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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CLARENCE HICKS, a/k/a Bunky, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-BEL-9; 1:02-cv-02076-BEL)

Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Hicks has not made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.23 Projects in declining neighborhoods.

A Mortgage financing the repair, rehabilitation or construction of a project located in an older declining urban area shall be eligible for insurance pursuant to provisions of section 223(e) of the Act and such terms and conditions established by the Commissioner.
Attendee Report GoToWebinar

Webinar Name Webinar ID

ASRAC Commercial HVAC, CRE, and WH 

Working Group: Meeting and Webinar

868485249

Actual Start Date/Time Actual Duration (minutes) 

Aug 28, 2013 08:10 AM EDT 444

Total Attended

28

Session Details

First Name Last Name Email Country Address City State Organization Zip Code

Jeff Bauman US 539 Dunksgerry Rd. Bensalem PA National Refrigeration 19020

Rodney Beever US 491 E. princess St. York PA united CoolAir Corp. 17403

Joshua Cocciardi US 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW washington DC Dept. Of Energy 20585

Brian Ferriol US 13745 Victoria Lakes Drive Jacksonville FL UL LLC 32226

Marshall Hunt US 245 Market Street San Francisco CA PG&E 94177

Diane Jakobs US 5600 Old Greenwood Road Fort Smith AR Rheem Heating & Cooling 72917

brian jeanes US 908 hwy 15 North New albany MS Master-Bilt 38652

tom johnson US 13600 ind park blvd plymouth MN daikin mcquay 55441

Dominic Kolandayan US 1645 Wallace Dr, Suite 110 Carrollton PA Daikin 75006

Stephen Kowalski US 2701 Wilma Rudolph Blvd. Clarksville TN Ingersoll Rand - Trane North America 37040

BILL LARSON US 727 second street hudson WI Norlake 54016

steven maddox US 5005 york drive norman OK johnson controls 73069

John McLaughlin US 4900 Tech Blvd Auburn NY Daikin McQuay 13021

David Mecadon US 539 Dunksferry Road Bensalem PA National Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning

19020

Mark Menzer US 11112 Chessington Reston VA Intertek 20194

John Morris US 539 Dunksferry Rd Bensalem PA Continental Refrigerator 19020

Frank Myers US 3209 Galvez Ave Fort Worth TX PVI Industries, LLC 76111

charity njau US 770 Garrison Ave Bronx NY Summit Appliance 10474

Joe Sanders US 4401 Blue Mound Rd. Fort Worth TX Traulsen 76106

Ron Shebik US 12999 St. Charles Rock Road St. Louis MO HUssmann 63044

Phillip Stephens US 120 Braley Road East Freetown MA HTP, Inc. 02717

Dean Swofford US 1925 Ruffin Mill Rd Colonial Heights VA Hillphoenix 23834

General Information
Rusty Tharp US 5151 San Felipe Houston TX Goodman Manufacturing 77056

Eric Truskoski US 200 Lafayette St. Middleville MI Bradford White Corporation 49333

Mira Vowles US 905 NE 11th Ave, PEJD-1 Portland OR BPA 97232

kevin washington US 1250 conn ave nw washington DC itw 20036

Linda Wilson US 120 Broadway New York NY NYS OAG 10271

Michael Woodford US 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite # 500 Arlignton VA AHRI 22201
#### TIRRILL, Respondent, v. SNIFFEN et al. (NORTH AMERICAN TRUST CO., Appellant).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Oakes Tirrill against Edward D. Sniffen, the North American Trust Company, appellant, and the Washington Life Insurance Company, defendant.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and order for examination vacated on the ground that no sufficient reason appears for examining the officers of the defendant before the trial rather than at the trial itself. See Hay v. Zeiger, 50 App. Div. 462, 64 N. Y. Supp. 202.
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

12585.009.1491044v1 1 Case No. CV 08 5773 PVT

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C

O

BLE

N

T

Z, P

A

T

C

H, D

U

F

F

Y

&

B

A

S

S

L

L

P

ON E F E R R Y B U I L D I N G , S U I T E 20

0, SA N F R A N C I S C O , CA L I F O R N I A 9

4 111-42 13

415 .3

9 1.4

8

0

0 • F A X 4 15 .9

8

9 .16

6

3

JONATHAN R. BASS (State Bar No. 75779)

COBLENTZ, PATCH, DUFFY & BASS LLP

One Ferry Building, Suite 200

San Francisco, California 94111-4213

Telephone: 415.391.4800

Facsimile: 415.989.1663

Email: ef-jrb@cpdb.com

Attorneys for Defendant Deborah Koons Garcia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN MORA, as Trustee of The Merl

Saunders Trust; MERL SAUNDERS, JR., as

Trustee of The Merl Saunders Trust; and TONY

SAUNDERS, as Trustee of The Merl Saunders

Trust,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JERRY GARCIA ESTATE LLC, a California

limited liability company, JERRY GARCIA

FAMILY LLC, a California limited liability

company, RHINO ENTERTAINMENT

COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; WARNER

MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware corporation;

WARNER STRATEGIC MARKETING, INC., a

Delaware corporation; DEBORAH KOONSGARCIA (sued as DOE 1), an individual;

DEBORAH KOONS-GARCIA (sued as DOE 2)

and DAVID HELLMAN (sued as DOE 3), and

DOES 5 through 10, as Trustees of the KEELIN

GARCIA TESTAMENTARY TRUST (sued as

DOE 4); and DOES 11 through 1000, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 08 5772 PVT

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR

DEFENDANT DEBORAH KOONS

GARCIA TO RESPOND TO FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(N.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 6-1(a))

Case 3:08-cv-05772-RS Document 32 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 2
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

12585.009.1491044v1 1 Case No. CV 08 5773 PVT

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C

O

BLE

N

T

Z, P

A

T

C

H, D

U

F

F

Y

&

B

A

S

S

L

L

P

ON E F E R R Y B U I L D I N G , S U I T E 20

0, SA N F R A N C I S C O , CA L I F O R N I A 9

4 111-42 13

415 .3

9 1.4

8

0

0 • F A X 4 15 .9

8

9 .16

6

3

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT

DEBORAH KOONS GARCIA TO RESPOND

TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(N.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 6-1(a))

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6.1(a), IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by

Plaintiffs and Defendant Deborah Koons Garcia, by and through their undersigned counsel, that

Deborah Koons Garcia's time to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (filed on June 26,

2009 [Docket No. 11]) is hereby extended up to and including August 9, 2010.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: July 8, 2010 COBLENTZ, PATCH, DUFFY & BASS LLP

By: /S/

Jonathan R. Bass

Attorneys for Defendant Deborah Koons Garcia

DATED: July ___, 2010 IDELL AND SEITEL, LLP

By: /S/

Richard J. Idell

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: July ___, 2010

United States District Judge

20 9

Case 3:08-cv-05772-RS Document 32 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128137 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: 128137 COA: 237031 Wayne CC: 00-007169-01 MATTHEW SARAMPOTE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the defendant’s application for leave to app eal within 28 days after the date of this order. The prosecutor sha ll pay particular attention to

defendant’s contention that his trial coun sel was ineffective for failing to exercise a peremptory challenge to excuse a specific prospective juror.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.

s0914 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.

September 21, 2005

Clerk
Case 3:09-cv-01529-SI Document 71 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01529-SI Document 71 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01529-SI Document 71 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 5
July 16, 2010 3:00 p.m.

Case 3:09-cv-01529-SI Document 71 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01529-SI Document 71 Filed 05/04/10 Page 5 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 4 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 5 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 6 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 7 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 8 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 9 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 10 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 11 of 12
Case 3:09-cv-01483-EMC Document 70 Filed 02/16/10 Page 12 of 12
### §1312. Seaward boundaries of States

The seaward boundary of each original coastal State is approved and confirmed as a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line or, in the case of the Great Lakes, to the international boundary. Any State admitted subsequent to the formation of the Union which has not already done so may extend its seaward boundaries to a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line, or to the international boundaries of the United States in the Great Lakes or any other body of water traversed by such boundaries. Any claim heretofore or hereafter asserted either by constitutional provision, statute, or otherwise, indicating the intent of a State so to extend its boundaries is approved and confirmed, without prejudice to its claim, if any it has, that its boundaries extend beyond that line. Nothing in this section is to be construed as questioning or in any manner prejudicing the existence of any State's seaward boundary beyond three geographical miles if it was so provided by its constitution or laws prior to or at the time such State became a member of the Union, or if it has been heretofore approved by Congress.

(May 22, 1953, ch. 65, title II, §4, 67 Stat. 31.)
#### § 1000.160 Are non-dwelling structures developed, acquired or assisted under the IHBG program subject to limitations on cost or design standards?

Yes. Non-dwelling structures must be of a design, size and with features or amenities that are reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purpose intended by the structures. The purpose of a non-dwelling structure must be to support an affordable housing activity, as defined by the Act.

[66 FR 49790, Sept. 28, 2001]
### §129. Office rent and clerk hire for consolidated land offices

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make a reasonable allowance for office rent for each consolidated land office; and when satisfied of the necessity therefor, to approve the employment of one or more clerks, at a reasonable per diem compensation, for such time as such clerical force is absolutely required to keep up the current public business, which clerical force shall be paid out of the surplus fees authorized to be charged by section 84 1 of this title, if any, and if no surplus exists, then out of the appropriation for incidental expenses of district land offices; but no clerk shall be so paid unless his employment has been first sanctioned by the Secretary of the Interior.

(R.S. §2255; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 84 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 86–649, title II, §202(b), July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 507. See section 1734 of this title.

#### Codification

R.S. §2255 derived from act Feb. 18, 1861, ch. 38, §2, 12 Stat. 131.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

Words "by the register" following "to approve the employment" omitted on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLAS ACHO,

Plaintiff(s),

    v.

ESTATE OF ROBERT CORT et al,

Defendant(s).                                                                      /

No. C 09-0157 MHP

ORDER(Ninety-Day Conditional Dismissal)

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, with a proof of service of a copy on

opposing counsel, within 90 days from the date hereof, that the agreed consideration for the

settlement has not been delivered over, this Order shall stand vacated, and the action shall be

restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated:   2/18/2010MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00157-MHP   Document 37   Filed 02/18/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T11:40:28-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

SERVICE EMPLOYEES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-00404 WHA (MEJ)

ORDER RE: FUDR DISCOVERY

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters regarding Plaintiff UHW’s request for discovery

related to the Fund for Union Democracy and Reform (“FUDR”), filed January 13 and 20, 2010. 

(Dkt. ## 456, 459.) In its request, Plaintiff seeks the following documents from FUDR:

1) documents pertaining to FUDR’s structure and governance;

2) documents related to communications with the State of California; and

3) documents concerning FUDR’s communications with UHW.

UHW argues that the first two requests are simple background documents that seek information on

FUDR’s history and status. As to the third, UHW argues that the purpose of this request is to

explore the extent to which Defendants were involved in setting up FUDR and the extent to which

the two entities were interrelated. Although Defendants originally raised objections on grounds of

privilege, privacy, etc., UHW argues that these objections cannot withstand scrutiny as by definition

UHW was a party to all communications, and it waives any such objections.

In response, Defendants appear to make two contradictory arguments. Defendants first argue

that FUDR is an independent organization with its own leadership and counsel. But they then argue

that they have produced all FUDR documents in their possession. As UHW seeks a court order

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 460 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

compelling FUDR to produce responsive documents, and Defendants state that FUDR is an

independent organization, it is unclear why Defendants are limiting the dispute to documents in their

possession rather than FUDR’s. Further, the Court agrees that FUDR cannot object to disclosure of

communications that it has shared with an entity that waives the objection. Accordingly, the Court

hereby ORDERS FUDR to search for and produce documents responsive to document supoena’s

Requests Numbers 1, 2, and 9, as limited by UHW’s January 13, 2010 letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 460 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 201.62 Claims against debtors—interest, penalties, and administrative costs. ( a ) *Interest.* In addition to the principal amount of the debt, the debtor is liable for the payment of interest. Interest accrues on the principal amount of the debt as of the date of default, as defined in § 201.2(h) of this part, as follows: ( 1 ) In the case of a debt based upon the assignment of a defaulted note, interest is assessed at the lesser of the rate specified in the note or the United States Treasury's current value of funds rate in effect on the date the Title I insurance claim was paid.
( 2 ) In the case of a debt based upon the assignment of a judgment, interest is assessed at the lesser of the rate specified in the judgment or the United States Treasury's current value of funds rate in effect on the date the Title I insurance claim was paid.
( b ) *Penalties and administrative costs.* The Secretary shall assess reasonable administrative costs and penalties as authorized in 31 U.S.C. 3717, unless there is no provision in the note providing for such charges and the debtor has not otherwise consented to liability for such charges.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ZORAIDA SEPULVEDA , Appellant,

v.

JAIME RIVERA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 39

[ January 21, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Maxine Chessman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2003

- DR

007465

- XXXX

- MB

.
Craig A. Boudreau of Boudreau Law, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Gina M. Szapucki and Caryn A. Stevens of Ward, Damon, Posner, Pheterson & Bleau, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIA M

.
Affirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., G ROSS and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### §§71n to 71q. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 71n, act Apr. 9, 1930, ch. 125, §10(b), 46 Stat. 152, which provided for pay and allowances of Surgeon General and for reversion in grade on expiration of term, was transferred to section 11a of this title.

Section 71o, act Apr. 9, 1930, ch. 125, §10(c), 46 Stat. 152, which provided for a Chief of the Narcotics Division, was transferred to section 28a of this title.

Section 71p, act Aug. 9, 1930, ch. 125, §11, 46 Stat. 152, which provided for appointment and qualifications of employees other than commissioned officers, was transferred to section 40 of this title.

Section 71q, act Apr. 9, 1930, ch. 125, §12, 46 Stat. 152, which provided for medical and hospital services to officers disabled by sickness or injury, was transferred to section 42 of this title.
#### § 203.472 Relief for borrower in military service.

If the borrower is a person in military service, as defined in the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, the lender may, by written agreement with the borrower, postpone for the period of military service, and 3 months thereafter, any part of the monthly payment, which represents amortization of principal. The agreement shall contain a provision for the resumption of monthly payments thereafter in amounts which will completely amortize the obligation within its original maturity. The agreement shall in no way affect the amount of the annual insurance premium which shall continue to be calculated in accordance with the original amortization provisions of the loan.
Order entered November 26, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01036
- CV CHELSEA DAVIS, Appellant

V. LESLIE WARE, SAMUEL BAXTER, ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 13
- 19281



### O RDER
T he clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated September 29, 2014, we notified the Dallas County District Clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue and directed the Dallas County District Cler k to file the clerk’s record within thirty days. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed and we have not received any correspondence from the Dallas County District Clerk’s office regarding the status of the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER th e Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record or written verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. We notify appellant that if we receive verification she is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b).We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk and to all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE