alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41253 Conference Calendar

RONALD MIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MICHELLE HATTENBACH; JASPER E. ARMWOOD; DAVID M. BLACKWELL; LEPHER JENKINS; MARK A. DIAZ, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-402

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Ronald Mixon, prisoner # 536575, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Because Mixon’s case contained no arguable basis in law or fact, it is frivolous, and the district court did not err in dismissing it. See Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Mixon’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.No. 97-41253 -2- 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0275 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0275

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (11979/1/2004 - C6-0058/2005 - 2002/0047(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 157 E , 06/07/2006 P. 0265 - 0265 *

P6_TA(2005)0275

Patentability of computer-implemented inventions ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (11979/1/2004 — C6-0058/2005 — 2002/0047(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (11979/1/2004 — C6-0058/2005),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2002)0092) [2],

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 61 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0207/2005),

1. Rejects the common position;

2. Instructs its President to declare the legislative procedure closed and to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ C 77 E, 26.3.2004, p. 230.

[2] OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002, p. 129.

--------------------------------------------------
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Cold War Craters      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

The most cratered landscape on Earth is a Nevada desert called Yucca Flat. The craters are the remnants of decades of nuclear tests conducted by the United States since early in the Cold War.

Show only leftShow only right

View Media Details

Download Images

Historical images from the USGS EROS archive show the changing cratered landscape. A 1952 aerial photo shows that such testing had already begun. A declassified satellite image from 1965 shows a more heavily cratered landscape and reveals the largest of these craters.

The Sedan crater was created on July 6, 1962, when a 104-kiloton nuclear device was detonated underground. The resulting crater is 1,280 feet wide and 320 feet deep. The explosion created a cavity that the surface soil collapsed into. So it’s more of a subsidence crater than an impact crater. In fact, most of the craters at this site are the result of underground testing as aboveground nuclear testing was banned in 1963.

The Sedan crater was not the result of a weapons test, but a test of a potential peaceful use of nuclear explosions. The idea was that they could be used in the construction of canals, harbors, quarries, or other projects requiring excavation.

The image from Landsat 8 seen below shows the pockmarked desert as it looks now, perhaps more reminiscent of the moon than earth. The site is no longer used for nuclear testing but is still used for nuclear response training.

 

View Media Details

### Contacts
152 So. 918

#### MUTUAL SAVINGS LIFE INS. CO. v. Mary ALSUP.

7 Div. 181.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 11, 1934.

Inzer, Davis & Martin, of Gadsden, for appellant.

McCord & McCord, of Gadsden, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.

See, also, 224 Ala. 111, 138 So. 824.
EXHIBIT
10.40


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made effective as of the 12th
day of December, 2005, by and between STEN Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation (“Seller”), and OLD Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (collectively, “Buyer”).


 


RECITALS:


 


WHEREAS, Buyer
and Seller entered into a certain Purchase Agreement (the “Original Purchase
Agreement”) dated August 10, 2005, providing for the purchase and sale of
certain property located at 13828 Lincoln Street NE, Ham Lake, Minnesota (the “Property”);


 


WHEREAS, Buyer
and Seller desire to amend the Purchase Agreement to modify and Closing Date;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follows:


 


1.             Interpretation.  The Original Purchase Agreement is hereby
modified and supplemented.  Wherever
there exists a conflict between this Amendment and the Original Purchase
Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall control.  Except as otherwise indicated, capitalized
terms used herein shall be defined in the manner set forth in the Original
Purchase Agreement.  Except as modified
and supplemented herein, the Original Purchase Agreement is in full force and
effect.  From and after the date hereof,
the term “Purchase Agreement” shall mean the Original Purchase Agreement as
amended hereby.


 


2.             Closing Date.  The parties agree that the Closing Date is
extended from December 16, 2005, to January 11, 2006.


 


3.             Lease.  Seller agrees to waive all Minimum Rent and
Additional Rent due under the Lease for the time period of December 16, 2005,
to the Closing Date.


 


4.             Offer and Acceptance by
Facsimile Transmission.  This
Amendment may be executed using counterpart signature pages executed separately
which, when assembled together, shall constitute a single, integrated
agreement.  The parties agree that a
facsimile transmission of a counterpart signature page to this Amendment
executed by the transmitting party shall have the same force and effect as
delivery of an originally signed counterpart signature page of this Amendment
and shall be binding upon the transmitting party.  For the purposes of this paragraph, a
transmittal by facsimile to Buyer shall be to the following facsimile
number:  (763) 689-9794 (Attention:  Clark A. Joslin), and to Seller at (612)
371-3207 (Attention:  Laura L. Krenz).


 





















 


	
   

  	
  SELLER:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  STEN Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BUYER:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  OLD Holdings, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  



 


2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1779 

To amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to authorize a person 

awarded the Medal of Honor to designate an individual to receive the 

special pension after death, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2019 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee 

on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to authorize 

a person awarded the Medal of Honor to designate an 

individual to receive the special pension after death, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1779 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING A PERSON AWARDED THE 

2 MEDAL OF HONOR TO DESIGNATE AN INDI3 VIDUAL TO RECEIVE THE SPECIAL PENSION 

4 AFTER DEATH. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1562 of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and in9 serting ‘‘(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Sec10 retary’’; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(2) A person described in paragraph (1) may des14 ignate an individual to receive the special pension under 

15 this section after the death of that person by notifying 

16 the Secretary of such designation in writing. In the case 

17 of a Medal of Honor that is awarded posthumously, the 

18 individual authorized under section 1482(c) of title 10 to 

19 direct disposition of the remains of the person shall be 

20 treated as such a designee.’’; 

21 (2) in subsection (d), by inserting ‘‘(or the des22 ignee of such person under subsection (a)(2))’’ be23 fore ‘‘shall not’’; and 

24 (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ‘‘person 

25 who is in receipt of special pension payable under 

26 this section’’ and inserting ‘‘person described in 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1779 IH

1 paragraph (1) of subsection (a) (or the designee of 

2 such a person under paragraph (2) of that sub3 section)’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1134a of 

5 title 10, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘living’’; and 

7 (2) in subsection (d), in the second sentence, by 

8 inserting ‘‘(or the designee of that person under sub9 section (a)(2) of that section)’’ before the period. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0200 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0200

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC (COM(2003)0586 - C5-0473/2003 - 2003/0226(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 117 E , 18/05/2006 P. 0168 - 0186 *

P6_TA(2005)0200

Frontal protection systems on motor vehicles ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC (COM(2003)0586 — C5-0473/2003 — 2003/0226(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2003) 0586) [1],

- having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5-0473/2003),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A6-0053/2005),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### Delores Ellis, Respondent, v Brookdale Hospital *807Medical Center et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), dated April 9, 1987, which denied the appellants’ motion to depose Delores Ellis.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint in this medical malpractice action alleges, *inter alia,*that the infant plaintiff suffered brain damage and mental retardation, *inter alia,*as a result of the appellants’ negligent obstetrical and prenatal care. The infant’s mother, Gloria Ellis, commenced the instant action on behalf of the infant and on behalf of herself individually. It is not disputed that pretrial discovery, including depositions of the mother and infant, were completed when the plaintiff served a note of issue and statement of readiness in April of 1985. Subsequently, the mother died and the maternal grandmother, as the administratrix of the deceased’s estate and legal guardian of the infant, was substituted as the party plaintiff. Prior to the substitution, the appellants never sought to depose the maternal grandmother as a nonparty witness upon a showing of special circumstances *(see,*CPLR 3101 [a] [4]).

CPLR 3101 (a) (1) provides that there shall be full disclosure of all evidence “material and necessary” in the defense of an action by a party. “Where unusual or unanticipated circumstances develop subsequent to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness which require additional pretrial proceedings *to prevent substantial prejudice,*the court, upon motion supported by affidavit, may grant permission to conduct such necessary proceedings” (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d] [emphasis supplied]).

Upon reviewing the record, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to depose the substituted plaintiff. Denying the appellants an opportunity to depose the substituted plaintiff, where the deceased mother and infant were fully deposed, would not prejudice the appellants. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 3 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 4 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 5 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 6 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 7 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 8 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 9 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 10 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 11 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 12 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 13 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 14 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 15 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 16 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 17 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 18 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 19 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 20 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 21 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 22 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 23 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 24 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 25 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 26 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 27 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 28 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 29 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 30 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 31 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 32 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 33 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 34 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 35 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 36 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 37 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 38 of 39
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 266-5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 39 of 39
Case 7:07-cv-05802-KMK-GAY Document 4 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05802-KMK-GAY Document 4 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05802-KMK-GAY Document 4 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05802-KMK-GAY Document 4 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05802-KMK-GAY Document 4 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 26 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 26 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 26 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 26 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1672 SEA-FONE, LIMITED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (COMSAT), Defendant - Appellee, versus CATHERINE L. ROBINSON; CHARLES V. BAKER; SOARTA, LIMITED, Third Party Defendants. No. 96-1673 SEA-FONE, LIMITED, Plaintiff, versus COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (COMSAT), Defendant - Appellee, versus2 CHARLES V. BAKER; SOARTA, LIMITED, Third Party Defendants - Appellants, and CATHERINE L. ROBINSON, Third Party Defendant.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-1224-A) Argued: June 4, 1997 Decided: July 8, 1997 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Joseph Michael Alioto, ALIOTO LAW FIRM, San Francisco, California; Thomas Richard Nedrich, THOMAS R. NEDRICH & ASSOCIATES, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellants. Mark Douglas Wegener, HOWREY & SIMON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Louis W.Kershner, KERSHNER, HAWKINS & POLEN, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellants. Edward Han, Kirstin A. Mueller, HOWREY & SIMON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Sea-Fone, Limited appeals an order of the district court granting summary judgment to Communications Satellite Corporation (Comsat) on Sea-Fone's claims for antitrust violations, civil RICO, violations of the Federal Communications Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, tortious interference with contract, andbreach of contract. Sea-Fone's allegations stem from its frustration in attempting to compete with Comsat and others in the market for the provision of low-cost ship-to-shore telephone service for United States naval personnel. After carefully examining the record and the parties' briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Comsat. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 8 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
Clear All

        30 September 2022    

                    Navy Expeditionary Combat Command Changes Command                 
                 Rear Adm. Bradley Andros, from Poughkeepsie, New York, relieved Rear Adm. Joseph DiGuardo Jr., from Fallston, Maryland, as commander, Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), during a ceremony at Assault Craft Unit 4 onboard Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story. DiGuardo, who            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  | USFF FOIA | DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
144 So. 917

#### Ex parte Reuben WRIGHT.

4 Div. 685.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 12, 1932.

O. S. Lewis, of Dothan, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Rule nisi denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05434-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05434-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF FORM 10-Q REPORT OF





KL
ENERGY CORPORATION





FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2010





The
undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of KL Energy
Corporation (“KL”), that to his knowledge:





1.
            This Form 10-Q 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 such
      10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of
  KL.





This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to the 10-Q Report. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to KL and will be retained by KL and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
Certification is executed as of August 10, 2010.





/s/ THOMAS J. BOLANThomas
      J. BolanChief
      Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137331 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137331 

 COA: 286304 

Ingham CC: 07-000717-FH

SAMUEL HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 1, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1117 

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. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 40-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 40-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2