alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2010-2, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as
Servicer (the Servicer), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Backup Servicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2013 and ending on February 28, 2014 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made
under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 23rd day of May, 2014.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
L~,~~

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the maner of

The State of Connecticut and

Middletown Power LLC

"

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement

and Order No. 8227A

Modification 1

o

v..'!:.ere:as, ~"le CO!!L.'"I!.issioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Middletown Power

LLC ("tAP"), having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order

8227A issued on April 21,2003, do now, by mutual agreement, modify said Trading Agreement and

Order as follows:

1. Delete table 1 and substitute the following therefore:

TABLE 1

Emission Fuel Heat lnput Emission rates (lbsIMMBtu) Date of

Unit MMBtuIIrr Test rate FLER Allowable Emission

Rale Test

Auxiliary #6 oil 160 0.44 0.48 0.25 5/8/02

Boiler

2. Delete paragraph C.l1 and SubS,litute the following therefore:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 22a-174-22(1<) ofthe Regulations, Respondent

shall conduct a NOx emission test ofthe auxiliary boiler no later than June 30, 2004.

Subsequent to Department approval of t.'i.e NOx emission test for t.l:1e auxi!ia.j' boiler

demonstrating compliance with the allowable emission rate in Section 22a~174-22(e)ofthe

Regulations, the Respondent shall conduct, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2230-

174~22(k) ofthe Regulations, NOx emission tests ofthe auxiliary boiler at least once every

five years commencing from the date ofthe last NOx emission test that demonstrated

compliance with the allowable emission rate in Section 22a-174-22(e) ofthe Regulations.

All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order no. 8227A issued by the

Corrunissioner acting under Chapter 446c, Sections 22a-6, 22a~ 171, 22a-174, 22a·176, and 22a~ 177

ofthe Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106 - 5127

http://dep,state.et.us

.~r. £qu~1 Opponulliry Employer
Middletown Power LLC 2 Trading Agreement

and Order No. 8227A

Modification I

1'v1P hereby consents to the entry of this modification iO the Trading Agreement and Order

without further notice.

Middleto\.VIl Power" LLC ,

"

Signarure ,~e5::!/JdtL

Name Cu'rt!hla L 1<pr1If'.

v

Title RtJlQncvJ Hn/.J/rDQmeni!1l ~if

Date: 1-3-D3

/~ , 2003.

Entered as a modification of an Order of the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection

nwnbered..8227A

on U '""..1"-'1/

j/' ;)

CITY OF MIDDLETOWN LA-NIl RECORDS

MAILED CERTJFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Certified Document No.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.15


                   [HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. LETTERHEAD]

Mr. John M. Marmaduke
Hastings Entertainment, Inc.
P.O. Box 35350
Amarillo, TX 79120-5350

          RE:  Hastings Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company")

Dear John:

     The Board of Directors has elected to fund an annuity for you with an
principal amount of $100,000 as of January 31, 2001. You will own the annuity
and it will contain such terms and conditions as you elect. You will be
responsible for all taxes in connection with the annuity.

     This annuity is granted to you upon the condition that your employment
with the Company continue through January 31, 2003, unless the cessation of
employment is the result of your death, disability or at the request of the
Company without cause. If prior to January 31, 2003, your employment with the
Company ceases as a result of your election or as a result of a dismissal with
cause as set forth in your employment agreement, you agree to refund to the
Company the principal amount of the annuity.

     Please signify your acceptance of this condition by executing and
returning to the undersigned one copy of this letter.

                                        Yours very truly,



                                        Hastings Entertainment, Inc.

                                        BY: /s/ DAN CROW
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Dan Crow, Chief Financial Officer

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

/S/ JOHN H. MARMADUKE
--------------------------------------
John H. Marmaduke
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RALPH KELLY HAWTHORNE, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWER;

K. HENRY,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-15571

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01101-OWWDLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 11, 2011** 

Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Ralph Kelly Hawthorne, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.

FILED

AUG 17 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15571

§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, 

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we vacate and remand. 

The district court found that Hawthorne failed to file any administrative

grievances after the date of the events alleged in his complaint. However,

Hawthorne had already fully exhausted administrative remedies for a grievance

complaining of access to the prison law library and related problems. We recently

decided in Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2010), that “it [is not] the

prisoner’s responsibility to ensure that prison officials actually provide the relief

that they have promised.” Id. at 685 (citing Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663, 669

(2d Cir. 2004) (“A prisoner who has not received promised relief is not required to

file a new grievance where doing so may result in a never-ending cycle of

exhaustion.”)). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand

for consideration of whether Hawthorne’s grievance served to exhaust

administrative remedies for any of his federal claims. 

We do not consider factual allegations and arguments raised for the first

time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

We deny Hawthorne’s motion for a court order filed on June 10, 2010. 

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR NAVARRO; MIKE

SHIRINIAN; ANTHONY PINKINS;

KEVIN MALONE; REUBEN CASTRO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ENCINO MOTORCARS, LLC,

erroneously sued as Mercedes Benz

of Encino,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-55323

D.C. No.

2:12-cv-08051-

RGK-MRW

ORDER

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed July 19, 2018

Before: Susan P. Graber and Kim McLane Wardlaw,

Circuit Judges, and James C. Mahan,* District Judge.

ORDER

On remand from the Supreme Court, Encino Motorcars,

LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018), no further issues

remain. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

* The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 26, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 2065 Lower Tribunal No. F20

- 9772A

________________ 

### Michelle Contreras , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.

An a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez , Judge. Black Srebnick, and Benjamin S. Waxman, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
MILLER , J.2 Appellant, Michelle Contreras, challenges her convictions and
sentence s for trafficking in illegal narcotics, conspiring to traffic in illegal narcotics, and use of a two

- way communications device to commit the trafficking offense

. Discerning no reversibl e error, we affirm without prejudice to raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a timely motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Steiger v. State , 328 So. 3d 926, 929 (Fla. 2021) ( holding

“ unp reserved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised or result in reversal on direct appeal” absent a showing of fundamental error );
see also Britton v. State , 414 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“[T]he order of presentation of eviden ce and witnesses is largely a function of the trial court’s discretion; this discretion is broad enough to allow the state to introduce, after the defendant’s case, evidence not strictly in rebuttal, so long as the evidence was admissible in the main case. ”) ; Lewis v. State , 711 So. 2d 205, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ( concluding prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments that bolstered victim testimony and attacked defense counsel were harmless error given overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt). Affir med.
#### Miller Brothers et al. *v.*United States

No. 6643.

Entry Nos. 707789; 706518.

Invoices dated London, England, August 1942, etc.

Certified August 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 30,1942, etc.

(Decided December 18, 1946)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

The two appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, present for determination the question of whether or not a so-called British purchase tax should be included as a part of the dutiable values of the merchandise. The appeals have been submitted upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues herein are similar in 'all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence in this case.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importers on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Peter Backus *et al.,*Respt’s, *v.*Chas. R. Yandell, App’lt.

Appeal from judgment of Hon. Henry Wilder Allen, J.

*Ordered,*that the judgment be affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 13.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MakeMyTrip Limited (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2014 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: June 6, 2014

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, and is not being “filed” either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subjectto the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7504
HERMAN E. HARSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. L. HUFFMAN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1294-R) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 28, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman E. Harston, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herman E. Harston appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. SeeDunlap v. Litscher , 301 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 2001); Rodriguez v. Mitchell , 252 F.3d 191, 203 n.3 (2d Cir. 2001); Riero v. Johnson , 197 F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harston v. Huffman , No. CA-95-1294-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 1 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 2 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 3 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 4 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 5 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 6 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 7 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 8 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 9 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00894-MHW-TPK Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/30/11 Page: 10 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T11:17:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Commonwealth *v.*DeSimone, Appellant.

*421Submitted March 17, 1969.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jonhs, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*William J. Franks,*for appellant.

*A. J. Kuzdenyi,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Joseph E. Kovach,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice O’Brien,

On September 15, 1940, John DeSimone was convicted, after trial by jury, of various offenses. He was sentenced on the same date and took no appeal. Appellant is now seeking post-conviction relief, asserting that (1) he was denied the right to appeal; (2) he was not given the effective assistance of counsel; and (3) he was denied the right to have counsel present at the time of the rendering of the verdict and at the time of sentence.

Appellant’s present petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25,1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, as amended, 19 P.S. §1180-1 et seq., was filed on July 5, 1967. It was denied without hearing on July 10, 1967. The Superior Court affirmed per curiam, without opinion, on December 8, 1967. We re*422versed on the petition for allocatur on February 14, 1968, and remanded to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Fayette County with instructions to appoint counsel to represent appellant in a post-conviction proceeding at which his eligibility for an evidentiary hearing and for other relief could be determined. Counsel was appointed on February 28, 1968, a hearing was held on March 27, 1968, and on August 26, 1968, appellant’s petition was dismissed.

Appellant then filed this appeal.1 Although it is not entirely appellant’s fault,2 appellant is in the wrong court. Section 11 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act allows a party aggrieved by an order under the Act to appeal to “the court having appellate jurisdiction over the original conviction.” Section 7 of the Act establishing the Superior Court, Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212, 17 P.S. §§182, 183, provides that the Superior Court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from proceedings in the courts of quarter sessions and the courts of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery, except cases of felonious homicide. Since the instant case is not a case of felonious homicide, it is apparent that jurisdiction is in the Superior Court, not the Supreme Court.

Nor is the situation altered by the fact that we once granted allocatur in this case and remanded it. The case started anew when it went back for a hearing, and the appeal lies to the Superior Court, not the Supreme Court.

The case is remitted to the Superior Court.

1

**The Commonwealth, states in its brief that “appellant filed an appeal from [the order of August 26, 1968] to the Superior Court, which shortly thereafter affirmed the lower court.” Not an iota of support for this statement can be found in this record.'

2

 The hearing court, in its order of August 26, 1968, directed the Clerk of Courts to return the entire record to the *Supreme Court*of Pennsylvania for further disposition.
Filed 9/30/97 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

1997 ND 183

State of North Dakota,   Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Thomas Novak,             Defendant and Appellant

Criminal No. 970083

Appeal from the District Court for Mercer County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable James M. Vukelic, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Larry W. Quast (argued), State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 39, Stanton, ND 58571-0039, for plaintiff and appellee.

Alexander Law Office, P.O. Box 249, Beulah, ND 58523, for defendant and appellant; argued by Loren C. McCray.

State v. Novak

Criminal No. 970083

PER CURIAM.

[¶1]Thomas Novak appeals his jury conviction for delivery of an alcoholic beverage to a person under age 21, a class A misdemeanor under NDCC 5-01-09, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the verdict.  He contends the circumstantial evidence  was insufficient to prove the culpability and delivery elements of the offense.  We affirm under NDRAppP 35.1(a)(3).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Herbert L. Meschke

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom
________________ _______________ _________

_____________ _______________ _____________

_____________ _______________ _____________

________________ _______________ _________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 25, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

132343-5 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 132347-9 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan BETTEN AUTO CENTER, INC., Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, Justices v SC: 132343 COA: 265976 Ct of Claims: 04-000095-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.

BETTEN MOTOR SALES, INC., d/b/a TOYOTA OF GRAND RAPIDS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132344 COA: 265977 Ct of Claims: 04-000096-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.

BETTEN-FRIENDLY MOTORS COMPANY, d/b/a/ FAMILY AUTO CENTER, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132345 COA: 265978 Ct of Claims: 04-000097-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.

BETTEN AUTO CENTER, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132347 COA: 265976 Ct of Claims: 04-000095-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee._______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________ 2

BETTEN MOTOR SALES, INC., d/b/a TOYOTA OF GRAND RAPIDS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132348 COA: 265977 Ct of Claims: 04-000096-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee.

BETTEN-FRIENDLY MOTORS COMPANY, d/b/a/ FAMILY AUTO CENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132349 COA: 265978 Ct of Claims: 04-000097-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On May 10, 2007, the Cour t heard oral argument on the applications for leave to appeal the August 1, 20 06 judgment of the Court of Appeal s. On order of the Court, the applications are again considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we AFFIRM only that portion of the Court of Appeals judgme nt holding that the vehicles in question are exempt from the imposition of a use tax under the resale exemption contained in MCL 20 5.94(1)(c). The MC L 205.94(1)(c) “purchased for resale” exemption precludes use tax u nder MCL 205.93(1). We VA CATE the balance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and adopt th e trial court’s August 2, 2005 opinion and order holding that MCL 205.94(1)(c) applies a nd that no use tax is due. The “exemption for demonstration purposes” exemption of MCL 205.94(1)(c) and the “purchased for resale” exemption of MCL 2 05.94(1)(c) are independent of one another; both provide exemptions from use tax upon satisfaction of a pplicable statutory crit eria. The Court of Appeals also erred in applying the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “consumer,” rather than the statutory definition of “consum er” set forth in MCL 20 5.92(g). “We need not, indeed we must not, search afield for meanings where the act supplies its own.”
W. S. Butterfield Theatres , Inc v Department of Revenue , 353 Mich 345, 350 (1958). C AVANAGH
, J., concurs in the result.
K ELLY
, J., would grant leave to appeal.

s0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 25, 2007

Clerk