alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2  


         

  



Brian Kelley
  President and CEO 


March 1,
2004 


Mr. Michael
P. Fergus

6640 Springside Avenue

Downers Grove, IL 60516 


RE:
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 


Dear
Mike: 


Pursuant
to Section VIII of your Employment Agreement, dated January 11, 1995, with Allied Van Lines, Inc. (together with SIRVA, Inc., North American Van Lines, Inc.
and each of their affiliates, the "Company"), the Company hereby notifies you that your Employment Agreement will terminate on February 28, 2005. Further, effective as of the date hereof and
pursuant to Section VIII of your Employment Agreement, you are hereby relieved of all duties and responsibilities as President, Moving Services and as otherwise specified in your Employment
Agreement. Accordingly, you hereby resign from all positions and all titles with the Company. 


Notwithstanding
the foregoing, you shall remain an Associate of the Company for the 1-year period from March 1, 2004 until February 28, 2005 (and shall continue to receive
your current salary and benefits during such time, excluding any amounts you would have been eligible
to receive under the Company's 2004 Management Incentive Plan) and, in connection therewith, you hereby agree to: 


	•
	Be
an industry liaison for all customer visits for sales;



	•
	Assist
with agent relationships and agent contract negotiations through contract execution;



	•
	Assist
with moving services acquisitions;



	•
	Report
to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (or his designate, the "CEO") from time to time as requested by the CEO; and



	•
	Perform
such other duties as may be reasonably requested from time to time by the Company. 



Except
in connection with the above duties and after the date hereof, you acknowledge and agree that you do not have authority to bind the Company to any contracts or commitments and you agree not to
create any obligation for the Company or attempt to bind the Company in any manner whatsoever. You also acknowledge and agree that you do not have any supervisory or managerial responsibility or
authority after March 1, 2004, that proper notice has been provided to you under the terms of your Employment Agreement, and that certain provisions of your Employment Agreement will survive
its termination. Nothing contained herein is intended to affect your rights under the SIRVA, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan. 


Mike,
your service to SIRVA has been invaluable and I look forward to working with you in the future. 


Very
truly yours, 


/s/
Brian P. Kelley 


Brian
Kelley 


ACKNOWLEDGED
AND AGREED

as of the first date written above. 



	/s/  Michael P. Fergus      
 Michael P. Fergus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JERRY A. SHANAHAN, 

 Defendants. 

 Civ. No. 01:07-00039-SM 

 

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) respectfully submits the 

attached jury instructions and proposed verdict form. 

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of December, 2012. 

s/Nancy J. Gegenheimer 

Nancy J. Gegenheimer 

Leslie J. Hughes 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

1801 California Street, Suite 1500 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 844-1000 

gegenheimern@sec.gov 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 342 Filed 12/21/12 Page 1 of 3
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I certify that on December 21, 2012, I sent a true copy of the foregoing pleading 

by electronically mailing it through the ECF system to the following persons: 

John Richard Baraniak, Jr. jbaraniak@choate.com (Counsel for Patel) 

Diana K. Lloyd dlloyd@choate.com (Counsel for Patel) 

Peter Bryan Moores pmoores@choate.com (Counsel for Patel) 

Jeffrey B. Rudman jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com (Counsel for Jaeger) 

Jonathan A. Shapiro jonathan.shapiro@wilmerhale.com (Counsel for Jaeger) 

Miranda Hooker miranda.hooker@wilmerhale.com (Counsel for Jaeger) 

Peter A. Spaeth peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com (Counsel for Jaeger) 

Bruce A. Singal bsingal@dbslawfirm.com (Counsel for Kay) 

John C. Kissinger jkissinger@nkms.com (Counsel for Kay) 

Michelle R. Peirce mpeirce@dbslawfirm.com (Counsel for Kay) 

Victor W. Dahar vdaharpa@worldnet.att.net (Counsel for Skubisz) 

Ann Pauly apauly@gtmllp.com (Counsel for Skubisz) 

Mark B. Dubnoff mdubnoff@eapdlaw.com (Counsel for Barber) 

Richard McCarthy rmccarthy@eapdlaw.com (Counsel for Barber) 

Mark B. Dubnoff mdubnoff@eapdlaw.com (Counsel for Barber) 

Michael D. Ramsdell mramsdell@krhlaw.com (Counsel for Barber) 

Andrew Good agood@goodcormier.com (Counsel for Shanahan) 

Philip G. Cormier pcormier@goodcormier.com (Counsel for Shanahan) 

Steven M. Gordon sgordon@shaheengordon.com (Counsel for Kirkpatrick) 

Lucy J. Karl lkarl@shaheengordon.com (Counsel for Kirkpatrick) 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 342 Filed 12/21/12 Page 2 of 3
3

Jeffrey S. Lyons lyonsj@sec.gov (Counsel for SEC) 

Leslie J. Hughes hugheslj@sec.gov (Counsel for SEC) 

Jay Scoggins scogginsj@sec.gov (Counsel for SEC) 

Kevin E. Sharkey kjs5@verizon.net (Counsel for Collins) 

Jennifer M. Ryan jryan@dwyercollora.com (Counsel for Collins) 

Maria R. Durant mdurant@dwyercollora.com (Counsel for Collins) 

William H. Kettlewell wkettlewell@dwyercollora.com (Counsel for Collins) 

William Contolo wcintolo@aol.com (Counsel for Boey) 

 S/ Nancy J. Gegenheimer 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 342 Filed 12/21/12 Page 3 of 3
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  Annual  Report  of  Advance  Financial  Bancorp  (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Stephen M.  Gagliardi,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Stephen M.
Magnone,  Treasurer (Chief  Financial  Officer),  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 M. Gagliardi                     /s/Stephen M. Magnone
-------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Stephen M. Gagliardi                        Stephen M. Magnone
President and Chief Executive Officer       Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)




May 12, 2004
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

City National Bank of Sulphur Springs, 

Appellant

No. 06-15-00013-CV v.

John Alexander Smith, Appellee

Appeal from the 62nd District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CV 

40681). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of the 

court below. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render a take-nothing 

judgment in favor of the Appellant.

We further order that the appellee, John Alexander Smith, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 4, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6137

In Re: KITTRELL BERNARD DECATOR; In Re: CRAIG

LAMONT SCOTT,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-01-2289-S)

Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: June 10, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kittrell Bernard Decator, Craig Lamont Scott, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kittrell Decator and Craig Scott have filed a petition for a

writ of mandamus asking this court to overturn the district court’s

dismissal of their civil tort complaint.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no

other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re

Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a

substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133,

1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking prohibition or mandamus

relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other

adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his

entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem.

Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

Decator and Scott have not made such a showing. Appellate

review of the district court’s dismissal of their civil tort

complaint could have been obtained by direct appeal. Accordingly,

we deny their petition for mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04

- 1511

- CR

- 1944 | M a y 2 5 , 2 0 1 6 Page 1 of 3



### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.



### A PPELLANT 

### P RO 

### S E Terry Criss Pendleton, Indiana 

### A TTORNEY S FOR 

### A PPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Brian Reitz Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Terry Criss , Appellant

- Petitioner ,

v.


### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Respondent M ay 25, 2016 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 49A04

- 1511

- CR

- 1944 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins, Judge Trial Court Cause No. CR

- 86025E



### Baker , Judge
.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04

- 1511

- CR

- 1944 | M a y 2 5 , 2 0 1 6 Page 2 of 3

[1] 

### Terry Criss appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

[2] 

### On July 7, 1986, Criss pleaded guilty to murder, class A felony burglary, two counts of class B felony criminal confinement, class B felony burglary, and class D felony theft. On October 15, 1986, the trial court sentenced Criss to an aggregate term of 124 years imprisonment. Criss filed a petition for post

conviction relief in July 1990, which the post

- conviction court denied in February 1991. On October 8, 2015, Criss filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. The trial court denied the motion the day after it was filed. Criss now appeals.

[3] 

### We review a ruling on a motion to correct e rroneous sentence for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. State , 978 N.E.2d 470, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). A motion to correct erroneous sentence may only be used to correct sentencing errors that are apparent from the face of the sentencing order. Robinso n v. State , 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). As a result, claims that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial do not warrant relief. Id.

[4] 

### Here, Criss raises four arguments in his motion to correct erroneous sentence: (1) alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial renders the sentence unfair; (2) he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty ; (3) there was an insufficient factual basis supporting his guilty plea; and (4) his sentences violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Each of these arguments requires consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial. There are noCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04

- 1511

- CR

- 1944 | M a y 2 5 , 2 0 1 6 Page 3 of 3



### sentencing errors apparent on the face of the sentencing order. As a result, the trial court did not err by denying Criss’s m otion to correct erroneous sentence.

[5] 

### The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

M ay, J., and Brown, J., concur

.
Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 3 Filed 07/14/2005 Page 1 of 1

Reddick v. US Department of Justice et al Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1655

To amend title 18, United States Code, to punish the placing of sexual

explicit photographs on the Internet without the permission of the persons photographed.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 2001

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin (for himself, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. WATKINS, and Mr. GORDON) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to punish the placing

of sexual explicit photographs on the Internet without

the permission of the persons photographed.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Personal Pictures Pro5 tection Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1655 IH

1 SEC. 2. SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE INTER2 NET.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part I of title 18, United States

4 Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 79 the fol5 lowing:

6 ‘‘CHAPTER 80—PERSONAL PRIVACY

‘‘Sec.

‘‘1631. Sexually explicit photographs on the Internet.

7 ‘‘§ 1631. Sexually explicit photographs on the Internet

8 ‘‘Whoever, with the intent to embarrass or cause

9 emotional distress to another person places on a computer

10 photographs of the sexually explicit conduct (as defined

11 in section 2256) of that person so that such photographs

12 are accessible on the Internet, without the permission of

13 that other person, shall be fined under this title or impris14 oned not more than 2 years, or both.’’.

15 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters

16 for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by

17 inserting after the item relating to chapter 79 the fol18 lowing new item:

‘‘80. Personal privacy.’’.

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1561

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the record

of admission for permanent residence in the case of certain aliens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 2001

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself and Mr. SERRANO) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect

to the record of admission for permanent residence in

the case of certain aliens.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Date of Registry and

5 Legal Amnesty Restoration Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1561 IH

1 SEC. 2. RECORD OF ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESI2 DENCE IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN ALIENS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 249 of the Immigration

4 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended—

5 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘January 1,

6 1972’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 1986’’; and

7 (2) by striking ‘‘JANUARY 1, 1972’’ in the head8 ing and inserting ‘‘JANUARY 1, 1986’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

10 (1) GENERAL RULE.—The amendments made

11 by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the

12 enactment of this Act.

13 (2) EXTENSION OF DATE OF REGISTRY.—

14 (A) PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1,

15 2002.—Beginning on January 1, 2002, section

16 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

17 U.S.C. 1259) is amended by striking ‘‘January

18 1, 1986’’ each place it appears and inserting

19 ‘‘January 1, 1987’’.

20 (B) PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1,

21 2003.—Beginning on January 1, 2003, section

22 249 of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘Janu23 ary 1, 1987’’ each place it appears and insert24 ing ‘‘January 1, 1988’’.

25 (C) PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1,

26 2004.—Beginning on January 1, 2004, section
3

•HR 1561 IH

1 249 of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘Janu2 ary 1, 1988’’ each place it appears and insert3 ing ‘‘January 1, 1989’’.

4 (D) PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1,

5 2005.—Beginning on January 1, 2005, section

6 249 of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘Janu7 ary 1, 1989’’ each place it appears and insert8 ing ‘‘January 1, 1990’’.

9 (E) PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1,

10 2006.—Beginning on January 1, 2006, section

11 249 of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘Janu12 ary 1, 1990’’ each place it appears and insert13 ing ‘‘January 1, 1991’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William E. STRASSER, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Sept. 18, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2521

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew Lee Klopfenstine

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________

 Submitted: February 15, 2013

 Filed: March 4, 2013

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

A jury convicted Matthew Klopfenstine of producing child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). Klopfenstine challenges the district court’s1

1

The Honorable Nanette Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
failure sua sponte to dismiss a juror for cause after the juror arguably expressed an

inability to consider the evidence against Klopfenstine impartially. Because

Klopfenstine admittedly failed to raise this objection during the jury selection process,

he has waived the issue, intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right. See

United States v. Johnson, 688 F.3d 494, 501 (8th Cir. 2012) (deciding “failing to

object to the seating of [a j]uror . . . during voir dire [equates to] ‘intentional[]

relinquish[ment] or abandon[ment of] . . . a known right,’” waiving any challenge to

the seating of a juror on appeal (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733

(1993))).2

The subject juror’s answers, which are now challenged on appeal, were heard

and addressed by the district court and defense counsel during voir dire without

defense counsel either asking the trial court to strike the juror for cause or exercising

a peremptory strike to remove the juror. Jury selection is driven by the strategy of

legal counsel, and while that strategy often is not much more accurate than reading tea

leaves, we will not review that strategy on direct appeal without the juror qualification

issue being raised in a timely manner.

We affirm.

______________________________

2

Klopfenstine argues Johnson is not controlling because Johnson conflicts with

United States v. Mann, 685 F.3d 714, 719-20 (8th Cir. 2012), and was decided two

weeks after Mann. Johnson analyzed and rejected Mann as being inconsistent with

earlier precedent. See Johnson, 688 F.3d at 501 & n.5 (citing United States v.

Pennington, 168 F.3d 1060, 1067 (8th Cir. 1999); Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d

794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). Mann, without comment, adopted plain error

review and did not discuss the waiver issue. Mann, 685 F.3d at 719. We reject

Klopfenstine’s argument. 

-2-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-134-01/02-SM

Ellsworth Gottlieb and

Raymond Jackson

O R D E R

Defendant Jackson’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 19). Trial has been rescheduled for the December 

2006 trial period. Defendant Jackson shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than August 30, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: November 27, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: December 5, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00134-SM Document 21 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

August 23, 2006

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Patrick E. Donovan, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00134-SM Document 21 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2
SCPR-22-0000720

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE MONICA TERESA LEHUA MORRIS, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the 

practice law in the State of Hawai#i, filed by attorney 

Monica Teresa Lehua Morris, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of

the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), but to retain

the paper license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule

1.10(b), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we

conclude that Petitioner Morris has fully complied with the

requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is

granted. Petitioner Morris may retain the paper license as a

memento. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),

that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-22-0000720

22-DEC-2022

09:50 AM

Dkt. 6 OGP
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Morris, attorney number 4935, from the roll of

attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective with the filing of

this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 22, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129725 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129725 COA: 263516 Jackson CC: 04-000462-FH DAVID JEFFREY DENSLOW, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 24, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk