alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22369]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants

Dolphin Logistics, Inc., 2437 Kiska Avenue, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745, 
Officer: Kenny Isung Tsai, CEO (Qualifying Individual).
Scotty's Caribbean Shipping, Inc., 608 East 38th Street, Brooklyn, NY 
11203, Officer: Owen Duncan, President (Qualifying Individual).
Pinoy Express Cargo, Inc., 18800 Amar Road, Suite A-7, Walnut, CA 
91789, Officers: Ray Nicolas Dumandan, Vice President (Qualifying 
Individual), Lawrence Lary Esguerra, President.
Admiral Global Services, Inc., dba ALG Admiral Global, Inc., 1101 Ellis 
Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Officers: Christina Busch, Vice 
President (Qualifying Individual), Patricia R. Hezinger, President.

Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicant

Swift Global Logistics, Inc., 6033 W. Century Blvd., Suite 210, Los 
Angeles, CA 90045, Officers: Peter N. Landon, Vice President 
(Qualifying Individual), Paul J. Martins, President.

Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants

Seibal Cargo Corp., 9080 SW 125 Avenue, <greek-i>B103, Miami, FL 33186, 
Officers: Yenifer Ponce, Secretary (Qualifying Individual), Mauricio 
Arriaga, Vice President.
Sanjet Express, Inc., 1 West Street, New Hyde Park, NY 11040, Officer: 
Jane Chin Shuen Lieu, President (Qualifying Individual).

    Dated: November 4, 2005.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22369 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HIEYMI BAUTISTA-LOPEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-74249

Agency No. A089-591-615

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 20, 2016** 

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Hieymi Bautista-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

JAN 27 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand where

Bautista-Lopez failed to demonstrate that the new evidence she submitted would

likely have changed the outcome of her case. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019,

1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue

relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new

evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (citation omitted)).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Bautista-Lopez’s remaining

contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

 

2 13-74249
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1607 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide protections 

for patients scheduling non-emergency procedures at in-network hospitals, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2019 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

protections for patients scheduling non-emergency procedures at in-network hospitals, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Billing Fair5 ness Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1607 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION FOR 

2 HOSPITALS UNDER THE MEDICARE PRO3 GRAM WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULING OF 

4 NON-EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AT IN-NET5 WORK HOSPITALS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1866(a)(1) of the Social 

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(1)) is amended— 

8 (1) by moving the indentation of subparagraph 

9 (W) 2 ems to the left; 

10 (2) in subparagraph (X)— 

11 (A) by moving the indentation 2 ems to 

12 the left; and 

13 (B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

14 (3) in subparagraph (Y), by striking the period 

15 at the end and inserting ‘‘, and’’; and 

16 (4) by inserting after subparagraph (Y) the fol17 lowing new subparagraph: 

18 ‘‘(Z)(i) in the case of a hospital, with respect to 

19 a non-emergency procedure scheduled by a patient in 

20 the hospital where the hospital is in-network for the 

21 patient— 

22 ‘‘(I) to provide to the patient at the time 

23 of scheduling the opportunity to inform the hos24 pital that they would like in-network treatment 

25 only for the procedure; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1607 IS

1 ‘‘(II) if such treatment is not available at 

2 the time of the procedure despite the patient in3 forming the hospital that they would like such 

4 treatment at the time of scheduling, to provide 

5 for payment by the hospital of any additional 

6 cost to the patient, group health plan, or group 

7 or individual health insurance coverage for the 

8 procedure as a result of any treatment that is 

9 not in-network. 

10 ‘‘(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the 

11 term ‘non-emergency procedure’ means examination 

12 or treatment for a medical condition (other than an 

13 emergency medical condition, as defined in section 

14 1867(e)(1)).’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact17 ment of this Act and apply to contracts entered into or 

18 renewed on or after the date that is six months after such 

19 date of enactment. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 1:06-cv-15096-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 350 -CV

M ic hae l D e wval l , A ppe lla nt

v. Kat hy D. Wills , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B URNET COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 16,7 33 , HO NORAB LE GUILF ORD L. JO NES III , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N On Aug ust 26, 2009, this C o u rt n o t i fi ed appellant that the cler k’s re cord in the above c ause w as over due. This Court reque sted that appe llant make ar rang ements for

the re cord
an d s u b mi t a s tatu s r e p o r t r e g a r d in g th is a p p e a l o n o r b e f

o r e Se p te mb e r 8 , 2 0 0 9
. This Court further informed a

ppellant that fa i l u re t o d o s o m ay result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of pr os e c uti on . T he dea dli ne ha s p a sse d, a nd we ha ve re c e ive d n o r e sp on se fr om a pp e lla nt. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of prosec ution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Oc tober 16, 2009
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

appealed to the Supreme Court: 

 

1. John Carlos Bardales 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0455-19-4 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales on 

 April 7, 2020 

2. Kumar Sangaran 

 v. Shabnam Sachdeva 

 Record No. 1898-19-4 

 Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee on 

 June 23, 2020 

3. William Howard Robinson 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0154-19-4 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on 

 July 7, 2020 

4. Quartrez Logan, s/k/a 

 Quartrez Rashad Logan 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1735-18-1 

 Rehearing En Banc Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on 

 July 21,2020 
 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court: 

1. Jesus Davila Bailey, III 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0613-18-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Russell 

 on July 30, 2019 

 Refused (191248) 

2. Larry Dornell Palmer 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1294-18-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales 

 on November 26, 2019 

 Refused (191714) 

3. Linda Kaye Nelson, s/k/a 

 Linda Lay Nelson, s/k/a 

 Linda Kay Nelson 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0242-19-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Petty 

 on January 7, 2020 

 Refused (200203)
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31985L0614

**Council Directive 85/614/EEC of 20 December 1985 amending, on account of the accession of Spain and Portugal, Directive 85/384/EEC on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services***Official Journal L 376 , 31/12/1985 P. 0001 - 0001 Spanish special edition: Chapter 06 Volume 3 P. 0055  Finnish special edition: Chapter 6 Volume 2 P. 0130  Portuguese special edition Chapter 06 Volume 3 P. 0055  Swedish special edition: Chapter 6 Volume 2 P. 0130*

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 20 December 1985 amending, on account of the accession of Spain and  Portugal, Directive 85/384/EEC on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other  evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective  exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (85/614/EEC)

THE  COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,  and in particular Article 396 thereof, Whereas in view of the accession of Spain and Portugal, it  is necessary to make certain amendments to Directive 85/384/EEC  (1) to ensure its equal  application by the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the other Member States,  Whereas pursuant to Article 2 (3) of the Treaty of Accession of Spain and Portugal the institutions  of the Community may adopt before accession the measures referred to in Article 396 of the Act of  Accession, the measures entering into force subject to and on the date of entry into force of the  said Treaty, HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 With effect from 1 January 1986, subject to the  entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Spain and Portugal, Article 11 of Directive  85/384/EEC shall be amended by the addition of the following: '(j)  in Spain-  the official formal  qualification of an architect (título oficial de arquitecto) awarded by the Ministry of Education  and Science or by the universities, (k)in Portugal-the Diploma ''diploma do curso especial de  arquitectura'' awarded by the Schools of Fine Arts of Lisbon and of Porto,-the Architects Diploma  'diploma de arquitecto' awarded by the Schools of Fine Arts of Lisbon and of Porto,-the Diploma  ''diploma do curso de arquitectura'' awarded by the Higher Schools of Fine Arts of Lisbon and  Porto,-the Diploma ''diploma de licenciatura em arquitectura'' awarded by the Higher School of Fine  Arts of Lisbon,-the Diploma ''carta de curso de licenciatura em arquitectura'' awarded by the  Technical University of Lisbon and the University of Porto.' Article 2 The Member States shall take  the measures necessary to comply with this Directive within the time limit specified in Article 31  (1) of Directive 85/384/EEC. Article 3 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at  Brussels, 20 December 1986. For the Council The President R. KRIEPS                                                  (1)  OJ No L 223, 21. 8. 1985, p. 15.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 68 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 68 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 68 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 68 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 4 of 4
# US, South Korea begin annual search for remains still missing from Korean War

/ Published April 11, 2024
CAMP HUMPHREYS, South Korea, 
Anthropologists and historians from the United States and South Korea have embarked on their annual search for the remains of service members killed during the 1950-53 Korean War.Ten U.S. military and civilian members of the Hawaii-based Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency began their monthlong mission Monday with counterparts from South Korea, DPAA spokesman Sean Everette said in an email Tuesday.To read the entire article, click **here**.
d77575ex10_a.htm


 

 

Exhibit 10.A




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







Reference is hereby made to the Employment Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) dated as of January 1, 2007 by and between AutoInfo, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Harry M. Wachtel, an individual residing at 17222 Bermuda Village Dr., Boca Raton, FL 33487.





For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned parties agree as follows:






1) Section 4 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to reduce the Base Compensation provided for therein from $250,000 to $225,000 for the period from May 11, 2009 through December 31, 2009.





2) Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Original Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as of May 11, 2009.





AutoInfo, Inc.









By: /s/ William Wunderlich                                                      /s/
Harry Wachtel                                           

         William Wunderlich                                                                                                         
Harry Wachtel

          Chief Financial Officer
Argued and submitted March 10,

reversed and remanded April 7, 1999

#### Christopher Cole BEAMAN, *Appellant, v.*MT. HOOD MEADOWS OREG., LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Oregon limited partnership, *Respondent.*

(9703-02123; CA A101018)

978 P2d 415

Michael H. Bloom argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Brad C. Stanford argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Farleigh, Wada & Witt.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded. *Steele v. Mt. Hood Meadows,*159 Or App 272, 974 P2d 794 (1999).
#### HUDSON v. DOWNS

No. 361 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 207

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980.
...±±oÛŒ⁄›Ù ÔÍ ”øÆ1⁄2 ̧ ÓððÈ ÔÈ

ÌÚ –øÆ ̈·1⁄2 ́¥øÆ·¶ao oa­ ̈Æ ́1⁄2 ̈·TMa aooa1⁄2 ̈­  ̈ ̧ø ̈ “×ÕÃ ·12±ÆaoÙ  ̈ ̧ ́­ Æa2oaÆ·21

“›ÕÃflŒ Ô ̆­ 1⁄2±21⁄2¥ ́­·±2­ ·21⁄2±3°¥a ̈aÙ ·2øoaØ ́ø ̈aÙ 3·­¥aøo·21 ø2oÒ±Æ

oÆø ́o ́¥a2 ̈Ê

flÚ ¤3° ̈ß ÿ±¥a­ ·2o·1⁄2ø ̈·TMa ±o À2 ́­ ́ø¥ ¤2aÆ1ß ×3°ø1⁄2 ̈­Ú

⁄·1 ́Æa ÔÍÚ Õø ̈a¥¥· ̈a ·3ø1a ±o  ̈ ̧a ...Ã› 1⁄2±3°¥a®Ù ÁÒÓÌÒðÔÙ æß “—flflÚ ¤TMaÆß æ ́·¥o·21  ̈ ̧ø ̈ ©øoa­ ̈Æ±ßao  ̧øo ø °Æao·® ±o ...Ã›Ú Ã ̧aÆa ©ø­ ­ ́Æ°Æ·­·21¥ß ¥· ̈ ̈¥a 1⁄2±¥¥ø ̈aÆø¥ oø3ø1a  ̈± 2aøÆæß æ ́·¥o·21­  ̈ ̧ø ̈

©aÆa 2± ̈  ̈øÆ1a ̈aoÚ Ã ̧a ...Ã› æ ́·¥o·21­  ̈ ̧ø ̈ ©aÆa 2± ̈  ̈± ̈ø¥¥ß oa­ ̈Æ±ßao  ̧øo 3 ́¥ ̈·°¥a 1⁄2·Æ1⁄2 ́¥øÆ  ̧±¥a­

TM·­·æ¥a ø ̈ ŸÆ± ́2o ÆaÆ± ÛÛ a­°a1⁄2·ø¥¥ß ·2 æ ́·¥o·21­ ...Ã›Î ø2o ...Ã›Í ø2o ø Æ± ́2o 1⁄2ß¥·2oÆ·1⁄2ø¥  ̧±¥a ·2

‘·æaÆ ̈ß Õ ̈Æaa ̈Ú

...Ã› Í  ̄Ë ­ ̈±Æ·a­ ̃ ...Ã›Î  ̄Á ­ ̈±Æ·a­ ̃

...Ã›Ï

 ̄Á ­ ̈±Æ·a­ ̃

...Ã›Ô

 ̄ÔÔð ­ ̈±Æ·a­ ̃

...Ã›Ó

 ̄ÔÔð ­ ̈±Æ·a­ ̃

...Ã›Ì

 ̄ÓÓ ­ ̈±Æ·a­ ̃

...Ã›Ì

“

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-8 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 2
...±±oÛŒ⁄›Ù ÔÍ ”øÆ1⁄2 ̧ ÓððÈ ÔË

⁄·1 ́Æa ÔÈÚ ŸÆ ©±ÆμaÆ­ oa­1⁄2a2o ·2 ̈±  ̈ ̧a ­ ́ææø­a3a2 ̈­ æa¥±© ...Ã›ÓÚ ... ̧·¥a  ̈ ̧aÆa ·­ a® ̈a2­·TMa oø3ø1aÙ

 ̈ ̧aÆa ·­ ¥· ̈ ̈¥a æ ́·¥o·21 oaæÆ·­ ø ̈  ̈ ̧a æ± ̈ ̈±3 ±o  ̈ ̧a  ̧±¥aÚ Ã ̧aÆa ·­ 2± ­·12 ±o 3±¥ ̈a2 3a ̈ø¥Ú fl ©±ÆμaÆ ·2  ̈ ̧a

o·­ ̈ø21⁄2a ©ø¥μ­ ø¥±21 ø 3ø­­·TMa 1⁄2±Æa 1⁄2±¥ ́32Ú Ã ̧aÆa ·­ ¥· ̈ ̈¥a  ̈± 2± 3ø ̈aÆ·ø¥ ·2  ̈ ̧a­a  ̧±¥a­Ú

 ̄° ̧± ̈± o·¥ao ÁÒÔËÒðÔ ̃

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-8 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 2 of 2
Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded
#### R. B. STOKES CONCRETE COMPANY v. WARREN B. WARDEN, and Wife, CHARLOTTE L. WARDEN.

(Filed 9 November, 1966.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Brock, S.J.,*May 1966 Nonjury Session of WaKE.

Small claim adjudicated under G.S. 1-539.3 *et seq.*

Plaintiff R. B. Stokes, the sole proprietor of R. B. Stokes Concrete Company, instituted this action to recover a balance of $671.71 allegedly due him for constructing “certain concrete walkways and other work” on defendants’ premises. Defendants denied that they were indebted to plaintiff in any amount and alleged a counterclaim against him in the amount of $1,000.00. They averred that a swimming pool and the walks surrounding it, which plaintiff had constructed for them, contained defective materials and workmanship.

Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show: On May 16, 1963, plaintiff contracted to construct a swimming pool for defendants at a cost of $4,600.00. He guaranteed the work for one year and agreed to give defendants a first-class job, and he performed his agreement. After the pool was finished, the parties entered into another contract for additional work on walkways and for “work under the house and the front yard.” The cost of this additional work was $1,713.05. Plaintiff has made every reasonable effort to satisfy defendants, but Mr. Warden is a perfectionist who cannot be satisfied. The total unpaid balance due plaintiff on both contracts is $671.71 with interest from October 1, 1963.

The evidence for defendants tended to show: Contract specifications for the walks which plaintiff agreed to construct called for a drop of one inch in eight feet. The sidewalks were not so constructed but were put in “reasonably flat.” As a result, water was trapped and “birdbaths” were created. After the first winter, cracks appeared in the corners of the swimming pool; some tiles cracked *467and paint chipped. Other defects were also enumerated. Defendants estimate that “75 to *80%*of the jointed line area all the way around the pool” was defective in one way or another. Plaintiff promised to remedy the defects but failed to do so. Mr. Warden illustrated his testimony with colored slides showing the pool and the walks. One of his witnesses estimated that it would cost $1,037.40 to repair the defects.

Judge Brock answered the issues raised and entered judgment that defendants were entitled to recover $325.00 from plaintiff and that plaintiff was entitled to recover nothing of defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

*Allen W. Brown for 'plaintiff.*

*Poyner, Geraghty, Hartsfield & Townsend by Marvin D. Mussel-white, Jr., for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

This case involved only a factual dispute, which the judge has resolved. The assignments of error disclose no error of law.

The judgment is

Affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 15 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 15 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 15 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 2-8 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 5 Case 3:06-cv-02574-H-AJB Document 9 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 2-8 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 2 of 5 Case 3:06-cv-02574-H-AJB Document 9 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 2-8 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 3 of 5 Case 3:06-cv-02574-H-AJB Document 9 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 2-8 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 4 of 5 Case 3:06-cv-02574-H-AJB Document 9 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 2-8 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 5 of 5 Case 3:06-cv-02574-H-AJB Document 9 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 5 of 5
#### STATE v. HOLMES

No. 127 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 581.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 June 1975.
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weave r

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

J ustices

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 February 26, 2009

jm 

# Order

February 26, 2009

138039

JOHN DANIEL ASHFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138039

CoA: 288471

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the partial filing fee as required by the order of January 9, 2009 , the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close this file.
#### CLARK v. CLARK

No. 175 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 404.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 14 July 1977.