

 48.65

 48.63

STORAGE

+0.09

+0.10

+0.10

+0.09

+0.09

+0.36

+0.96

+0.35

+0.53

+0.20

-0.32

-0.14

-0.09

-0.07

+0.00

+0.73

+1.87

-1.34

-0.50

-0.21

+0.07

-0.14

-0.14

-0.09

-0.07

-0.07

-0.02

-0.04

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

CHANGE

52

58

55

45

47

187

486

271

655

617

145

150

131

105

142

961

3,514

350

367

362

559

350

259

230

200

160

177

151

150

142

132

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 92

 383

 516

 303

 220

 173

 138

 138

 592

 2,564

 1,020

 617

 467

 516

 419

 326

 271

 230

 191

 182

 164

 155

 147

 138

SPILL

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

OUTLET

 8

 5

 2

 1

 2

 3

 1

 1

 3

 2

 2

 1

 1

 2

 3

 1

 5

 3

 1

 2

 6

 2

 4

 2

 5

 4

 3

 4

 3

 3

 2

C.F.S.

 .14

 .09

 .04

 .02

 .04

 .05

 .02

 .01

 .05

 .04

 .03

 .01

 .02

 .03

 .05

 .02

 .08

 .06

 .02

 .04

 .10

 .04

 .07

 .04

 .08

 .07

 .06

 .07

 .06

 .05

 .03

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .83

 .77

 .04

 1.07

 .11

 .01

 .13

 .00

 .00

 .29

 .96

 1.30

 .19

 .18

 .01

 .10

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2019 EAST PARK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 03/05/2019

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +2.24 11,210 31 9,962 87 1.53 5.99

ACRE-FEET +2,240 22,235 61 19,760 173

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 AM.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 19,760

OUTLET

TOTAL

 61

 19,821

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 5.99

JULY 1, 2018 10.18

 46.39

OCT 1, 2018 TO DATE = 10.18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 181

 192

 198

 200

 205

 204

 188

 185

 179

 164

 152

 141

 146

 134

 136

 138

 142

 140

 135

 138

 139

 145

 146

 153

 157

 160

 163

 167

 168

 180

 169

 180

 184

 186

 185

 181

 172

 163

 145

 130

 131

 130

 117

 126

 131

 133

 135

 133

 128

 131

 132

 134

 137

 141

 145

 152

 158

 156

 163

 165

 175

 185

 189

 192

 193

 188

 178

 172

 160

 146

 139

 135

 134

 130

 134

 136

 138

 136

 132

 134

 135

 138

 140

 146

 151

 156

 161

 163

 165

 168

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 19, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,539

 2,537

 2,537

 2,531

 2,523

 2,514

 2,501

 2,488

 2,472

 2,449

 2,425

 2,392

 2,356

 2,316

 2,275

 2,226

 2,175

 2,119

 2,058

 2,004

 1,961

 1,927

 1,907

 1,907

 1,919

 1,940

 1,967

 2,000

 2,031

 2,063

 181

 181

 181

 181

 180

 180

 179

 178

 177

 175

 173

 171

 168

 165

 163

 159

 155

 151

 147

 143

 140

 138

 136

 136

 137

 139

 141

 143

 145

 147

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20452

Summary Calendar

 

GREG PECK SAMUELS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. ALARID,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-2744

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Greg Peck Samuels (# 639112), a state prisoner, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. Samuels

contends that corrections officer R. Alarid retaliated against him

because of grievances lodged against Alarid by Samuels. We have

carefully reviewed the record and Samuels’s brief and, essentially

for reasons stated by the district court, see Samuels v. Broussard,

No. H-96-CV-1941 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 1997) (unpublished), hold that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this

claim as frivolous. 
Samuels also complains that the disciplinary charges resulted

in a loss of good-time credit. This claim is premature under Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 117

S. Ct. 1584, 1589 (1997).

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136980 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136980 

 COA: 285203 

Genesee CC: 07-020307-FH 

JAMES MICHAEL HOUCK,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on 

leave granted, of whether Offense Variable 9, MCL 777.39, and Offense Variable 10, 

MCL 777.40, were properly scored under the facts of this case. In all other respects, 

leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
§ 75.109 Changes to application; number of copies. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70321 , Aug. 29, 2024.
( a ) Each applicant that submits a paper application shall submit an original and two copies to the Department, including any information that the applicant supplies voluntarily.
( b ) An applicant may make changes to its application on or before the deadline date for submitting applications under the program. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)


Cross Reference:
See § 75.200 How applications for new grants are selected for funding. [45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 69 FR 41201, July 8, 2004]
#### Anna Davies, Respondent, v. Louis F. Stumpf et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [179 Misc. 401.]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 769

 776

 868

 910

 1,002

 911

 940

 942

 845

 832

 829

 812

 797

 759

 807

 781

 771

 785

 736

 906

 931

 727

 802

 840

 963

 977

 951

 922

 900

 870

 893

 581

 624

 717

 702

 746

 787

 770

 677

 703

 708

 650

 631

 644

 650

 651

 655

 611

 566

 570

 583

 664

 660

 736

 798

 819

 848

 872

 869

 871

 849

 786

 695

 674

 780

 795

 898

 851

 847

 806

 772

 769

 745

 703

 710

 704

 721

 694

 672

 643

 613

 683

 773

 672

 776

 823

 856

 898

 908

 899

 887

 857

 831

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 446

 433

 498

 507

 571

 542

 539

 514

 493

 491

 476

 450

 455

 451

 462

 445

 431

 413

 395

 438

 494

 431

 496

 525

 545

 571

 577

 572

 564

 546

 530

TOTAL 23,955

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121539, Form S-8 No. 333-112365, Form S-8No. 333-72444 and Form S-8 No. 333-42904) pertaining to the California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, the California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1998 Stock-Based Incentive CompensationPlan and 1990 Employee Stock Option Plan of our reports dated March 9, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of California Pizza Kitchen, Inc.; California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting; and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

Los Angeles, California 

March 9, 2007
§ 690.67 Eligibility to receive additional Federal Pell Grant funds in an amount up to one-half of a Scheduled Award during a single award year. An institution awards additional Federal Pell Grant funds up to one-half of a Scheduled Award to a student in an award year if the student is enrolled— ( a ) In an eligible program leading to a bachelor's or associate's degree or other recognized educational credential, except as provided in 34 CFR part 668, subpart O, for students with intellectual disabilities, for one or more additional payment periods during the same award year that are not fully covered by the student's initial Federal Pell Grant Scheduled Award; and
( b ) At least as a half-time student in the payment period(s) for which the student receives any portion of the additional Federal Pell Grant funds.
[86 FR 59626, Oct. 28, 2021]
§ 86.302 What are the procedures used by the Secretary for providing information or technical assistance? ( a ) The Secretary provides information or technical assistance to an IHE in writing, through site visits, or by other means.
( b ) The IHE shall inform the Secretary of any corrective action it has taken within a period specified by the Secretary.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1145g)
[55 FR 33581, Aug. 16, 1990, as amended at 61 FR 66225, Dec. 17, 1996]
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 American Racing Capital, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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 operation of the
Company.


Date: November 14, 2006            By:    /s/ A. Robert Koveleski
                                          --------------------------------------
                                   Name:  A. Robert Koveleski
                                   Title: Interim President and CEO, and Interim
                                          Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Racing Capital,
Inc. and will be retained by American Racing Capital, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 444

 434

 414

 413

 410

 413

 420

 423

 429

 427

 424

 424

 422

 409

 409

 416

 408

 399

 403

 402

 403

 414

 423

 431

 421

 416

 433

 427

 427

 428

 428

 393

 390

 388

 393

 395

 396

 400

 407

 405

 395

 391

 395

 397

 391

 381

 374

 374

 385

 384

 393

 389

 395

 384

 360

 356

 361

 363

 367

 366

 366

 370

 407

 403

 399

 403

 403

 405

 408

 411

 412

 405

 406

 408

 405

 398

 394

 394

 389

 393

 390

 397

 395

 403

 396

 384

 372

 376

 382

 388

 386

 384

 387

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:June 10, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 268

 265

 263

 265

 265

 266

 268

 270

 271

 266

 267

 268

 266

 262

 259

 259

 256

 259

 257

 261

 260

 265

 261

 253

 246

 248

 252

 256

 255

 253

 255

TOTAL 12,283

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 4144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARQUEL MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:17

- cr - 00134

- FDW

- DSC

- 15 )

Submitted : March 18, 2021 Decided: March 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marquel Michael Cunningham pled guilty , pursuant to a plea agreement , to conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1963(a) , and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. On appeal, Cunni ngham’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues, but suggesting that defense counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance

. Cunningham has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so, and the Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm. Appellate c ounsel suggests that plea counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to review di scovery with Cunningham before allowing Cunningham to plead guilty. Unless the record conclusively establishes that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, however, such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Faulls , 821 F.3d 502, 507

- 08 (4th Cir. 2016). Because the record does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to address this claim on direct appeal. Thus, Cunningham’s argument is more appropriately raised, if at all, in a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Jordan , 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , No. 20

- 256, 2021 WL 78100 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2021)

. We express no opinion as to the merits of Cunningham’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
In acc ordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Cunningham , in writing, of the right to petition the Supre me3 Court of the United States for further review. If Cunningham requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s moti on must state that a copy thereof was served on Cunningham . 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.
AFFIRMED
§ 300.6 Assistive technology service. *Assistive technology service* means any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. The term includes— ( a ) The evaluation of the needs of a child with a disability, including a functional evaluation of the child in the child's customary environment;
( b ) Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by children with disabilities;
( c ) Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing assistive technology devices;
( d ) Coordinating and using other therapies, interventions, or services with assistive technology devices, such as those associated with existing education and rehabilitation plans and programs;
( e ) Training or technical assistance for a child with a disability or, if appropriate, that child's family; and
( f ) Training or technical assistance for professionals (including individuals providing education or rehabilitation services), employers, or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of that child.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(2))
§ 657.11 How does a student apply for a fellowship? ( a ) A student shall apply for a fellowship directly to an institution of higher education that has received an allocation of fellowships.
( b ) The applicant shall provide sufficient information to enable the institution to determine whether he or she is eligible to receive a fellowship and whether he or she should be selected to receive a fellowship.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)
#### § 303.236 Judicial review.

If a State is dissatisfied with the Secretary's final decision with respect to the eligibility of the State under part C of the Act, the State may, not later than 60 days after notice of that decision, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which that State is located a petition for review of that decision. A copy of the petition must be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary. The Secretary then files in the court the record of the proceedings upon which the Secretary's action was based, as provided in 28 U.S.C. 2112.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1437(c))
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128740 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DAVID ST. AMANT,

Plaintiff-Counter 

Defendant-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128740 

 COA: 252656 

CITY OF TAYLOR,

Defendant-Counter 

Wayne CC: 02-223628-CE 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1121 

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. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk