alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011359EN.01000901.xml

| 9.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/9

---

Draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2011 — Council Position

2011/C 359/06

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic and Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), as last amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1081/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 (2), and in particular Article 37 thereof,

1

2

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union's general budget for the financial year 2011 was definitively adopted on 15 December 2010 (3), |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union's general budget for the financial year 2011 was definitively adopted on 15 December 2010 (3),

3

| (2) | On 18 October 2011, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 6 to the general budget for the financial year 2011, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 18 October 2011, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 6 to the general budget for the financial year 2011,

| (3) | Given the fact that draft amending budget No 6 for 2011 needs to be implemented within the financial year 2011 for reasons of sound financial management, it is justified to shorten the eight-weeks period laid down in Article 4 of the Protocol No 1 for the information of the National Parliaments, as well as the 10 days period for the placing of the item on the Council's provisional agenda, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of procedure, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Given the fact that draft amending budget No 6 for 2011 needs to be implemented within the financial year 2011 for reasons of sound financial management, it is justified to shorten the eight-weeks period laid down in Article 4 of the Protocol No 1 for the information of the National Parliaments, as well as the 10 days period for the placing of the item on the Council's provisional agenda, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of procedure,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2011 was adopted on 30 November 2011.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2011.

For the Council

The President

J. VINCENT-ROSTOWSKI

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1, with corrigenda in OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 43 and OJ L 99, 14.4.2007, p. 18.

1

(2)  OJ L 311, 26.11.2010, p. 9.

2

(3)  OJ L 68, 15.3.2011.

3

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1179

RUFUS PLEASANT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-99-1459-A)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rufus Pleasant appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Defendant in this employment discrimination

action. On appeal, Pleasant challenges the district court’s conclusion that his action was barred by res judicata, asserting that

the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of his first action was not

an adjudication on the merits. We have reviewed the record, the

district court’s order, and the transcript of the January 7, 2000,

hearing on the motion for summary judgment that contains the district court’s reasoning. We agree with the district court that the

disposition of Pleasant’s first suit was an adjudication on the

merits. See Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 1985).

In his informal brief, Pleasant also makes various malpractice

allegations against his attorney, who also represented him in the

first action. Pleasant’s malpractice claim is not a basis for

invalidating the district court's order. See Sanchez v. United

States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Pleasant v. Henderson, No. CA-99-1459-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2000).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
eoss_ex101.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.1
  
 March 24, 2020
 Ultra Velocity Technology LTD.
 10F, No.284, Zhong Shan first Rd.
 Luzhou District, New Taipei City, Taiwan
 Attn: Kun Sen Shi
  
 Dear Mr. Shi:
  
 施先生您好,
  
 This letter refers to the exclusive patent licensing and distribution agreement (the “Exclusive Patent Licensing and Distribution Agreement”) dated November 25, 2019 by and between EOS Inc. (the “Company”) and Ultra Velocity Technology Ltd. (“Ultra Velocity”). The Company and Ultra Velocity mutually deem it is in the best interest of both Ultra Velocity and the Company to terminate the Exclusive Patent Licensing and Distribution Agreement. The respective parties are renegotiating the terms for a new agreement but the failure to do so will have no effect on the validity of this termination. 
  
 此信件的目的是針對EOS Inc. (以下簡稱“本公司”)和Ultra Velocity Technology Ltd. (以下簡稱“Ultra Velocity”)於2019年11月25日所簽訂的專利獨家授權暨獨家經銷合約 (“專利獨家授權暨獨家經銷合約”)。公司和Ultra Velocity 雙方都有認知,對於終止專利獨家授權暨獨家經銷合約都符合雙方的最佳利益。雙方正在重新談判新協議的條款,但如果新的合約沒有成立, 將不會影響終止協議的有效性。
  
 By execution of this Letter, you acknowledge and agree to terminate the Exclusive Patent Licensing and Distribution Agreement. Upon termination of the Exclusive Patent Licensing and Distribution Agreement, each of the Company and Ultra Velocity shall return to the disclosing party any and all of confidential information furnished by such disclosing party in connection with the Exclusive Patent Licensing and Distribution Agreement. 
  
 	 
	1
	  

	 

  
 簽署本函,即表示您確認並同意終止專利獨家授權暨獨家經銷合約。終止後,本公司(即披露方)和Ultra Velocity均應將由披露方所提供之所有與專利獨家授權暨獨家經銷合約有關之機密信息退還給披露方。
  
 In addition, you hereby acknowledge that you have no outstanding claims or issues against the Company and its officers and directors as of the date of this Letter. As of the date of this letter, each of the Company and Ultra Velocity herein represents and warrants that to the best knowledge of each party, neither party is aware of any potential or pending litigation arising from the Exclusive Patent Licensing and Distribution Agreement. 
  
 此外,您特此確認,截至本函件之日,您無任何由公司及其職員和董事提出且未完成的索賠問題。截至本函件之日,本公司和Ultra Velocity均代表並保證,就各方所知,雙方均不知道任何因為專利獨家授權暨獨家經銷合約所引起的任何潛在或未決訴訟。
  
 We look forward to continue working with you on new terms. 
  
 我們期待繼續與您合作並共同商議新的條款。 
  
  
	EOS Inc.	
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ He-Siang Yang	
	 Name: 
	He-Siang Yang	 
	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	  
	  
	  

	 Acknowledged and accepted by
  
 Ultra Velocity Technology LTD.
	  

	  
	  
	  

	 By:
	/s/ Kun Sen Shi  	  

	 Name: 
	 Kun Sen Shi  
	  

	 Title: 
	 Authorized Representative
	  


  
  
 	 
	2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HELEN MARISA ANN DYKES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1316

[January 26, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Okeechobee County; Michael McNicholas, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

472019CF000648A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M. 

Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Brown v. State, 4D20-1426, 2022 WL 107974 (Fla. 4th 

DCA Jan. 12, 2022).

MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASHOT HRANT GASPARYAN;

MARGARITA SOREN HAKOBIAN;

GARIK GASPARYAN,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70248

Agency Nos. A079-256-052

A079-256-053

A079-811-486

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 7, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Ashot Gasparyan, Margarita Hakobian, and Garik Gasparyan (the

“Gasparyans”) seek review of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and

FILED

NOV 20 2013

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).
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

After reviewing the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and

examining the Immigration Judge’s “oral decision as a guide to what lay behind

the BIA’s conclusion,” Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.

2000), we conclude that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility

determination. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011); Singh-Kaur

v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999). At the least, the inconsistencies

and equivocations in Gasparyan’s testimony concerning the duration of his

commitment to the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion go to the heart of the Gasparyans’

asylum claim. Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006).

The Gasparyans’ challenges to the denial of CAT relief were never

presented to the BIA below. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review them. See

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004); Rojas-Garcia v.

Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003).

DENIED.

-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GALE M. WOODHAM,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv93/RS-GRJ

THE GEO GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s notice of settlement (Doc. 31). Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 

16.2(D), IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed from the active docket of the court.

2. In the event that the settlement between these parties is not consummated, the 

Court reserves jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days 

of the date of this Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and 

reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file for administrative purposes, and upon the 

expiration of 120 days without activity, the clerk is directed to close the case 

in its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on October 1, 2010.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### STATE v. KISTLER

No. 5 PC.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 431.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 4 April 1972.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RED MOUNTAIN BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-104/RS-EMT

TOP SHELF STORAGE II, LLC, 

and LEE A. SAGE, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER 

Based on the paragraph fourteen of the Plaintiff’s Response to my Show Cause 

Order (Doc. 57), Counts III and IV of the Complaint (Doc. 2) are dismissed. 

The Amended Pretrial Order (Doc. 37) is vacated. 

ORDERED on January 26, 2011

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

       In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of CHINA
ENVIRONMENT HOLDINGS INC.  (the
"Company") for the quarter ending September 30,
2008, I, Ming Xu, President of the Company hereby
certify 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 my knowledge and
belief, that:

       1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ending September 30, 2008, 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
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ending September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 13, 2008

/s/ Ming Xu
Ming Xu, President (Principal executive and financial
officer)
**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**

In connection with the Annual Report of Energy Quest Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald Foster, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

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 results of operations of the Company.

Date:  July 15, 2010

*/s/ Ronald Foster*Ronald FosterChief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CITY OF PANAMA CITY BEACH, a

Municipality created by the State of

Florida,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv150/RS-EMT

AG EDWARDS TRUST COMPANY,

FSB, Successor by Merger to AG

EDWARDS TRUST COMPANY, a

Florida corporation, et al,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the United States’ Motion And Memorandum For Enlargement Of Time

Within Which To Answer (Doc. 4).

IT IS ORDERED that the United States shall file its response to the Petition In

Eminent Domain not later than June 30, 2010.

ORDERED on June 24, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TRUST FINANCIAL, A MORTGAGE

COMPANY, LLC, a Texas Limited

Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv49-SPM/AK

FORT ATKINSON PLANTATION, LLC.,

a Florida Limited Liability Company, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND

Upon consideration, the Agreed Motion of Defendant Owen B. Lovejoy for

an Enlargement of Time to Serve a Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 21) is

granted. Defendant Owen B. Lovejoy shall have up to and including June 21,

2010, to file and serve his response to the complaint.

SO ORDERED this 16h day of June, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
# C_2009099EN.01000801.xml

| 30.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/8

---

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Notice of open competition

Ref.: CONS-COMM/AD/433

Head of Unit (AD 12) in the field of translation having Irish as their main language

2009/C 99/06

The General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission are organising an open competition on the basis of qualifications and tests to draw up a reserve list for Head of Unit (AD 12) in the field of translation having Irish as their main language.

The profile requires 12 years’ professional experience of which at least three years in management in particular.

This vacancy notice is published in English and Irish only. The full text, in both languages, appears in the Official Journal of the European Union C 99 A of 30 April 2009.

Official Journal of the European Union

30 April 2009

It is also possible to consult the notice of vacancy on the Council's website at:

(http:/www.consilium.europa.eu/contacts/job offers).

The deadline for submitting applications is 3 June 2009, the postmark serving as proof.

3 June 2009

---
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00105

- CR

TRISTAN BLAYDE FLOWERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017F00270

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Tristan Blayde Flowers , has submitted to his attorney a personal letter

requesting dismissal of his appeal in this matter. The letter was submitted to this Court as part of

a motion to dismiss filed by counsel, and we view the letter as the clearest possible expression of

Flow ers’ desire to dismiss this appeal. As authorized by Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, we grant Flowers’ request. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: August 13, 2018

Date Decided: August 14, 2018

Do Not Publish
#### DEESE v. LAWN AND TREE EXPERT CO.

No. 16PA82.

Case below: 306 N.C. 275.

Petition by plaintiffs to rehear denied 21 September 1982.
# C_2009024EN.01000701.xml

| 30.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 January 2009

(2009/C 24/05)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3111 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 118,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4522 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,91725 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5341 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5063 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,48 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 287,28 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6988 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,384 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,243 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1229 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9942 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5963 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1696 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,5294 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9726 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 795,81 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,9979 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,9653 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3711 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 913,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7186 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,37 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,7293 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,764 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9795 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5062 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,877 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3111

JPY

Japanese yen

118,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4522

GBP

Pound sterling

0,91725

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5341

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5063

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,48

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

287,28

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6988

PLN

Polish zloty

4,384

RON

Romanian leu

4,243

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1229

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9942

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5963

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1696

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,5294

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9726

KRW

South Korean won

1 795,81

ZAR

South African rand

12,9979

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,9653

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3711

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 913,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7186

PHP

Philippine peso

61,37

RUB

Russian rouble

45,7293

THB

Thai baht

45,764

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9795

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5062

INR

Indian rupee

63,877

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
August 11, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOHNTAY GIBSON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00595

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______ _________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 99.4
 
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Plata Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Presentacion A. Coranes, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Dated: November 3, 2010
 
 PRESENTACTION A. CORANES
 Presentacion A. Coranes
 Chief Accounting Officer
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 -1-
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128726 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128726 

 COA: 261007 

Monroe CC: 04-033350-FH 

JARED DOUGLAS AYERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2005 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. 

l1024 

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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk