alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00371

- CV

THE CARMICHAEL FAMIL Y TRUST BY AND THROUGH MICHA EL G. CARMICHAEL AND JEANE TTE C. CARMICHAEL, HUSBAND AND WIFE APPELLANT

V.

KRONE MEDICAL PROPER TIES, LP AND ITS GENERAL P ARTNER KRONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC APPELLEES

----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTR ICT COURT OF HOOD CO UNTY TRIAL COURT NO. C

- 2014014

----------2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1

---------- We have considered appellant’ s petition for permissive interlocutory

appeal , appellees ’ response, and appellant’s reply

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. § 51.014(d), (f) (West Supp. 2015 ); Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(a) , (f), (j)

. We grant the petition. 2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(f).

Appellant ’ s notice of appeal is deemed filed today. See id. ; Tex. R. App. P.

28.3(k). Th e appeal will be governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. See

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(f); Tex. R. App. P. 28.1, 28.3(k).

Appellant must file a copy of this ord er with the trial court clerk. See Tex. R. App.

P. 28.3(k).

The clerk’s record and reporter’s record are due on or before February 4,

2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 35.1(b).

Appellant ’ s brief will be due twenty days after the appellate record is file d
, and appellees’ briefing will be due twenty days after appellant files its brief

. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a)

– (b)

.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 Although appellant has argued in its petition that the controlling issue of law ident ified by the trial court applies equally to defendant Granbury Healthcare Condominium Owners ’ Association, the liability issue in that defendant’s motion for summary judgment was not the same as the liability issue regarding the condominium unit owners; th us, this court’s review will be limited to the controlling issue of law as it relates to the condominium unit owners only.3 The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this memorandum

opinion and order to the attorneys of record, the trial court ju dge, the trial court

clerk, and the court reporter.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 25, 2016
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            LOAN AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT


         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LOAN AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT (this
"AMENDMENT") is made as of February 1, 2001 by and between World Commerce
Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), and Interprise Technology
Partners LP (the "LENDER").


                                R E C I T A L S:

         WHEREAS, for value received, the Company and the Lender executed a Loan
and Pledge Agreement dated as of January 3, 2001 (the "LOAN DATE") in the amount
of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) (the "LOAN AGREEMENT"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Lender agree to amend and modify the Loan
Agreement as of the Loan Date to clarify certain provisions;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         1.       Amendment to the Loan Agreement. The ", or" shall be deleted
from the end of Section 3.5(i), and the following shall be added:

                  "or under substantially similar terms as those set forth in
                  this Agreement, or"

         2.       Effective Time of Amendment. The amendment and modification to
the Loan Agreement set forth in Section 1 above shall be retroactively effective
as of the Loan Date.

         3.       Non-Modification. Except to the extent amended and modified
hereby, all terms, provisions and conditions of the Loan Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect and shall remain unmodified and enforceable.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective
as of the Loan Date.


                           WORLD COMMERCE ONLINE, INC.,
                              as Borrower

                           By:  /s/ Mark E. Patten
                              ------------------------------------------
                                Mark E. Patten, Chief Financial Officer


                           INTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LP,
                              as Lender

                           By:  /s/ JC Campuzano
                              ------------------------------------------
                                Juan Carlos Campuzano, Principal
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL L. RHYMES, AKA Primetime,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; CYNTHIA

SABLINCA,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

ARANAS, Dr.; et al.,

Defendants. No. 20

- 15183

D.C. No. 3:15

- cv

- 00592

- RCJ

- CLB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Michael L. Rhymes appeals pro se from the district court ’ s judgment as a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

wi thout oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15183

matter of law under Fed eral R ule of Civ il Procedure 50(a) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Dees v. C ounty of San

Diego , 960 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

The district court did not err by granting defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion. A

review of the record shows that Rhymes failed to provide a legally sufficient

evidentiary basis for a jury to conclud e that defendants were personally involved in

any constitution al violation or whether there was a causal connection between

defendants’ conduct and any such violation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Starr v.

Baca , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A defendant may be held liable as a

supervisor under § 1983 if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in

the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

supervisor ’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
-- USCIB: 13.3/10 

8 August 1955 

tJeNF'.fflEM'f fAL 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF mom: 

Subject: Indoctrination for Access to CDMINI'. 

Reference: tJSOIB 1.3 • .3/6 dated 10 June 1955. 

This notice constitutes Amendment #3 to the reference. It is 

requested that Enclosures 1 and 2 be amended as follows: 

Enclosure 1 

Delete: BERRY, Frederick A. F. 

Add: 

BROWN, Frederick M. 

CAMP.BELL, Frank Leslie 

BENNETT, Geraldine nee CURTIS 

GOLAY, Frank Hindman 

GCW', Ralph F o 

KNORR, Klaus E. 

PATTERSON, Jack Frederick 

WilSON, Harriet E. nee TERRY 

WRIGHr, Theodore Paul 

CORSON, Jolm Jay 

COUNCILL, Francis W. 

DIIJNORTH, Robert P. 

ECXERT, James E. 

HOTCHKISS, George LeRoy 

STRAYER, Joseph R. 

WOOIWARD, Joe Wesley 

ZACHARIAS, Jerrold R. 

McKinsey & Company 

RCA 

Consultant 

RCA 

IBM 

Princeton University 

IBM 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

Enclosure 2 

Add: NELSON, Charles E., ODR 

PETTIBONE, Gerry Earl 

USCIB: 13 .3/10 

Atomic Energy Commission (USCSB) 

Bureau of the Budget 

us cm 

~ 'J'.lh SOMEN.P SIIt.MiB O:NfiY 

CONFtDEl\'TIAL 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-04-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

'I 1. t:... :,
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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Stephen C. JumperStephen C. JumperPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
NSA Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaints Data 

Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act

FY16

I. Complaints of Discrimination Filed

Number of Complaints Filed 42

Number of Individuals Filing Complaints 42

Number of Individuals Filing Two or More Complaints 0

II. Bases of Complaints Filed

Age 11

Color 3

Disability 16

National Origin 9

Race 13

Religion 3

Reprisal 13

Sex 9

 1. Equal Pay Act 0

 2. Pregnancy Discrimination Act 0

Genetic Information 1

Non-EEO (sexual orientation) 0

 (status as a parent) 1

III. Issues of Complaints Filed

Appointment/Hire 3

Assignment of Duties 9

Awards 1

Disciplinary Action 2

 Reprimand 1

 Removal 1

Evaluation/Appraisal 5

Examination/Test 2

Harassment (Sexual) 0

 (Non-Sexual) 8

Promotion/Non-selection 10

Reasonable Accommodation 6

Termination 1

Terms and Conditions of Employment 6

Time and Attendance 4

Training 1
IV. Average Complaints Processing Time to Completion 

All Investigations 267

 1. Hearing Not Requested 253

 2. Hearing Requested 281

Final Actions by Agency

 1. Processing Time Without a Hearing/FAD 60

 2. Processing Time With a Hearing/Final Order 39

V. Dismissals

Number of Dismissals 6

Average Days Pending At the Time of Dismissal 170

VI. Withdrawals 

Number of Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants 3

VII. Findings of Discrimination

Findings Rendered with a Hearing

Number of Findings 0

Findings Rendered without a Hearing 

Number of Findings 0

Issues of Findings of Discrimination

Number of Issues 0

Bases of Findings of Discrimination

Number of Bases 0

VIII. Pending Complaints Carried Over From Previous FYs

Complaints Open Any Length of Time During Reporting Year 106

 1. Number of Individuals Filing These Complaints 81

 2. Number of These Complaints Currently Pending 77

Status of These Cases:

 1. Investigation 22

 2. Final Agency Action 1

 3. Hearing 50

 4. Appeal 4

IX. Complaints Pending Any Length of Time This Fiscal Year Not 

Investigated Within 180 Days (plus any authorized extensions)

23
REF ID:A65705 

TOP SECRET 9 -~- 'l tt!_1 

USCIB: 13.8/21 

18. June 1954 

TQP SISRfi 

MEMQRANDID-1 FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIBEC: 

SUbject: 

Reference: 

Classification of Intercepted Traffic Passed from 

Intercept Stations to Processing Activities. 

USCIB 13.8/15 (Item 1 of the agenda for 13th Meeting 

of USCIBEC) 

1. Pursuant to the decision rendered in the reference, the USCIB 

Security Committee has completed its study of the above subject and 

its recommendations a.re enclosed herewith. 

2. This item has been placed on the agenda for the Sixteenth 

Meeting of USOIBEC to be held on 25 June 1954. 

3. THIS DOOUMENT CONTAINS CCMMONICATIONS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION 

AND SHALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNELS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR CCMINT. 

USCIB 

Enclosure 

SEC #0009 dtd 18 Jun 54. 

USCIB: 13.8/21 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-26-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

TOP SECRET 
... • 

• 

SEC # 0009 

18 June 1954 

'l'QP SE8ft1j!'l' = Ji. S, lffi'B GNflX 

M:EMORANDUM FOR THE EXEQUTIVE SECRET!RY, USCIB: 

Subject: 

Reference: 

Classification of Intercepted Traffic Passed from 

Intercept Stations to Processing Activities. 

USCIB 13.8/14 dated l2 March 1954. 

1. USCIBEC, at their Thirteenth Meeting, referred to the Security 

Committee f'or study and recommendation, a proposal to amend Appendix "B" 

to authorize the omission of the classification and codeword from 

individual sheets of annotated raw traffic to be transmitted by 

classified pouch. 

2. SECCCM agreed that as a general rule each page of any classified 

matter should be stamped with the appropriate classification and 

codeword (if applicable). Further discussion brought out the fact that 

no appreciable saving of manpower would result from the proposal since 

action must be taken to number each sheet whether the proposal is 

accepted or not. It was also noted that the requirement £or stamping 

the classification and codeword on each sheet of annotated raw traffic 

should not deter intercept operators from making such annotations 

since they themselves would not be required to.do the stamping. 

3. Accordingly the Security Committee upon consideration of the 

proposal set forth in the enclosure with the reference agreed to 

recommend that that proposal not be adopted for the reasons set forth 

in paragraph 2 above. 

4. THIS DOOUMENT CCNTAINS CCMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION 

AND SHALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNELS rucr>RESSLY PROVIDED FOR OCMINT. 

TOP SECRET 

t),41. ... rx.£~ .. ~ WILLIAM R. CULMER 

Major, Arty, USA 

Chairman, SECCCM
REF ID:A72277 

ll September 1$53 

Bubjects 

l. ~ For-cietb Mftting of the Al'i:1ed Farces Security~ 

Council vill. be helcl at 1'a.oo m Tbunday, l 7 ~ 19531 in 

lloac1 2E 687, Batioml. D.afense Bt1un;ng. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 02-05-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
Exhibit (32)(2)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of C-COR.net Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William T. Hanelly, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/ WILLIAM T. HANELLY                                
|William T. Hanelly Chief Financial Officer May 7, 2004
-----=-------=------:------=---: 

' ----8-E61l-B~230~ 7 

• SSOURff'Y INPORMA'f'ION 'Ip 

llDICIWD)ill Fms Spec1al. As818tmt 

Chief', ott.tce at Canoe catian Seaurity 

Aasi&tant Director• Research aad Developllent 

Ch181' 1 Pl.aDB aud Policy D1V18:1.c.m 

81&JEC'l1 IBA BepreS«iltation • 1953 fll./VB CCl&X: Ccmterellce, Lana.oD I 

lo The followiDg in41v14laa1a lla.ve beep eelected. u the EA. 

zepreeenta.t1wa to attem ti. l.953 IS/VB C<HJEC Couf'erence :ln. Lan4an· 

Their participation 1n tbe Be'fW&l pbeaea ot the Ced~ is 

in41catecl. · 

ktirte Ccaf'e:NDCe I 

11r. v. -,. l'r~, Ji9ac1. at tm 11.s. :oe1eeati.on 

11r. l!'. c. Austin, Asaatmt J!eed. ot ~ v.a. Deleptlm 

Hr.. 'l'bcues Cl:d. ttenden 

Mr. J. B. Chill!a 

~Pbaael: 

D.t. Barol4 8't11lcay' 

belitrd.na.ry Di&Cll881am Only: 

Mr. H. Co Barlorl 

Mr. :B. G. Br:lclmon 

Dr. v. JI.~ 

Hr. W. Po Kins (m.- Mr" F. B!D Bliek) 

a. b dates propaaed by tbe £mdan Cypher Policy Baud -tar tm 

..,...i phesee at the emtezreoce en as tol.lcN.B 1 

l2 October .. 23 October 

26 October - 3 ·~ 

4 •cmrdler - J.6 J!ovember 

3. ... w. 7 .. J'r1e4maD 1B desip'Jl.te4 lJea4 ot tbe u.s. DelegaticD and 

11r. "· c • .Austill :La &!tsip.te4 ~ Asaiatmt Bta4 u.s .. · ~t:taa .. 

CCI m&/P 

NJ 

-A-'B~,,_~:I ~ f7 

• JI. JBOB'f 

Capta1n, m Jfa"Y 

Chief ot Sta.ft 

SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-15-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
# CE2004078EN.01093201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/932 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/932

---

(2004/C 78 E/0986)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0108/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Fiat in Italy acting in a joint venture in China providing vans to the People's Republic of China for the purposes of mobile exectution

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of allegations that Fiat of Italy acting through a joint venture in China have tendered a fleet of vans to the People's Republic of China, expressly modified for the purposes of becoming mobile execution vans?

The People's Republic of China maintain that this is a more humane procedure as it will enable execution by intravenous lethal injection rather than firing squad and effectively accelerate the process.

Is the Commission of the opinion that even if the death penalty is permissible under international law, there should be a fair and lengthy appeals process before execution takes place? Therefore given that these mobile execution vans preclude any form of appeal for those convicted of capital offences (which in the People's Republic of China can include ‘economic crimes’) this will inevitably result in miscarriages of justice. Therefore, if the allegations prove to be true, Fiat of Italy should be condemned for participating in such a tender.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

(13 February 2004)

The Commission has no information on the possible involvement of European companies in invitations to tender published by the People's Republic of China for the purchase of vehicles for the purpose of executions.

In its bilateral dialogue with China on human rights, the EU has never stopped reiterating its fundamental opposition to the death penalty, regardless of the methods used, including that cited by the Honourable Member. It has also regularly pressed — and will continue to press — the Chinese authorities, in the present circumstances, to see that the fundamental rights of the condemned, including the right to appeal against their sentence, are respected in full.

---
•· John H. bazid '14 W,ynd.t10or Road 

8pr1.n.gtield, Del. c:o., Penna. 

Dlar Jilt. Howarda 

hdal.1 13P6 

18 JUM19~ 

!hank fOU tor •ending m the pwtoeo11ee ot a pe,pr.r on 

advllor, bol!l"ds. I '!Milne it. wiU ba ve:r;r UM!'ul 1n dratt..lne 

a ldllaion r.d ahart.er tor a nn ~..a.AG. 

Yoar otter of .tut.uro ••iatance 1a appNcJ.ated. It ill 

gJ"at.1f:1n& to know t.tw.t. au.ch Yaluabl• wiatence 1a an.1 la.bla 

t.o t.ho Ageno.7 u thQ n~cd t~ it. arieee. 

Cop1ea turrd.sheda 

AG (3) C OOT4i=C . 

Slncenl.7, 

(sqd.J Ralph J. CcndJ18 

BALPlf J, CANDI 

aJor Genel"&J.., us AtJJ 

DS.reetor I Al'Qttd ro:mes S.our.l.t7 A&enq 

w .r. Pried.-Jan/ebr/12 June 52 

Consultant 

:RF.a HP.Pet.eftlon/60'2J..9/rlp/14 Jun 52 

EMO FCR RECORD: Self'-explanatory - rePl.7 to ltr trom Mr. Hoard 

to DirAFSA dt.d 2 June 52. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 04-15-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

-

•
REF ID:A58524 

USCIB: 4~2/18 

9 April 1954 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Approval of USCIB 4.2/14 dated 29 March 1954. 

There having been no objection during the required interregnum, 

the action described in the subject document stands approved by USCIB 

as ot 8 April 1954. 

USCIB: 4.2/18 

ptain, • • Navy 

ecutive Secretary, USCIB 

@'pp roved for Release bv NSA on 06-04-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 

24
# CE2004078EN.01091201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/912 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/912

---

(2004/C 78 E/0964)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4087/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Data Protection Supervisor

Subject:

When will the Commission appoint a Data Protection Supervisor, when will he/she take office, and when will the Commission expect this person to provide an independent assessment regarding the release of information relevant to the dispute between the Commission, the European Ombudsman and Parliament in the matter of the Bavarian Lager Company?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

(18 February 2004)

In accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (1), the Parliament and the Council appoint by common accord the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor. That appointment took place on 22 December 2003 (2), and as a result, Mr Peter Hustinx and Mr Joaquím Bayo Delgado have been nominated repectively as European Data Protection Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor. They have taken office in early February 2004.

1

2

According to Article 41 of the above-mentioned Regulation, the European Data Protection Supervisor is a fully independent supervisory authority. It is, therefore, not for the Commission to determine which activities that authority should conduct or the timeframe to address them.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 8, 12.1.2001.

1

(2)  Decision 2004/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 December 2003 appointing the independent supervisory body provided for in Article 286 of the EC Treaty (European Data Protection Supervisor), OJ L 12, 17.1.2004.

2

---
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

October 30, 2009 

l1027 

Order 

 

October 30, 2009 

139309 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139309 

 COA: 291210 

Gogebic CC: 2008-000109-FH 

ORLANDO RAY GRAY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2009 order of 

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

leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Gogebic Circuit Court and we 

REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. On remand the trial court shall 

reconsider the scoring of OV 15 in light of this Court’s opinion in People v McGraw, 484 

Mich 120 (2009). The trial court shall sentence the defendant within the appropriate 

sentencing guidelines range, or articulate on the record a substantial and compelling 

reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines range in accordance with People v 

Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003). In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal 

is denied because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by 

this Court. 

 CORRIGAN, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the order remanding for resentencing so that the sentencing court can 

consider whether this Court’s decision in People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120 (2009), 

affects the scoring of offense variable 15, but I continue to adhere to my dissenting 

opinion in McGraw, 484 Mich at 136. 

 WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 

 I dissent because I would not vacate the sentence and remand this case. Instead, I 

would grant leave to appeal in order to reconsider People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120 

(2009), for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in that case, id. at 136.
MEMO ROUli ~~ JLU u I~~ Q.PROVALS, DISA OVALS, 

~Lii"' I CONCURRENCES, OR SIMILAR NS 

I NAME OR TITLE INITIALS CIRCULATE 

- ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION DATE COORDINATION 

2 FILE 

- INFORMATION 

a NECESSARY 

ACTION 

- NOTE AND RETURN 

4 SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

REMARKS 

)l?y. Fr-11;/ 1.4;( A 't hA.1' /t''S't:"/8 1'S.Q.s7 ~ 

Is. s/ .S-'I~ 13. ~IS'" J3- .¢4' J , 3_ s/,1 

,,,, hid .p," ...-/ HAYloov- J:I~. I 

FROM NAME OR TITLE DATE 

~ 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION TELEPHONE 

~ooroved for Release bv NSA on 02-21-2014 oursuantto E.O. 1352CJ 

DD FORM 9 5 Replaces DA AGO Form SOD, 1Apr48, and A.FHQ I FEB 50 Form lll, 10 Nov 47, which may co uaed.