alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# . .**'~** J.

STEVEN L
. BESHEAR GOVERNOR LEONARD K. PETERS SECRETARY
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET

Ms. Heather McTeer-Toney Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Re: Withdrawal of PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision request dated January 31, 2013 Dear Ms. McTeer Toney: On January 31,2013, the Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet) on behalfofthe Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision to U.S
. EPA Region 4, requesting amendments to Kentucky's New Source Review permitting program. These amendments included provisions related to U.S. EPA's final rulemaking published in the October 20,2010 Federal Register (75 FR 64864)
. Specifically, the Cabinet adopted provisions in U.S. EPA's final rule that related to implementing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ambient air quality analysis requirements for PM25: PM2.s Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC). As petitioned by U.S. EPA, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit Court (Court) vacated and remanded the portions ofthe PSD PM2.s rules addressing the SILs for PM2. s (found in paragraph (k)(2) in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21) on January 22, 2013. This request was made so that the U.S. EPA could voluntarily correct errors in its provisions. In addition, the Court vacated parts ofthe PSD rules establishing a PM2.5 SMC (found in paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c) in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 )
. In response to the Court's actions and to provide guidance to state air pollution control agencies, the U.S
. EPA issued a final rule on December 9, 2013, Prevention of Significant Deteriorationfor Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers-Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration: Removal of Vacated Elements, (78 FR 73698). In following U.S. EPA's guidance document that is referenced in the December 9, 2013 final rule, the Cabinet is withdrawing the portions related to PM2.5 SILs and PM2 sSMC from your consideration
. This withdrawal request is made after consultation with and encouragement from your staff. To date, U.S
. EPA has yet to act on either the SILs or SMC provisions in Kentucky's January 31,

KentuckyUnbrldledSplrit.com An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/DMs. Heather McTeer-Toney July 22, 2014 Page No.2

2013 SIP Revision request. Therefore, the Cabinet requests that U.S
. EPA approve the SIP revision absent the portions relating to the PM2.5 SILs and PM2.5SMC
. As directed in the Federal Register, the Cabinet will take actions necessary to amend Kentucky's administrative regulations in conjunction with the next otherwise planned SIP revision. Ifyou or your staff should have any questions regarding this request, please contact Ms. Andrea Smith, at (502) 564- 3999. Sincerely yours,

# ct~ Secretary LKP/lj 

# ...
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Marco Antonio Sanchez 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
' REF ID:A36301IJ "'Ir 

ADDRESS ONL.V 

'l"HE COMMISSIONER OF' PATENTS 

WA!IHINGl'l"ON 28, D, t:l, 

VAP:mb 

u. s. PATENT OFFICE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Serial. No. 549,,.086 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

Filed\US• ll, 1944 

For Electrical System 

Applican\11lliam F. Friedman 

A_ssigneeU.. S. Government 

RF.SCINDING ORDER 

Ma. 15 1:947 The Secrecy Order dated · y ' 

FEB 11 i958 

MAILED 

Division 44 

prohibiting 

disclosure or publication of the subject matter of the above entitled 

application under the provisions of Title 35 United States Code (1952) 

181-188 is hereby rescinded. Normal. prosecution is continued and any 

suspension thereof because of the secrecy order shoul.d now be removed. 

This rescinding order does not affect the provisions of any classified 

government contract or existing laws relating to espionage and national. 

security. 

Firs~ Assistant Commissioner 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
• • REF ID:A36307' 

William 11. Friedman 

3932 .. Jl111tary Road,, N. W .. Washington. D. C. 

Henry- B. Stauf :f"er 

National Security Agency Washington 25,, D .. C.
<.- • 

·' ' 

· ... ·-

-· .~·--

·.':.· 

~ r ." 

. ~· 

-. ;. 

-~ 

· .... 

... ·, 

• .. ~. 

· .. ,• 

-'\ 

. .'·. 

··.~. 

\ .;"'. . ... : .. .· ·~ 

···--•t-: 

·.·.·· 

.• ,.J-"'.'" 

- ' -

_.-_; 

·.~.- : . ~ .. ~ i . 

. . REF : ID : A6.7 l,0·,6: ',., - ~ ·. 

. ~· 

-~ ... '·. 

.· ~-- -.. -.y 

·• .. 

.:. ····:-.·-·· 

~\! 

··.··:· ... 

.. ' ' ' 

_.~ . 

; ' ~· ..... ->:·. -ii.'. :~ ... 

'' ~ . 

· .. _ .... 'l:"-< 

: .. ...:.;....~. 

-···t.. 

·. 

.\:". 

•, 

·- -. ..: .. ~: 

·_.· ... .,::·C·.~-.;<~ Mo, ~i· 

'.'.~: ,,.:-;: ; :."-~ 

<-:>·· 

. -;~ ···;r..-"!' : ....... .;,. . 

~~:---~ . . .;.= ·-

·--~-

............ 

.,., .. --· :.:.i: 

_,. ....... ·.;,;·· 

.•. .-. ·.•.'· 

, ' 

..-~ _ ... .>'.· .... 

.-.· 

,.· ·.-•_ ·. _; -~- -

·.~ "..: 

·-···-·., 

• -:~·. .! • • •• 

·:.·· 

. . . ;,. --~ .. "(. -

. -~ . ; 

.. ). 

........ -- .'~._ --~.~··· 

-. . ... ,., .... 

•· . ·-.:. ...· .. ., !o--<i· 

•': 

:; ..... 

-··~_-, 

.... 

.• -·t" 

' .•· ·.··,""': 

':.<·--·· 

'<•:'--- .. ~ 

·, 

, 

.}· 

,.\;,. 

-~·:· ~ .. ·.-·. 

. ·· .. ..... ,._ .. 

'41· • ... ... ·:,, ~· . .. - .. -' _ ...,,:J, 

. -·· .-.;.:·- -.· .. .. _ .. ;, ! ~-;_· ...... \ . ,.- j.' 

4.~· .• •• 

. . :.~ -

_.:... • .. ~ • .. •. r .. 

· ..... · .. · .. _.,;., 

, . ... ~-- ... · .. ' 

•..,· ... ·. ·;. 1 

., ·~ ,' 

....... ·''···: 

I ·~ .. ".J:--:: , .. · 

·.--i:· .·.+.;_ ._ ... ;- __ ·: 

. -.... ?..- ' . •. ; 

:.: ;_., .. 

. . : •:~.·'. 

·.:- :' .. - _; . ._ .-

. .. :·- ;,"~· ... 

''..j .. 

··:t· 

. ~: . 

.. ~- .. .:,.~· . .": 

· .. ·.::. ....... ·. 

:r..
#### Bourgeois, Respondent, vs. Schrage and wife, imp., Appellants.

*September 5*

*September 20, 1887.*

*Appeal from order confirming report.*

An order confirming the findings and report of a referee is not ap-pealable, since that merely constitutes them the findings of the court, and no appeal lies from findings. ■

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Ozaukee*County.

This was an action to foreclose an equitable mortgage, in the form of an absolute deed. It was tried by a referee, and on the coming in of his report the defendants excepted to his findings and moved to modify his report. Upon the hearing of that motion it was denied, and an order entered confirming the report, from which defendants *Schrage*and wife appeal.

*317
      *De W. C.*Priest, for the appellants.

*Conrad K-rez,*for the respondent.

The arguments were confined to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings, and the regularity of the order.

Ortoíst, J.

This is an appeal from an order confirming the report of a referee. It is very clear that such an appeal does not lie. The confirmation of the findings and report of the referee constitutes them the findings of the court in the case. *White v.*Magann, 65 Wis. 86. An appeal cannot be taken from the findings of fact or conclusions of law of the circuit court. *Webster-Glover L. & M. Co. v. St. Croix Co.*63 Wis. 647. This appeal must therefore be dismissed. "We very much question from our knowledge of the case whether the result would have been more favorable to the appellants had we been able to consider on this appeal the real merits of the report of the referee.

*By the Court.*— The appeal is dismissed.
99-1375.

#### State ex rel. Kreuzer v. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss of the Greene County Clerk of Courts. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Opinion issued September 8, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00570-CV

———————————

RITA LEMONS, Appellant

V.

BETTY J. GARMOND, MAMIE BRIGHT, JUSTIN THOMAS, AND 

JACQUELINE R. WOODARD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 14-DCV-213789

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Proceeding pro se, appellant, Rita Lemons, timely filed a notice of appeal 

from the trial court’s final “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Baseless 

Causes of Action and Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment.” We dismiss 

the appeal.
2

Appellant submitted a brief to this Court before the appellate record was 

complete. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1 (appellate record consists of clerk’s record and, 

if necessary to appeal, reporter’s record), 38.6(a) (appellant must file brief within 

thirty days after later of date clerk’s record or reporter’s record was filed). We 

notified appellant that her brief had been received and did not comply with the 

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 

(setting out requisites for appellant’s brief). The “appellate rules have specific 

requirements for briefing that require, among other things, that an appellant provide 

a statement of facts, which includes references to the record, and an argument that 

is clear and concise with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.” Holz 

v. U. S. of Am. Corp., No. 05-13-01241-CV, 2014 WL 6555024, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). And although we construe an appellate 

brief liberally, a party proceeding pro se must comply with all applicable procedural 

rules. Green v. Midland Mortg. Co., 342 S.W.3d 686, 692 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (citing Harris v. Showcase Chevrolet, 231 S.W.3d 559, 

561 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.)). Accordingly, we ordered appellant to file 

an amended brief in compliance with the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, including rule 38.1.

Appellant filed an amended brief. However, on July 7, 2016, the Clerk of this 

Court notified her that the amended brief did not comply with the requirements of 
3

rule 38.1 and the Court might dismiss her appeal unless she filed an amended brief 

in compliance with the rule by July 28, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 38.9(a), 

42.3(b); Hargest-Davis v. Crescent M & P, LLC, No. 01-15-00328-CV, 2016 WL 

1714522, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); 

see also Briggs v. Washington Fed., No. 05-15-00834-CV, 2016 WL 3398394, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Dallas June 20, 2016, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal when 

appellant’s initial brief did not comply with rules of appellate procedure and he failed 

to file amended brief in compliance with rules). Appellant has failed to file an 

amended brief or otherwise respond.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.
#### Treat and another, Respondents, vs. Hiles, Appellant.

*March 18*

*April 8, 1890.*

*Appealable order: Costs: Printing case.*

Upon the dismissal of an appeal from an order which was not ap-pealable, no costs for printing the case can be taxed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

Eor prior report of the case see 75 Wis. 265.

*JD. 8. Bose,*in support of the motion.

*8. IT. Pinney, contra.*

*By the*Court.

Motion to review and correct the taxation of costs by the clerk on the dismissal of the defendant’s appeal from an order. The appeal was dismissed for the reason that the order was not appealable. An item of $206.25, for printing the case, was allowed by the clerk, against defendant’s objection. This item was improperly allowed. No case was required on the appeal. It is the settled law of this state that an order denying a motion for judgment on a verdict is not appealable. This was such an order. The principle was laid down in *Johannes v.*Youngs, 42 Wis. 401, and has since been steadily adhered to. See cases cited in the opinion on dismissing the appeal, 75 Wis. 265.

The plaintiffs should have moved the court to dismiss the appeal before incurring the expense of. printing the case. The item of $206.25 must be stricken from the taxed bill.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 906 Certification by Chief Financial Officer of Quarterly Report

                            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 Zarlink  Semiconductor  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 26, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Scott Milligan,  Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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.

         Date: October 24, 2003

                                     /s/ SCOTT MILLIGAN
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Scott Milligan
                                     Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief
                                     Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 Zarlink Semiconductor Inc. and
will be retained by Zarlink Semiconductor Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       30
14 

AFCIAC: l)/4 

14 September 1949 

MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS 0 F AFCIAC: 

Subjeot: 

Enclosure: 

Replacement of the Present Combined Cipher Maohineo 

Draft Staff Study dated 12 Septembe~ 1949 (Subject: Raplaoement of the Present Combined Cipher Maohine)o 

lo The Department of the Army wishes to expreea·1te 

non=concurrenoe with the AFCIAC paper on the above subjeot 0 · 

circulated. as AFCIAO 13/) 9 dated 29 August 19490 Accordingly 0 

as an alternate solution to the subject problem9 the Department of the Army has submitted the enclosed draft Staff Study for 

consideration by the Advisory Oounoil as a. document to be fox-=· 

warded to the JCEc-1n response to the request made in CEOM=940 9 dated 29 July 1949~ 

2? This paper will be considered under Item 2 or the 

agenda tor the Fifth Meeting of AFCIAO to ba held at 09)0 on 

2) September 19490 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-26-2013 pursuantto E _Q _ 1352a 

AFCIAC: 1)/4 

PRNC-NCSW-3~6 U o Sa Jff PlS GltU.¥ 

TOP SECRET
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6427

GEORGE H. VAN WAGNER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, and PHILIP CORSO; ROBERT J. ROMITO; PAUL T. DEBRUYN, Plaintiffs,
versus DENNIS R. BIDWELL; MARIE GRAHAM, Director of Health Services; SANDRA HOWARD, M.D.; A. VICTORIA; M. RONGO, all in their individual and official capacities; MARGARET HAMBRICK, Regional Director; HAROLD A. ROSE, Compliance Analyst; BARBARA K. VONA, Chief of Compliance,all in their individual and official capacities; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; KENNETH R. MORITSVGU, MD, BOP Health Services Director; QUINCY T. HECK, BOP Regional HealthSystems Administrator; GEORGE C. WIGEN, Warden, FCI Schuylikill; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA96-4070-CCB, CA-97-1963-CCB, CA-97-2465-CCB, CA-97-1616-CCB)2 Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: January 29, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George H. Van Wagner, III, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; J. Joseph Currah, Jr., Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Walton Keech, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Earle Bronson Wilson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Scott Sutherland Harris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 28, 1998, the district court’s records show it was entered on the docket sheet on January 30, 1998. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), we consider this date as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
3 PER CURIAM: George Van Wagner, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief in this consolidated action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Van Wagner v. Bidwell , Nos. CA-96-4070-CCB; CA-97-1963-CCB; CA-97-2465-CCB; CA-97-1616-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 30, 1998). * 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
Exhibit 99.1



                            CERTIFICATON 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 Annual Report of Hibshman Optical Corp. on Form 10-KSB
for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ( the "report"), Pasquale Catizone, President of
the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) 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/ PASQUALE CATIZONE
                                       -----------------------------
                                       Pasquale Catizone
                                       President
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Gianella, Respondent, vs. Bigelow and others, Executors, Appellants.

*January 10*—

*January 28, 1896.*

*Appealable order: Striking out frivolous demurrer.*

Under ch. 212, Laws of 1895, an order striking out a demurrer as frivolous is not appealable.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: D. H. Johnson, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Wells, Brigham A Upham,*and oral argument by *J. R. Brigha/m.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Glenviay Maxon,*and oral argument by *J. G. Flanders.*

Maeshall, J.

Defendants interposed a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint, which, on motion, was struck out as frivolous, and from the order entered on such motion this appeal was taken.

The date of the appeal is not later than. the 23d day of May, 1896. That is the date of the bond. The notice of appeal is not dated, nor does it appear when it was served.

The right of appeal is purely statutory. *Western U. R. Co. v. Dickson,*30 Wis. 389. So, unless the statute gives *268such right from an order striking out a demurrer as frivolous, it does not exist. Prior to ch. 212, Laws of 1895, subd.. 4, sec. 3069, S. & B. Ann. Stats., covered the subject, under ■which the right was clearly given in the following language: An order may be carried to the supreme court on appeal, “ when it involves the merits of the action or some part thereof; when it orders-judgment on application therefor, on account of the frivolousness of a demurrer, answer or reply, *or strikes off such demurrer, cmsw&r or reply, on account of the frivolousness thereof.”*But by ch. 212, referred to, which became a law April 12, 1895, sec. 3069 was amended by dropping out the whole of subd. 4 as it had theretofore existed, so that at the time this appeal was taken, the right in such cases did not exist.

It is argued that, inasmuch as the motion to strike out under the practice established in this state brings the demurrer up for a hearing on the merits to all intents and purposes the same as if the issue was brought up for a hearing on regular notice of argument, the order should be held to be appealable, under subd. 3 of the revised section, which gives the right of appeal from an order overruling or sustaining a demurrer; but it is obvious that the section was amended for the very purpose of restricting appeals. The right formerly existed from an order striking out a demurrer on motion as frivolous, independent of the right from the order sustaining or overruling the demurrer. Therefore, though the effect of the two orders is substantially the same, if the issue is brought to a hearing on regular notice for the first day of the term, general or special, an appeal may be taken from the order sustaining or overruling the demurrer. If a party sees fit to resort to the ■ more summary method, by motion to strike out as frivolous, the order entered thereon will not be appealable.

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

*By the*Court.— The appeal is dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 29, 2014

No. 04-14-00048-CV

America Amada GONZALEZ and Jamie Christina Garza McRae,

Appellants

v.

Jose Gilberto PENA, Et Ux.,

Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-10-359

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 11, 2014, appellants filed a “Motion to Allow Filing of Original Trial 

Photograph Exhibits by Mailing.” Thereafter, appellees filed a response and supplemental 

response. The motion is GRANTED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(g)(2) (“On any party’s motion . . 

., the appellate court may direct the trial court clerk to send it any original exhibit.”). The Office 

of the District Clerk of Starr County is ORDERED to file a supplemental record containing 

Appellants’ Photographic Exhibits Nos. 5, 10 through 19, and Demonstrative Exhibit No. 1-D by 

mailing the original copies to this Court within 10 days of the date of this order.

Counsel are reminded that all future motions must comply with Rule 10.1(a)(5). See

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court