alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Seijin Ki, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: 11/10/11                           By: /s/ Seijin Ki


Seijin Ki


Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3619

To provide off-budget treatment for the land and water conservation fund.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 1996

Mr. CAMPBELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget,

and Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide off-budget treatment for the land and water

conservation fund.

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

3 SECTION 1. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF LAND AND WATER

4 CONSERVATION FUND.

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law except

6 the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, the receipts and disburse7 ments of the land and water conservation fund—
2

•HR 3619 IH

1 (1) shall not be counted as new budget author2 ity, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for pur3 poses of—

4 (A) the budget of the United States Gov5 ernment as submitted by the President,

6 (B) the congressional budget (including al7 locations of budget authority and outlays pro8 vided therein), or

9 (C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency

10 Deficit Control Act of 1985; and

11 (2) shall be exempt from any general budget

12 limitation imposed by statute on expenditures and

13 net lending (budget outlays) of the United States

14 Government.

Æ
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-3 (No. 333-84764) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-45949, No. 333-68855, No. 333-77111,
        No. 333-73240, No. 333-86796, and No. 333-115426) of PMA Capital
        Corporation of our reports dated March 12, 2007, relating to the consolidated
        financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedules of PMA
        Capital Corporation and subsidiaries, and
        management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
        reporting ,
        which
        appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PMA Capital Corporation for
        the
        year ended December 31, 2006.
  We
        also
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the above Registration Statements
        of our reports dated March 12, 2007 relating to the 2006 and 2005 financial
        statements of Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company and the
        2006 and 2005 consolidated financial statements of PMA Capital Insurance
        Company
        which also appear in this Form 10-K.
 
 
 /s/
        Beard
        Miller Company LLP
 
 
 Beard
        Miller Company LLP
 Harrisburg,
        Pennsylvania
 March
        12,
        2007
EXHIBIT 14 
EXHIBIT 14 

Objectionable Fees 

Veena Rao Time Entries 

Date Attorney Time Fee 

10/5/2009 Rao .17 41.67

10/7/2009 Rao .50 125.00

12/8/2009 Rao .17 41.67

1/4/2010 Rao .33 83.33

Grand Total 1.17 $ 291.67

264300
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH ZOLNIEREK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-14930

v. HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

HURON CO. JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court has before it Plaintiff Kenneth Zolnierek’s pro se civil rights complaint brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as his recently filed motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

is currently confined at the Bay County Jail in Bay City, Michigan. At the time he filed his

complaint, Plaintiff did not pay the required $350.00 filing fee, nor did he submit a proper

application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); McGore

v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997). Consequently, the Court issued a deficiency

order requiring Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis

application within 30 days – by January 5, 2009. The order provided that if Plaintiff did not submit

the fee or the application to proceed without prepayment of the fee within that time, his case would

be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to correct the filing deficiency within the allotted time for doing

so. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the civil rights complaint.

Given this determination, the Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

2:08-cv-14930-PDB-PJK Doc # 4 Filed 01/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 21
2

Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment as he has failed to correct his filing deficiency and the

defendants have not been served with the complaint. Lastly, the Court concludes that an appeal

from this order would be frivolous and cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);

see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 20, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

January 20, 2009.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14930-PDB-PJK Doc # 4 Filed 01/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 22
frm10q-ex1002_tri.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.02

    


    
      PROMISSORY
NOTE

    

    


    $10,000.00                                                                                                     DATE:  February
29, 2008

    


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned,
jointly and severally, promise to pay to the order of ANTHONY BRANDON ESCOBAR,
Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), together with interest from date at the rate
of Four and a half percent (4.5%) per annum on the unpaid principal, said
principal and interest payable as follows:

    


    The
entire principal balance shall be due and payable in full on or
before February 28, 2011.

    


    This Note
may be paid in full or in part at any time without penalty.  Each
payment shall be applied first to accrued interest and the balance to the
reduction of principal.  Any amount not paid in full as of February
28, 2011 shall bear interest thereafter at the rate of Eighteen percent (18.0%)
per annum until paid.

    


    If this
note is collected by an attorney after default in the payment of principal or
interest, either with or without suit, the undersigned, jointly and severally,
agree to pay all costs and expenses of collection including a reasonable
attorney’s fee.

    


    The
makers, sureties, guarantors and endorsers hereof severally waive presentment
for payment, demand and notice of dishonor and nonpayment of this Note, and
consent to any and all extensions of time, renewals, waivers or modifications
that may be granted by the holder hereof with respect to the payment or other
provisions of this note, and to the release of any security, or any part
thereof, with or without subsititution.

    


    
      	
               /s/
      Anthony P. Coletti

            
	
              Trafalger
      Resources, Inc.

            
	
              Anthony
      P. Coletti, Director

            


    

    


    READ AND
APPROVED BY THE UNDERSIGNED:

    


    
      	
               /s/
      Anthony Brandon Escobar

            
	
              Anthony
      Brandon Escobar
**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

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 of Manhattan Bancorp (the “Company”).

 

I, Dean Fletcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.               The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               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 the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such reports.

 

 

Dated:  November 10, 2009

 

 
|   | /s/  Dean Fletcher            |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Dean  Fletcher                |
|   | Executive  Vice President and |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer      |

 

1

----
2:08-cr-20505-AC-PJK Doc # 16 Filed 07/20/10 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 40
2:08-cr-20505-AC-PJK Doc # 16 Filed 07/20/10 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 41
2:08-cr-20505-AC-PJK Doc # 16 Filed 07/20/10 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 42
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,423-04

EX P ARTE JOSE DAVID R OBLE S, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 13445-D IN THE 350 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM TAYLOR COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of driving while intox icated and sentenc ed t o t en y ear s’ imprisonment. T h e E l e v e n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n . R o b l e s v . S t a t e , N o . 1 1

- 1 9

- 0 0 3 5 8

- C R ( T e x . A p p . — E a s t l a n d O c t
. 2 1 , 2 0 2 1 )

. A p p l i c a n t f i l e d t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r

a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s i n t h e c o u n t y o f c o n v i c t i o n , a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c l e r k f o r w a r d e d i t t o t h i s C o u r t
. S e e T E X
. C O D E C R IM
. P R O C
. a r t
. 1 1

. 0 7

. Ap p l i ca n t contends that he was denied his rig ht to file a pro se petition for discretio n ar y revie w due to a brea

kdown in the sy stem. Our re co rd s i n d i cate that Applicant mailed a letter reg arding the filing of a pro se petition for discretionar y revie w within the thirty day window to do2

so, but for s o m e rea son this Court did not rec eive it until over six ty day s afte r its mailing. As a result, Applicant wa s denied his rig ht to file his petition for discretionar y revie w. Relief is g rante d. Ex parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for discretionar y revie w of the judgme nt of the Eleventh Court of Appea ls in cause number 11-19-00358- CR. Should Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionar y revie w, he must file it with this C ourt within thirty day s from the da te of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Te xa s D e p a r tm e n t o f Cr im in al J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Deliver ed: Novembe r 2, 2022 Do not publish
Presidential Documents

33823

Federal Register

Vol. 61, No. 126

Friday, June 28, 1996

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 6906

Victims of the Bombing in Saudi Arabia

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

As a mark of respect for those killed in the June 25, 1996, bombing of

the Military Housing Complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, I hereby order,

by the authority vested in me as President of the United States of America

by section 175 of title 36 of the United States Code, that the flag of the

United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon

all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations,

and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia

and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until

sunset, Sunday, June 30, 1996. I also direct that the flag shall be flown

at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies,

legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military

facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-sixth

day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-six,

and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

[FR Doc. 96–16826

Filed 6–27–96; 11:32 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

and twentieth.

œ–
#### STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. . Gregory S. GLASGOW, Respondent.

No. WD 52228.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 10, 1996.

Tamara Putnam, Asst. Pros. Atty., Jackson County, Independence, for appellant.

John Eskew, Blue Springs, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P. J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Gregory S. Glasgow, was cited for Driving While Intoxicated, and his driving privileges were suspended pursuant to § 302.505, RSMo 1994, The trial court dismissed the criminal charges holding that the administrative hearing revoking the defendant’s license and the subsequent criminal prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The state appeals.

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that an administrative suspension of driving privileges is not punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy. *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758, 762-63 (Mo. banc 1996). Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal charges, and its order of dismissal is reversed and the cause remanded for disposition.
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 this Quarterly Report of Exclusive Apparel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sharon M. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.



By:   /s/ Sharon M. Lynch

Sharon M. Lynch

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Accounting Officer



Dated: August 1, 2007
2:08-cr-20631-GER-SDP Doc # 6 Filed 07/06/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 21
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11151

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT PAULEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-347-1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert Pauley has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Pauley has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11151 Document: 00512750582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
No. 13-11151

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-11151 Document: 00512750582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1798
DOROTHY HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and EARL R. STEVENSON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1792-A) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Blake Matthew Guy, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dorothy Harris appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Sprint, Inc., on her claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Sprint, Inc. , No. CA-01-1792-A (E.D. Va. filed June 19, 2002; entered June 20, 2002). 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
Order entered December 17, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00654-CV

JUSTIN D. BURGESS, Appellant

V.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST, NOT 

INDIVIDUALLY BUT AS TRUSTEE FOR PRETIUM MORTGAGE ACQUISITION

TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00664-B

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to cap security on appeal at $15,000 and to refund funds posted in 

excess of that amount is DENIED without prejudice to refiling after appellant pursues relief in 

the trial court pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.3(a).

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
exhibit10_32.htm


    
      

    


    Exhibit
10.32

    December
11, 2008

    


    


    B. M.
Rankin, Jr.

    300
Crescent Court, Suite 875

    Dallas,
Texas  75201

    


    Dear Mr.
Rankin:

    


    The
purpose of this letter is to confirm the automatic renewal of your Consulting
Agreement dated January 1, 1991, as amended (the “Agreement”).

    


    Your
contract will automatically renew for an additional one-year period beginning
January 1, 2009, and ending December 31, 2009.  All other terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.

    


    Please
confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding with respect
to this matter by signing both originals of this letter and returning one to
me.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    


    /s/ Richard C. Adkerson

      
  Richard C. Adkerson

        
Chairman of the Board

        
FM Services Company

    


    


    


    AGREED
TO AND ACCEPTED

    


    


    BY:     /s/ B. M. Rankin,
Jr.                        1/2/2009


     B. M. Rankin,
Jr.                            Date
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND

 FEBRUARY, 2010, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of November and

December, 2009. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such

notice, counsel should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is

counsel's responsibility in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk,

Marilyn Orem, at 234-5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise

notified, this Court commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 08-14136 SHAKOOR V. EVANS, ET.AL

2. 08-14318 CONOCOPHILLIPS V. CONVENIENCE DEPOT, ET.AL

3. 08-14922 FIALKA-FELDMAN V. OAKLAND UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

4. 08-14117 SMITH V. MICHIGAN TUBE SWAGERS & FABRICATORS

5. 09-10981 PFISTER V. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, ET.AL

6. 09-11648 EDMUNDS V. BOARD OF CONTROL OF EASTERN MI. UNIVERSITY

7. 09-11366 N&W COMMODITIES V. USA

8. 09-11949 KAID V. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: December 1, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on December 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:08-cv-14136-PJD-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 12/01/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 55
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

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 Quarterly Report of Boatatopia (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen N. Causey, President and Principal Accounting 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Stephen N. Causey                                       |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Stephen N. Causey

President and Principal Accounting Officer

|   | August 10, 2007 |
|--------|-----------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DALE M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 77 WM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.