alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35705-35706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17192]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-137; RM-8823]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Negaunee, MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Todd 
Stuart Noordyk requesting the allotment of Channel 270A to Negaunee, 
Michigan, with cut-off protection and modification of his application 
for Channel 258A to specify operation on Channel 270A at Negaunee. The 
coordinates for Channel 270A at Negaunee are 46-28-18 and 87-36-55. 
Since Negaunee is located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the 
U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of the Canadian government will be 
requested for this allotment. This proposal would enable the settlement 
of a mutually exclusive proceeding between two applicants for Channel 
258A at Negaunee, Michigan.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 12, 1996, and reply 
comments on or before August 27, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Cary S. Tepper, Booth, 
Freret & Imlay, P.C., 1233 - 20th Street, NW., Suite 204, Washington, 
DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.


[[Page 35706]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-137, adopted June 14, 
1996, and released June 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, 
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 
this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-17192 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3632

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to repeal the requirement

for annual resident review for nursing facilities under the Medicaid

program and to require resident reviews for mentally ill or mentally

retarded residents when there is a significant change in physical or

mental condition.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 1996

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

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to repeal

the requirement for annual resident review for nursing

facilities under the Medicaid program and to require

resident reviews for mentally ill or mentally retarded

residents when there is a significant change in physical

or mental condition.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3632 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL RESI2 DENT REVIEW FOR MENTALLY ILL AND MEN3 TALLY RETARDED NURSING FACILITY RESI4 DENTS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1919(e)(7) of the Social

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(7)) is amended—

7 (1) in subparagraph (B)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘ANNUAL’’ in the heading,

9 and

10 (B) by striking clause (iii); and

11 (2) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ‘‘AN12 NUAL’’ in the heading.

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

14 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact15 ment of this Act.

16 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW IN CASE OF SIGNIFI17 CANT CHANGE IN PHYSICAL OR MENTAL

18 CONDITION OF MENTALLY ILL OR MENTALLY

19 RETARDED NURSING FACILITY RESIDENTS.

20 (a) REQUIREMENT FOR NOTIFICATION OF STATE

21 AUTHORITY.—Section 1919(b)(3)(E) of the Social Secu22 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(b)(3)(E)) is amended by adding

23 at the end the following: ‘‘In addition, a nursing facility

24 shall notify the State mental health authority or State

25 mental retardation or developmental disability authority,

26 as applicable, promptly after a significant change in the
3

•HR 3632 IH

1 physical or mental condition of a resident who is mentally

2 ill or mentally retarded.’’.

3 (b) REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW.—Section

4 1919(e)(7)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(7)(B)), as

5 amended by section 1(a)(1), is amended by inserting after

6 clause (ii) the following new clause:

7 ‘‘(iii) REVIEW REQUIRED UPON

8 CHANGE IN RESIDENT’S CONDITION.—A

9 review and determination under clause (i)

10 or (ii) must be conducted promptly after a

11 nursing facility has notified the State men12 tal health authority or State mental retar13 dation or developmental disability author14 ity, as applicable, under subsection

15 (b)(3)(E) with respect to a mentally ill or

16 mentally retarded resident, that there has

17 been a significant change in the resident’s

18 physical or mental condition.’’.

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

20 this section shall apply to changes in physical or mental

21 condition occurring on or after the date of the enactment

22 of this Act.

Æ
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000681 04-JAN-2019 08:36 AM
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

 

44

----

 

Exhibit 21

 

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 

 
| **Parent**                          |   | **Subsidiary**                       |   | **Percent********of********Ownership** |   | **Jurisdiction  of********Incorporation********or  Organization** |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| First SecurityFed Financial, Inc.   |   | First  Security Federal Savings Bank |   | 100                                    | %      | Federal                                                           |   |
|                                |   |                                 |   |                                   |   |                                                              |   |
| First Security Federal Savings Bank |   | Western  Security Corporation        |   | 100                                    | %      | Illinois                                                          |   |

 

45

----
* 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

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50351

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISIDRO CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-789-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Isidro Castro

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior

conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
Order entered December 6, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01248

- CV

CITY OF TERRELL, TEX AS, AND MIKE SIMS, I NTERIM CITY MANAGER OF THE

CITY OF TERRELL, IN HI S OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Appellant s

V.

FREDERICK GEORGE EDM ONDS, ET AL., Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 103352

- CC2



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellees’ December 5, 2019 motion to extend t he time to file their

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellees’ brief due on or before December 10,

2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Edith Mae POWELL, Claimant/Cross-Appellant, v. MEDICALODGE OF TROY, Employer-Appellant, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Cross-Respondent.

Nos. 70394, 70412.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 22, 1996.

*864Leonard L. Denk, St. Louis, for Powell.

Betsy J. Levitt, St. Louis, for Medicalodge.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Eva C. Sterner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Treasurer.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Medicalodge appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s affirmance of the Administrative Law Judge’s award finding that Edith Mae Powell sustained a permanent and partial disability. Powell also cross-appeals from the finding that she was not totally disabled and entitled to benefits from the Second Injury Fund. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find both claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prec-edential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 111TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WEBB COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 30, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

ASA Group, Ltd., Appellant

V.

The United Independent School District and The Laredo Community College, Appellee

No. 04-15-00496-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2014-TXA-000750-D2

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

We ORDER all costs of this appeal assessed against appellant ASA

Group, Ltd.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on December 7, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-15-00496-CV

ASA Group, Ltd.

v.

The United Independent School District and The Laredo Community College

(NO. 2014-TXA-000750-D2 IN 111TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WEBB COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

FILING

$10.00

$195.00

E-PAID

DISM - NOT PAID

STEPHEN DITTLINGTER

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: $195.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this December 7, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries

The following table lists the Company's subsidiaries, all of which are directly or indirectly wholly-owned, except as provided below:

Power-Electronics, Inc.

Puerto RicoPoder Uno de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoP-O Nevada Corp.

USAPower-One Holding AG

SwitzerlandMelcher Holding, Inc.

USAPower-One AG

SwitzerlandMelcher, Inc.

USAPower-One S.A.

FrancePower-One Ltd.

Great BritainPower-One GmbH

GermanyPower-One B.V.

NetherlandsPower-One SIMP Ltd.

IrelandPower-One Produktion AG

SwitzerlandPower-One s.r.o.

SlovakiaMelcher Corp.

CanadaHC Power, Inc.

USAPower-One S.r.l.

ItalyPower-One I/S

DenmarkPower-One Denmark ApS

DenmarkPower-One Norge AS

NorwayPower-One AS

NorwayPowec Eiendom AS

NorwayPowec Ltd.

Great BritainPowec GmbH

GermanyPowec Finland OY

FinlandPowec AB

SwedenPowec Pty Ltd.

AustraliaPowec Pte. Ltd.

SingaporePower-One Ltd.

Hong KongPowec Power (Shenzen) Co. Ltd.

ChinaPowec SAS

France


---

1.    Power-One
S.A., otherwise indirectly wholly-owned by the Company, has seven single-shore "fiduciary shareholders" as required by local law.

2.    Power-One Ltd.
is 99% indirectly owned by the Company and 1% owned by an individual stockholder.

---

QuickLinks
---

|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 of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vitaly
Melnikov, 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 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.

|By: /s/ Vitaly Melnikov                              
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Vitaly Melnikov                                      
|Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
|July 20, 2009                                        

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7704

ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-93-3115-6-8AK)

Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John

Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law. Co-op.

Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we

grant a certificate of appealability, we affirm the order on the

reasoning of the district court. Williamson v. South Carolina, No.

CA-93-3115-6-8AK (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 1995). 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
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 1 of 33 Pg ID 1
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 2 of 33 Pg ID 2
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 3 of 33 Pg ID 3
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 4 of 33 Pg ID 4
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 5 of 33 Pg ID 5
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 6 of 33 Pg ID 6
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 7 of 33 Pg ID 7
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 8 of 33 Pg ID 8
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 9 of 33 Pg ID 9
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 10 of 33 Pg ID 10
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 11 of 33 Pg ID 11
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 12 of 33 Pg ID 12
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 13 of 33 Pg ID 13
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 14 of 33 Pg ID 14
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 15 of 33 Pg ID 15
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 16 of 33 Pg ID 16
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 17 of 33 Pg ID 17
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 18 of 33 Pg ID 18
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 19 of 33 Pg ID 19
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 20 of 33 Pg ID 20
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 21 of 33 Pg ID 21
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 22 of 33 Pg ID 22
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 23 of 33 Pg ID 23
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 24 of 33 Pg ID 24
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 25 of 33 Pg ID 25
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 26 of 33 Pg ID 26
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 27 of 33 Pg ID 27
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 28 of 33 Pg ID 28
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 29 of 33 Pg ID 29
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 30 of 33 Pg ID 30
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 31 of 33 Pg ID 31
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 32 of 33 Pg ID 32
2:09-mc-50356-GER-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 33 of 33 Pg ID 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Weather Underground,

Incorporated,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:09−cv−10756−MOB−VMM

Hon. Marianne O Battani

Navigation Catalyst Systems,

Incorporated, et al.,

Defendant(s).

ORDER OF REFERENCE TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IT IS ORDERED that the following motion(s) is/are referred to United States Magistrate

Judge Virginia M Morgan for a hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A):

Motion to Compel − #29

s/ Marianne O Battani 

Marianne O Battani

United States District Judge

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing notice was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail.

s/ B. Thebolt 

Deputy Clerk

Dated: January 14, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                          15,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  236,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,229
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               308,101
<PP&E>                                         124,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,091,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,891
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           397
<OTHER-SE>                                     473,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,091,734
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,608,256
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,081,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,928
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,511
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
#### Deborah HICKS, Earslene McDougler, Demerius Hicks, David Hicks, Dia Hicks and Danielle Hicks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PRUDENTIAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 65660.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Dec. 6, 1994.

Gary A. Mack, Katzman & Crego, Belle-ville, for appellants.

Russell F. Watters, David P. Bub, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff Deborah Hicks’ claim of vexatious refusal to pay. We find that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.,*854 S.W.2d 371, 381-82[17] (Mo. banc 1993).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.

We affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).