alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, Richard Armstrong, hereby certify that, to
the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Strong Technical Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Strong
Technical Inc.



Date: February 22, 2005

/s/ Richard Armstrong
    ---------------------------
    Richard Armstrong,
    Chief Executive Officer
    and Chief Financial Officer
HEMBRY v. BECK.

No. 175P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Theodis Beck.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of April 2006 by Plaintiff to Proceed in Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
EZELL, et al. v. HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 44A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 30, 2006.

Belinda A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for NCDHHS.

William H. Elam, Michael J. Rousseaux, Charlotte, for Pammy Ezell.

Elizabeth E. McConnell, Asheville, for Grace Hospital, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of March 2006 by NCATL for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(1). By order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of March 2006."
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 42463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15108]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of August 25, 2022, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory 
Board Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards 
Advisory Board (FASAB) will hold a meeting on August 25, 2022. The 
purpose of the meeting is to discuss the draft management's discussion 
and analysis exposure draft. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and 
conclude at 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be virtual.

ADDRESSES: The agenda, briefing materials, and teleconference 
information for the virtual meeting will be available at https://www.fasab.gov/briefing-materials/ approximately one week before the 
meeting. Any interested person may attend the virtual meeting as an 
observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public. For any 
questions concerning the meeting or during the meeting please send an 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a6a1b3a1a280a6a1b3a1a2eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5234332133301234332133307c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call 
(202) 512-7350.
    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.).

    Dated: July 11, 2022.
Monica R. Valentine,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2022-15108 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Form****10-Q) of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (the “Company”), I, Ronald E. Baron, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,****hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 
|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form l0-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
|   | /s/ Ronald E. Baron | Date: November  14, 2006                                                                      |
|--------|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald E. Baron     |  
 

Chief Financial Officer

 
 

 

 

 

 

  |
IN RE L.B.

No. COA05-1565.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 20, 2006.

Certification Date July 10, 2006.

Appeal from Harnett (04J128).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
NC BOARD OF PHARMACY v. COMMISSION.

No. 673A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 14, 2006.

Carson Carmichael, III, M. Denise Stanford, Anna Baird Choi, Matthew W. Sawchak, Paul K. Sun, Jr., Julia F. Youngman, Stephen D. Feldman, Raleigh, for NC Board of Pharmacy.

William W. Plyler, Stephen T. Smith, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor-General, Raleigh, for Rules of Review Commission, et al.

Michael J. Tadych, C. Amanda Martin, Raleigh, Susan C. Winckler, Vice President, for American Pharmacists, et al.

Charlotte A. Mitchell, Stanford D. Baird, William G. Scoggin, Daniel J. Palmieri, Raleigh, Ann M. Anderson, Research Triangle Park, for NC Citizens for Business, et al.

Amy E. Pickle, for NC Coastal Federation, et al.

Robert R. Marcus, Angela L. Little, Greensboro, Dale J. Atkinson, Julia C. Works, Evanston, IL, for NABP.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of June 2006 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General (Rules of Review Commission, et al.) shall have up to and including the 21st day of July 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of June 2006."
STATE v. STANCIL

No. COA05-541

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Pitt (04CRS53349).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; Dismissed in part.
STATE v. JACOBS.

No. COA04-767.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed in part, no error in part.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5504 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate the President William 

Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home in Hope, Arkansas, as a National 

Historic Site and unit of the National Park System, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2008 

Mr. ROSS (for himself, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. BERRY, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate the 

President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home 

in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site and 

unit of the National Park System, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON BIRTHPLACE 

4 HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE. 

5 (a) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY; ESTABLISHMENT OF

6 HISTORIC SITE.—Should the Secretary of the Interior ac7 quire, by donation only from the Clinton Birthplace FounVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:47 Feb 28, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5504.IH H5504

smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5504 IH

1 dation, Inc., fee simple, unencumbered title to the William 

2 Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home site located at 117 

3 South Hervey Street, Hope, Arkansas, 71801, and to any 

4 personal property related to that site, the Secretary shall 

5 designate the William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home 

6 site as a National Historic Site and unit of the National 

7 Park System, to be known as the ‘‘President William Jef8 ferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site’’. 

9 (b) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.—The Sec10 retary shall administer the President William Jefferson 

11 Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site in accord12 ance with the laws generally applicable to national historic 

13 sites, including the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to establish a Na14 tional Park Service, and for other purposes’’, approved 

15 August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1–4), and the Act entitled 

16 ‘‘An Act to provide for the preservation of historic Amer17 ican sites, buildings, objects and antiquities of national 

18 significance, and for other purposes’’, approved August 

19 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
BLUE RIDGE SAV. BANK, INC. v. BEST AND BEST, P.L.L.C..

No. COA04-1357.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Buncombe (03CVS4082)

Case reported without published opinion Dismissed.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 566 

To waive the time limitations specified by law for the award of certain 

military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the 

Medal of Honor to Doris Miller for actions while a member of the 

Navy during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2007 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. CUMMINGS, 

Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. JACKSON-LEE

of Texas, Mr. EDWARDS, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To waive the time limitations specified by law for the award 

of certain military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor to Doris Miller 

for actions while a member of the Navy during World 

War II. 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 566 IH

1 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS ON AWARD OF 

2 MEDAL OF HONOR TO DORIS MILLER FOR 

3 VALOR AS A MEMBER OF THE NAVY DURING 

4 WORLD WAR II. 

5 The time limitations specified in section 6248(a) of 

6 title 10, United States Code, shall not apply with respect 

7 to the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor under 

8 section 6241 of such title to Doris Miller (service number 

9 356–12–35) for acts of heroism during World War II 

10 while a member of the United States Navy. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Stratum Holdings, Inc. (the “registrant”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, D.Hughes Watler, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of thisSarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

 

 
|   | /s/D.  Hughes Watler, Jr. |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | D.  Hughes Watler, Jr.    |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer       |
|   | August 10,  2009          |

 

----
BARTON v. WHITE, et al.

No. 684P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

L. Phillip Hornthal, III, Elizabeth City, for Sue Perry White.

David R. Pureza, Elizabeth City, for Earl Ray Godfrey/Sonny Godfrey.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of December 2005 by Plaintiff for appointment of counsel:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."
MILLER v. MILLER.

No. COA05-510.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Caldwell (03CVD234).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Tyrone HOLLEY.

No. 533P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Tyrone Holley, Pro Se.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*779*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Durham County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."
MULTIPLE CLAIMANTS v. NCDHHS.

No. 183A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Robert G. Hargett, Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for NCDHHS.

Benjamin E. Baker, Jr., Montgomery, AL, Bruce A. Elmore, Jr., Asheville, C. Gary Triggs, Robert K. Denton, Lawrence D. McMahon, Jr., Morganton, William Hixson, Henry E. Teich, Scott M. Anderson, for Multiple Claimants.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of May 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (NCDHHS) shall have up to and including the 10th day of June 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 47

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Carrie L. Lusby, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20210266

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, 

the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

James A. Hope, Assistant State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for plaintiff and 

appellee; submitted on brief.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

MARCH 3, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Lusby

No. 20210266

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Carrie Lee Lusby appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury 

found her guilty of criminal trespass. Lusby argues the district court erred in 

failing to instruct the jury on the defense of excuse under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-

08. Lusby did not object to the jury instructions at trial, so this Court reviews 

for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). To receive an excuse instruction, 

the circumstances of a defendant’s claimed excuse must be necessary and 

appropriate for one of the purposes that could establish a justification 

or excuse under N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-05. See State v. Zottnick, 2011 ND 84, ¶ 11, 

796 N.W.2d 666. We conclude Lusby did not show the court erred by not 

providing an instruction on excuse. 

[¶2] Lusby also argues the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction

because the State failed to prove she knowingly trespassed. Viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude substantial 

evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor

of conviction. We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 

35.1(a)(3) and (7).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5304 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Sorafenib tosylate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Sorafenib 

tosylate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SORAFENIB TOSYLATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.02 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Sorafenib tosylate) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5304 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARALAINI LIKUDILA SEWALE,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72984

Agency No. A200

- 545

- 226

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Karalaini Likudila Sewale, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo que stions of

law, including claims of due process violations. Padilla

- Martinez v. Holder , 770

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

# FILED

FEB 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72984

F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and d eny in part the petition for

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Sewale did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her lawful

permanent resident husband

. See Vilchiz

- Soto v. Holder , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th

Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks

jurisdiction to review the agency’s hardship determination). Sewale ’s contentions

that the agency did not properly consider or weigh the evidence of hardship are not

colorable constitutional claim s

. See Martinez

- Rosas v. Gonzales , 424 F.3d 926,

930 (9th Cir. 2005). Fu rther, t here is no support in the record for Sewale’s

contention s that the agency denied cancellation of removal as punishment for her

husband’s history of alcoholism or prevented her from receiving a full and fair

hearing

. See id. (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some

possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Sewale has not established any error in the BIA’s conclusion that the

regulation s governing voluntary departure do not provide for enlargement of the

five

- day bond period

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3). N or do the regulations allow

the BIA to reinstate voluntary departure in the absence of proof that the bond has

been p osted

. See id

. ; cf. Garfias

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 702 F.3d 504, 526

- 27 (9th

Cir. 2012) (en banc) ( “ Congress has unambiguously granted the Attorney General3 18

- 72984

authority to control the scope of voluntary departure grants in [8 U.S.C.] § 1229c

and [] he has reasonably exercise d his authority in promulgating the regulation ” at

8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
RUSSELL v. RUSSELL.

No. COA05-1261.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Nash (02CVD1572).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### Philip DeSantis, Respondent, v General Advisory & Funding Corp., Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 702]

In an action to recover the balance due on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), entered July 31, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and to sever its third affirmative defense and counterclaim, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third affirmative defense and counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, in which it contended that the plaintiff sought to enforce a usurious transaction. Although the interest charged on the subject loan exceeded the criminal usury rate *(see*Penal Law § 190.40) and was therefore usurious without regard to the lender’s intent *(see Freitas v Geddes Sav. & Loan Assn.,*63 NY2d 254, 262 [1984]; *Fareri v Rain’s Intl.,*187 AD2d 481, 482 [1992]), the evidence, including the defendant’s own deposition testimony, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant should be estopped from raising usury as a defense *(see Seidel v 18 E. 17th St. Owners,*79 NY2d 735, 743 [1992]; *Russo v Carey,*271 AD2d 889, 890 [2000]; *Greenfield v Skydell,*186 AD2d 391 [1992]; *Angelo v Brenner,*90 AD2d 131 [1982]; *Hammond v Marrano,*88 AD2d 758, 760 [1982]).

*1052The Supreme Court also correctly determined that the defendant, General Advisory & Funding Corp. (hereinafter GAF), was not the owner of the mortgage brokerage commission claim at the time it filed its answer and counterclaim seeking to recover the same. Since the claim belonged to GAF’s president at the time he commenced a bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over the claim *(see*28 USC § 1334 [e]), and the Supreme Court properly declined to entertain it *(see Hart Sys. v Arvee Sys.,*244 AD2d 527 [1997]; *Bromley v Fleet Bank,*240 AD2d 611 [1997]; *Weiss v Goldfeder,*201 AD2d 644 [1994]). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

p0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138767-8

TOMMIE LEE REED, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138767-8 COA: 281041, 281403 Wayne CC: 05-519875-NZ OFFICER DANIEL SITARSKI and OFFICER MICHAEL SMITH, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.