alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

EXHIBIT E

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4890-5 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 13:24:36 Page 1

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT E

EXPENSE DETAIL

FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 28, 2019 THROUGH NOVEMBER 17, 2019

DATE PROFESSIONAL EXPENSE DETAIL AMOUNT

09/28/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $50.00

09/29/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $25.00

09/30/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $35.00

10/01/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $50.00

10/02/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $75.00

10/04/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $75.00

10/06/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $125.00

10/10/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $175.00

10/12/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $250.00

10/13/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $400.00

10/15/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $600.00

10/17/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $900.00

10/20/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $900.00

10/22/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $900.00

10/27/2019 Emily Seeley Digital Advertisement $74.53

TOTAL $4,634.53

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4890-5 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 13:24:36 Page 2

of 2
EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4579-3 Filed: 11/05/19 Entered: 11/05/19 14:28:11 Page 1

of 2
EXPENSE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Computerized Research $0

Meals $0

Travel $0 

Transportation $62.38

Printing and Duplication $1,656.10

Transcription Services $1,380.10

Telephone Conferencing $0

Messenger $651.40

Filing Fees $298.00

Total Expenses Requested: $4,047.98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4579-3 Filed: 11/05/19 Entered: 11/05/19 14:28:11 Page 2

of 2
NO. 07-06-0169-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 21, 2006

	______________________________

	OUANE THONGSAVATH, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 27,884-C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	ORDER ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Appellant, Ouane Thongsavath appeals from a judgment convicting him of aggravated sexual assault.  On June 9, 2006, pro se appellant filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; and, Request for Free Transcription and Inclusion of Clerk’s and Reporter’s Record on Appeal.  Nothing of record appears showing the appellant is indigent and entitled to a free record.  

	Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 251st District Court of Potter County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:   

	1.	Whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal;

	2.	Whether appellant is indigent;

	3.	Whether appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to his indigency; 

	4.	Whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel; and, 

	5.	What orders, if any should be entered to assure the filing of appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal if appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the appeal will be diligently pursued.   

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental record with the clerk of this court on or before July 21, 2006.  Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before July 21, 2006.  

	It is so ordered.  

							Per Curiam.  

Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13679]



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



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY



Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy




National Energy Rating Program for Homes



AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.



ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).



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



SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking comments and 

information from interested parties to assist DOE in developing a 

voluntary National Energy Rating Program for Homes. The purpose of this 

program is to encourage consumers to invest in energy improvements in 

existing homes by providing reliable information to them at low cost. 

The Department is considering a wide range of issues including how to 

measure energy performance, what performance metrics to use, and how to 

present the information to consumers, among other questions. For a full 

discussion of these issues, please view www.buildings.energy.gov/home_rating_rfi.html.



DATES: Comments must be postmarked by no later than July 5, 2010. 

Comments must be received by no later than July 10, 2010.



ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``RFI: National 

Energy Rating Program for Homes,'' by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: 

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4a6b1ada8a0adaaa3b6a5b0adaaa396828d848181ea808b81ea838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ffdeaf6f3fbf6f1f8edfeebf6f1f8cdd9d6dfdadab1dbd0dab1d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>. Include ``RFI: National Energy Rating 

Program for Homes'' in the subject line of the message. Mail: U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EE-1), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 Attn: 

National Energy Rating Program for Homes, Jessica Balsam.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan Glickman at 

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="315344585d55585f56435045585f566377787154541f555e541f565e47">[email protected]</a>.



    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2010.

Cathy Zoi,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 2010-13679 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P




</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Dorothy WEATHERS et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI, Appellee.

No. 22597.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 20, 1965.

L. H. Rosenthal, Jackson, Miss., Claudia H. Shropshire, Detroit, Mich., for appellants.

Hardy Lott, Gray Evans, Greenwood, Miss., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, RIVES and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal is denied.

On the motion of the appellants for summary reversal, it appears that the issues determined in Fifth Circuit, Peacock et al. v. City of Greenwood, Mississippi, 347 F.2d 679, decided June 22, 1965, are identical with the issues on this appeal. It follows from the decision in Peacock that the district court erred in remanding these cases to the State court without a hearing. The orders of remand are therefore yacated and the case is remanded for a hearing on the truth of the appellants’ allegations.

Vacated and remanded.
Exhibit 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of World Energy  Solutions,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Benjamin C. Croxton,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: November 18, 2005


/s/ Benjamin C. Croxton
--------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN C. CROXTON
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALEXANDER BURGOS, DOC# T70414, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2223 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 22, 2019 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark R. Wolfe, Judge. Alexander Burgos, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Suzanne Bechard, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Madrona Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Reese Baglole,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
6th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Reese Baglole
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### FRED L. EVERSOLE v. R. E. SPRINKLE.

(Filed 25 January, 1933.)

Negligence D c—

Where the evidence on the question of contributory negligence is conflicting a motion as of nonsuit is improvidently granted.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore, J.,*at August Term, 1932, of YaNcey.

New trial.

*Charles Ilutchins for plaintiff.*

*Johnson, Smothers & Rollins for defendant.*

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant to recover damages for personal injury caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The material allegations are substantially these: The plaintiff while driving a Ford truck on Little Rock Creek Highway near Bakersville met several larger trucks operated by the defendant, which were loaded with wood. These trucks occupied a part of the *123highway to which the plaintiff was entitled under the law, leaving a narrow space for the passage of the Ford truck.

The plaintiff contended that if he had stopped his truck a collision would have occurred and that when he turned to the right, the embankment gave away and his car rolled down the side of the mountain. ITis injury was not denied.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the court dismissed the action as in case of nonsuit. The judgment was based apparently on the contributory negligence of the plaintiff; it was conceded that there was evidence tending to establish the negligence of the defendant.

We deem it unnecessary to analyze the forty-three pages of testimony. A part of it unquestionably tends to show the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, and a part to prove the exercise of due care. Under these circumstances the issue of contributory negligence was a matter for the jury to determine. For this reason the plaintiff is entitled to a

New trial.
EXHIBIT A-8 

Exhibit A-8 Page 245

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 1

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 246

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 2

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 247

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 3

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 248

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 4

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 249

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 5

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 250

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 6

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 251

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 7

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 252

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 8

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 253

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 9

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 254

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 10

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 255

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 11

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 256

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 12

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 257

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 13

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 258

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 14

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 259

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 15

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 260

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 16

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 261

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 17

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 262

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 18

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 263

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 19

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 264

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 20

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 265

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 21

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 266

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 22

of 23
Exhibit A-8 Page 267

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-9 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 23

of 23
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5448-1    Filed: 01/22/20    Entered: 01/22/20 15:20:07    Page 1of 1
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5290 Filed: 01/07/20 Entered: 01/07/20 08:00:31 Page 1 of

3
89509

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5290 Filed: 01/07/20 Entered: 01/07/20 08:00:31 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5290 Filed: 01/07/20 Entered: 01/07/20 08:00:31 Page 3 of

3
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                                January 31,
                                                             2000                2001
                                                         ------------        -----------
<S>                                                      <C>                 <C>
Numerator:
Net (loss) income before extraordinary gain                 $(589,298)          $107,223
Preferred stock dividends                                           -            (37,500)
                                                         ------------        -----------
Net (loss) income available to common
  shareholders before extraordinary gain                     (589,298)            69,723

Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings per share-
  weighted-average shares                                   9,424,680          9,906,406
Effect of dilutive securities:
Employee stock options                                              -                  -
Warrants                                                            -                  -
Dilutive potential common shares                                    -                  -
Denominator for diluted earnings per share
  adjusted weighted-average shares and assumed
  conversions                                               9,424,680          9,906,406

Basic and diluted (loss) earnings per share
                                                                $(.06)              $.01
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.12


	
 

	
 


	



	

Accenture LLP

 

 300 Campus Drive 

 Florham Park, NJ 07932

 

 www.accenture.com





May 6,
2009


John H.
Sullivan 

Senior Vice President 

XL Global Services 

100 Constitution Plaza 

Hartford, CT 06103


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
RE:

	
Amendment
 I to the Letter Agreement


	
 

	
 

	
Extension of OT Agreement
 Effective Date of Termination





Dear John,


          In
a Letter Agreement dated March 5, 2009, Accenture LLP (“Accenture”) and XL
Global Services, Inc. (“XL”) (the “Letter Agreement”) agreed to provisions to
provide for the early termination for convenience of the parties’ Operational
Transformation Agreement dated May 6th, 2008 (“OT Agreement”). In exchange for mutual consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree the Letter Agreement is
modified as follows:


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
1.

	
References
 in Sections 1 and 5 of the Letter Agreement to “May 6th, 2009” are
 deleted and replaced with “June 5th, 2009”





          Each
of the parties represents and warrants for itself that is authorized to enter
into this Amendment I to
the Letter Agreement and bind its respective entities to the terms of the same.


On
behalf of XL Global Services, Inc.


	
By:

	
 

	
 


	
By:

	
/s/ David Duclos

	
 


	
 

	


	
 


	
Name:

	
David
 Duclos

	
 


	
Title:

	
Chief
 Executive, XL Insurance

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
By:

	
/s/ John H. Sullivan

	
 


	
 

	


	
 


	
Name:

	
John
 H. Sullivan

	
 


	
Title:

	
Senior
 Vice President

	
 





1






	
 

	
 


	


	

Accenture LLP

 

 300 Campus Drive 

 Florham Park, NJ 07932

 

 www.accenture.com





On behalf of Accenture, LLP



	
By:

	
 

	
 


	
By:

	
/s/ John Cusano

	
 


	
 

	


	
 


	
Name:

	
John
 Cusano

	
 


	
Title:

	
Managing
 Partner North American Insurance

	
 





2
J. S55010/15

 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ELIZABETH MALONEY, 

AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE 

OF ELIZABETH JANE RUDOLF

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

EXTENDICARE HOMES, INC., D/B/A 

BELAIR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 

CENTER; EXTENDICARE HEALTH 

FACILITIES, INC.; EXTENDICARE 

HEALTH FACILITY HOLDINGS, INC.; 

EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, 

INC.; EXTENDICARE HOLDINGS, INC.; 

EXTENDICARE REIT; EXTENDICARE, 

L.P.; AND EXTENDICARE, INC.,

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 1830 WDA 2014

:

 Appellants :

Appeal from the Order Entered, October 9, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County

Civil Division at No. 7819 of 2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., AND STRASSBURGER, J.* 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 05, 2015

Extendicare Homes, Inc., d/b/a Belair Health and Rehabilitation 

Center, et al. (collectively, “Extendicare”), appeal from the order entered 

October 9, 2014, overruling Extendicare’s preliminary objections in the 

nature of a demurrer in this wrongful death and survival action. The trial 

court found that the arbitration agreement entered into by the decedent, 

Elizabeth Jane Rudolf or her authorized representative, was not binding upon 

the non-signatory wrongful death beneficiaries, and they could not be 
J. S55010/15

- 2 -

deemed to have waived their right to a jury trial by the actions of the 

decedent’s representative. As such, the trial court determined that the 

beneficiaries bringing the wrongful death action in the instant case cannot be 

compelled to litigate their claims in arbitration.

Furthermore, the trial court refused to sever the survival action and 

compel arbitration on that claim. The trial court ruled that Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) 

requires that survival actions be consolidated with wrongful death actions for 

trial. Therefore, the trial court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.

This matter is directly controlled by recent case law from this court 

including Tuomi v. Extendicare, Inc., A.3d , 2015 WL 3791409 

(Pa.Super. June 18, 2015); Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 

113 A.3d 317 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal granted, A.3d , 2015 WL 

5569766 (Pa. 2015); and Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 

651 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 86 A.3d 233 (Pa. 2014), cert. 

denied, U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 2890 (2014). See Marks v. Nationwide 

Ins. Co., 762 A.2d 1098, 1101 (Pa.Super. 2000) (this court continues to 

follow controlling precedent as long as decision has not been overturned by 

our supreme court), appeal denied, 788 A.2d 381 (Pa. 2001). These 

decisions address the precise points raised in the case sub judice. The trial 

court did not err in refusing to compel private arbitration of the survival 

claim. 

Order affirmed.
J. S55010/15

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/5/2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 28, 2016

a0620

Order 

Clerk

June 28, 2016

151553

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151553

COA: 324136

Wayne CC: 92-002078-FC

MARY CADRY LEMONS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Agata Cattano, Respondent, v Nicolo Cattano, Appellant.

Submitted December 26, 1995;

decided March 21, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order which affirmed the denial of appellant’s motion for modification of a divorce judgment, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.