alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Interurban Company, a Florida Corporation, Nina McAdoo, a Married Woman, Joined by Her Husband, W. D. McAdoo, and Nina McAdoo, Trustee, *Appellants,*v. City of St. Petersburg, a Municipal Corporation, R. S. Pearce, Mayor-Commissioner; C. L. Snyder, D. S. Pooser, C. M. Blanc, Scott Serviss, R. C. Purvis, and Earle Renwich, Commissioners; S. S. Martin, Director of Finance, and Ernest Kitchen, Director of Public Works of the City of St. Petersburg; and Richardson Construction Company, a Corporation, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 25, 1928.

*972
      *Macfarlme, Pettingill, Macfarlane é Fmoler*and *Frank P. Ingram,*for Appellants;

*Victor O, Wehle, A. S. Bradley*and *Geo. W. Wylie, Jr.,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having- heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen- and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J. concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5145]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Final Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Management 
Plan: Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, Hawaii County, HI; Notice of 
Approval of Record of Decision

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and the regulations promulgated by 
the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the Department of 
the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) has prepared and approved a 
Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Comprehensive Management Plan for the Ala Kahakai National Historic 
Trail. The requisite no-action ``wait period'' was initiated November 
7, 2008, with the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Register 
notification of the filing of the Final EIS.
    Decision: As soon as practical the NPS will begin to implement an 
Ahupua'a trail system (described and analyzed as the agency-preferred 
Alternative C in the Final EIS, and which includes no substantive 
changes from the course of action as presented in the Draft EIS). The 
full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed, and 
appropriate mitigation measures are included in the approved plan. Both 
a No Action alternative and an additional ``action'' alternative were 
identified and analyzed. During an extended scoping period, strong 
community support was expressed for concepts which were developed as 
the agency-preferred alternative presented in the Draft EIS. Due to the 
minimal nature of public response to the Draft EIS, an abbreviated 
format was utilized in preparing the Final EIS. As documented in the 
Draft and Final EIS, the selected alternative was deemed to be the 
``environmentally preferred'' course of action.
    Copies: Interested parties desiring to review the Record of 
Decision may obtain a copy by contacting the Superintendent, Ala 
Kahakai National Historic Trail, 73-4786 Kanalani St., <greek-i>14, 
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 or via telephone request at (808) 326-6012.

    Dated: January 29, 2009.
Cynthia L. Ip,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
 [FR Doc. E9-5145 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Willamette Valley Vineyards,
Inc.'s, Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-69188) of our report on
the audit of the financial statements of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc.,
as of December 31, 2005, and for the two years then ended. Our report is
dated March 29, 2006, and appears in Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.'s Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Moss Adams LLP

Santa Rosa, California
March 29, 2006
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 Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q
      for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hua Meng, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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) 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/
                Hua MengHua
                Meng, Chief Financial Officer(principal
                financial officer andprincipal
                accounting officer)Date:
                November 14, 2008
Opinion filed December 2, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00320-CR

__________

CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 441st District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR37161

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Carol Johnene Morris filed this appeal from the denial of her motion to recuse. Upon receiving 

the docketing statement, the notice of appeal, and the clerk’s record on October 25, 2010, we 

notified Morris in writing that the order from which she appealed did not appear to be a final 

appealable order. We notified Morris that her appeal would be subject to dismissal if she did not 

respond by November 9, 2010, showing grounds to continue this appeal. Morris has not responded.

The order denying Morris’s motion to recuse is an interlocutory order, not a final appealable 

order. Means v. State, 825 S.W.2d 260 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.). We have no 

jurisdiction to review that order at this time.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

December 2, 2010 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of California Coastal Communities, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in their respective capacity as an officer,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their respective knowledge,
that:



Dated:
March 30, 2010

/s/ RAYMOND J. PACINI Raymond J. Pacini Chief Executive Officer/s/ SANDRA G. SCIUTTO Sandra G. Sciutto Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
STATE of North Carolina v. Celestio Lafranz HARRINGTON

No. COA18-644

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

NO ERROR IN PART. REMANDED IN PART.
exv10w28







Exhibit 10.28




Third Amendment to Consulting Agreement





	 	 	This Third Amendment to that certain Consulting Agreement entered into on April 12, 2006 (as
amended by the First Amendment effective May 1, 2008 and by the Second Amendment effective May 1,
2009), between Robert L. Parker (“Parker”), an individual who resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and
Parker Drilling Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) is effective as of the
1st day of May 2010 (the “Effective Date”).





     WHEREAS, the Company’s board of directors has determined that it is in the best interests of
the Company to extend the Consulting Agreement for one year upon agreement to the terms set forth
in this Third Amendment; and




	 	 	WHEREAS, Parker is willing to extend the Consulting Agreement for one year in accordance with
the terms contained in this Third Amendment;





     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions contained herein, the
parties hereby agree to amend the Consulting Agreement as follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 3 shall be amended to provide that the Consulting Term shall be
extended for one (1) year through April 30, 2011, subject to earlier termination as
provided in paragraph 2 below. As compensation for providing consulting services, the
Company shall pay Parker the amounts specified in paragraph 2 below from and after the
Effective Date of this Third Amendment.
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 5 shall be amended to provide that the only payments and benefits
payable to Parker, from and after the Effective Date of this Third Amendment until the
termination of the Consulting Term, shall be a consulting fee of $10,000 per month,
payable by the fifth
(5th) calendar day of each month.
	 
	 	3.	 	Section 27 shall be amended to reflect that notices to the Company shall be sent to:




Parker Drilling Company

Attention: General Counsel 

5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 100

Houston, Texas 77046





	 	4.	 	Except as specifically amended by this Third Amendment, all other terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.









 









 








Page 2



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Parker and the Company have executed this Third Amendment to be effective as of
the date first written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	PARKER DRILLING COMPANY	 	 	 	ROBERT L. PARKER	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ David Mannon
	 	 	 	/s/ Robert L. Parker	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	David Mannon	 	 	 	Robert L. Parker	 	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 	 	 	 	 






Parker Drilling | Third Amendment to Consulting Agreement with Robert L. Parker
Speciman Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.1 

 

 








 ZIPCAR, INC. 
 THE COMPANY WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH SHAREHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS, A SUMMARY OF THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS
OF STOCK OF THE COMPANY AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS, AND THE VARIATIONS IN RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS DETERMINED FOR EACH SERIES, WHICH ARE FIXED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
THE COMPANY, AS AMENDED, AND THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DETERMINE VARIATIONS FOR FUTURE SERIES. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMPANY OR
TO THE TRANSFER AGENT. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY REQUIRE THE OWNER OF A LOST OR DESTROYED STOCK CERTIFICATE, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, TO GIVE THE COMPANY A BOND TO INDEMNIFY IT AND ITS TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS AGAINST ANY CLAIM THAT MAY
BE MADE AGAINST THEM ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF ANY SUCH CERTIFICATE. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the
inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

											
	 TEN COM
	 	- as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	 -  
	 	Custodian	 	  

		 		 		 	(Cust)	 		 	(Minor)
	TEN ENT	 	- as tenants by the entireties	 		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act	 	 	 	 
		 		 		 		 		 	(State)
	JT TEN	 	- as joint tenants with right of 	 	UNIF TRF MIN ACT	 	 -  
	 	Custodian (until age	 	 )

		 	   survivorship and not as
   tenants in common
	 		 	(Cust)	 		 	
		 	 		 	  
	 	under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act	 	  

		 		 		 	(Minor)	 		 	(State)

 Additional abbreviations may also
be used though not in the above list. 
  

			
		  	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	For value received,                          hereby
sell, assign and transfer unto	  	 
		  	


			
	 	  	 
	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)
		  	
	 	  	 
		  	
	 	  	 
		  	
	 	  	Shares
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint	  	
		  	
	 	  	Attorney
	Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.


 

									
	 Dated:
	 	  
	 	 20
	 	  
	  	 Signature(s) Guaranteed: Medallion Guarantee Stamp

THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit
Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.

	Signature:	 	 	 	 	 	 	  
	Signature:	 	 	 	 	 	 	  
		 	 Notice:    The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the
face of the certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.
1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 09 - 03 4- CV I N R E W I L L I AM E M M ANU E L R E L AT OR G LEN N H A R TF I ELD

----- ----- -- OR I GI NALP R OCE E DI NG

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- T h e c o u r t h a s c o n s id e r e d r e la t o r ’s p e t it io n f o r w r it o fm a n d a m u s a n d is o f th e o p i n i o n th a t re l i e f s h o u l d b e d e n i e d . T h e T a rra n t C o u n ty D i s tri c t C l e rk ’s of fi c e and Jud ge M i ke Thom as ofCr i m i nal D i st r i ctCour t N um berFou rha ve bot h i nf or m ed t hi s cou r t t hatt heyha ve notr ec ei ved r el at or ’ s “m ot i on re q u e s ti n g to c h e c ko u t th e tri a l re c o rd s o n l o a n .” A c c o rd i n g l y , re l a to r’s pet i t i on f orw r i t ofm and am us i s den i ed. P E R C U R I A M PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 12, 2009
James A. BRADLEY, Employee v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Employer, Self-Insured (Key Risk Management Services, Inc., Servicing Agent)

No. 438P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Stephen C. McIntyre, Attorney at Law, for Bradley, James A.

Dayle A. Flammia, Lindsay A. Underwood, Attorneys at Law, for Cumberland County, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of December 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 49 (Monday, March 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5476]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
    Date: April 23, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: The theme of the meeting will be ``HIV Prevention for 
Women.'' An update will also be provided on the OARAC Working Groups 
for Treatment and Prevention Guidelines.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 
9310 Suite 4000, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Christina Brackna, Coordinator, Program Planning 
and Analysis, Office of AIDS Research, Office of the Director, NIH, 
5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9310 Suite 4000, Rockville, MD 20852. (301) 
402-8655. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfdcd28a8cc9ffd1d6d791d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a69673f397c4a646362246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://www.oar.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional 
information for the meeting will be posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 9, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-5476 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Thomas L. Bailey, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. S. B. Lawrence, Doing Business as Lawrence Construction Company, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed March 8, 1928.

*Philip D. Beall*and *J. McHenry Jones,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*William Fisher,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, there*424fore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of InnovativeSolutions and Support, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ GEOFFREY  S. M. HEDRICK                         |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Geoffrey S. M. Hedrick                              |   |
| *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| December 12, 2005                              |   |
| /s/ JAMES J. REILLY                                 |   |
| James J. Reilly                                     |   |
| *Chief Financial Officer*                           |   |
| December 12, 2005                              |   |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20770 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRY DWAYNE HENRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-771-1

--------------------

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court appointed counsel representing Terry Dewayne Henry has

requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Henry has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Monica Maldonado, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 564]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered July 31, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application to remove two jurors who had allegedly been conversing and laughing during defendant’s testimony. Defendant’s claim that the court should have inquired into the fitness of the jurors to continue serving is unpreserved for appellate review since defendant failed to request any inquiry and did not object to the court’s reliance on its own observations *(see, People v Gonzalez,*247 AD2d 328, *lv denied*91 NY2d 973; *People v Glover,*237 AD2d 104, *lv denied*89 NY2d 1093), and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s observations provided a sound basis to determine that no further inquiry was necessary.

*407Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge on reasonable doubt is unpreserved because defendant’s objection at trial was to an entirely different section of the charge than that to which she now objects *(see, People v Luperon,*85 NY2d 71, 78), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge insofar as challenged on appeal conveyed the proper standard *(see, People v Fields,*87 NY2d 821, 823).

The restrictions placed by the court on defendant’s cross-examination of a police witness at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress a statement could not have affected the outcome of the hearing. In any event, defendant’s statement was largely exculpatory and duplicative of defendant’s own trial testimony *(see, People v Benjamin,*257 AD2d 660, *lv denied*93 NY2d 922). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

September 9, 2010 

p0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141135-6 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141135-6 

 COA: 285258; 288429 

Wayne CC: 00-012666-CC 

CROWN ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 11, 2010 

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

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