alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.3


                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-43432, 333-43430, 333-27449 and 333-43434) on Form S-8 and (No.
33-84766) on Form S-3 of Inland Resources Inc. of our report dated November 14,
2002, except as to note 16, which is as of February 3, 2003, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheet of Inland Resources Inc. as of December 31, 2001,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficit and
cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2001 which report appears in the
December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K/A of Inland Resources Inc.

Our report dated November 14, 2002, except as to note 16, which is as of
February 3, 2003, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company
has suffered losses, has a net capital deficiency, and has defaulted on its
senior indebtedness subsequent to year-end, which raises substantial doubt about
its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not
include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


                                                                        KPMG LLP


Denver, Colorado
February 3, 2003
v. 

# JiiiG7 4AL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No.DA 20-0058 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: NANCY CAROL CHASE, Petitioner-Appellee, and MARK STEVEN CHASE, Respondent-Appellant. 

# FILED MAR 1 6 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana

ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
ON APPEAL FROM THE MONTANA THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, HONORABLE PRESIDING MATTHEW J. WALD DISTRICT COURT CAUSE NO.DR 17-41

For Petitioner/Appellee: Jill Deanne LaRance La Rance & Syth,P.C. PO Box 1456 Billings MT. 59103-1456 Telephone: (406)254-9663 Facsimile: (406) 254-9725 Email: jdlarance@laranceandsyth.com Appearances: For Respondent/Appellee: Linda L. Harris Harris Law Firm,P.C. Old Chamber Building, Suite 100 Billings, MT. 59101-1260 Telephone and Facsimile: (406)259-4402 Email: Ilharrislaw@outlook.com 03/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0058Appellant,Mark Steven Chase,has filed a Motion For Extension Of Time to File Appellant's Opening Brief. Said Motion states good cause for the extension ofrequested and states further that counsel for Appellee does not object to the extension requested. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Appellant's Motion For Extension OfTime to File Appellant's Opening Brief is GRANTED.Appellant shall file his opening brief on or before April 13, 2020. Copies ofthis Order shall be provided to all parties ofrecord.

/ (
- 1-- DATED this / of March, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v . Civil No. 08-cv-350-JL

John Curran

ORDE R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated January 6, 2009 .

SO ORDERED.

January 16, 2009 /s/Joseph N. Laplante

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00350-JL Document 8 Filed 01/16/09 Page 1 of 1
# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-3095 September Term, 2022 1: 21-c r-006 23-CRC-2 Filed O n: A ugust 23, 20 23 United Sta tes o f

Am erica, App ellee
v . Kirsty n A shley Nieme la,

App ellant
BEFORE: Hend erson , Pillard, and Childs, Circuit Ju dges O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f

the em ergency motio n for relea se p end ing app eal, styl ed as a n e me rg ency mo tion for sta y , th e o ppo sition t here to, and the reply; and the no tice of inte ntion to proce ed pro se , it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion be de nied . A ppe llant h as n ot sh own thatthis a ppe al prese nts a sub stan tial questio n o f law or fact likely to resu lt in reversal, an orde r for a new trial, a se nte nce tha t do es n ot in clude a t erm of imp risonm ent , or a redu ced sent ence to a te rm o f

imp risonm entless th an the tot al of the tim e a lready serv ed plus the expecte d d uratio n o f the ap pea l proce ss. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 31 43(b )(1)(B). Beca use app ellantha s a co nstitu tiona l rig ht t o a ssistance of cou nsel o n d irect app eal, Douglas v. Califo rnia, 3 72 U.S. 3 53 (196 3), a nd the Su prem e Cou rt ha s recogniz ed indigent defend ant s pu rsuing the f irst lev el of ap pellat e review

are “g ene rally

ill equippe d to represe nt t hem selves,” Halbert v. Michig an, 54 5 U.S . 60 5, 6 17 (200 5), th e Clerk is d irected to atta ch to this o rder a lette r explaining the con sequen ces of self-represen tatio n.

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-3095 September Term, 2022
T he Clerk is directed to send a co py of this o rder wi th t he atta ched lette r to app ellantby w hat ever mea ns n ecessa ry to ensu re receip t. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Scott H. Atchu e Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1766

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia, as the ‘‘Stan Parris

Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr.

SCOTT, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. BOUCHER, and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia,

as the ‘‘Stan Parris Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. STAN PARRIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annan6 dale, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Stan

7 Parris Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1766 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Stan Parris Post Office

5 Building.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tremaine Patterson, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 432]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered April 30, 2003, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to *573withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

FEDERATED AMERICAN LEADERS FUND, INC.; 

FEDERATED AMERICAN LEADERS FUND II; 

FEDERATED STOCK TRUST; FEDERATED TOTAL 

RETURN BOND FUND (Successor in interest to 

Federated Managed Income Portfolio); FEDERATED 

CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND II; FEDERATED 

MID CAP GROWTH STRATEGIES FUND; 

FEDERATED MID CAP GROWTH STRATEGIES 

FUND II; FEDERATED LARGE CAP GROWTH 

FUND; FEDERATED BOND FUND; FEDERATED 

CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND; FEDERATED 

INTERMEDIATE CORPORATE BOND FUND; and 

FEDERATED QUALITY BOND FUND II, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD.; TYCO 

ELECTRONICS LTD.; COVIDIEN LTD.; 

COVIDIEN (U.S.); L. DENNIS KOZLOWSKI; 

MARK H. SWARTZ; and FRANK E. WALSH, JR., 

Defendants. 

AGREED ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

AGAINST DEFENDANT MARK H. SWARTZ 

Plaintiffs Federated American Leaders Fund, Inc., Federated Clover Value Fund II 

(formerly named Federated American Leaders Fund II), Federated Stock Trust, Federated Total 

Return Bond Fund (successor in interest to Federated Managed Income Portfolio), Federated 

Capital Appreciation Fund II, Federated Mid Cap Growth Strategies Fund, Federated Mid Cap 

Growth Strategies Fund II, Federated Large Cap Growth Fund, Federated Bond Fund, Federated 

Capital Appreciation Fund, Federated Intermediate Corporate Bond Fund, and Federated Quality 

Bond Fund II ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Mark H. Swartz. (each of them a "Settling Party" and 

collectively, the "Settling Parties") having represented to the Court that they have entered into a 

MDL Docket No.: 02-01335-PB 

Docket No.: 08-CV-01337-PB 

Case 1:08-cv-01337-PB Document 31 Filed 11/28/09 Page 1 of 2
settlement agreement that resolves all issues between and among them in the Complaint, and for 

good cause shown, the Court ORDERS: 

1. Because there is no just reason for the delaying the entry of a final judgment with 

respect to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the Settling Parties, all claims asserted by 

Plaintiffs against Swartz in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 

2. The Clerk is directed to enter this Agreed Order and Final Judgment of Dismissal 

against Defendant Mark H. Swartz as a final judgment and send a copy of same to all counsel of 

record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Enter: 11/28/2009 

I si Paul Barbadoro 

The Hon. Paul Barbadoro 

United States District Judge 

We ask for this: 

_/s/ Michael L. Grudberg 

Michael J. Grudberg 

STILLMAN FRIEDMAN & SHECHTMAN, P.C. 

425 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Counsel for Mark H. Swartz 

J si Thomas M. Skelton 

Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. 

Thomas M. Skelton, Esq. 

Barbara J. Hart, Esq. 

Todd S. Garber, Esq. 

LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. 

White Plains Plaza 

One North Broadway, Suite 509 

White Plains, NY 10601 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

cc : Counsel of Record 

Case 1:08-cv-01337-PB Document 31 Filed 11/28/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

PIYUSH G. PATEL, DAVID J. KIRKPATRICK, )

ERIC JAEGER, BRUCE D. KAY, ROBERT J. )

GAGALIS, ROBERT G. BARBER, JR., )

LAWRENCE COLLINS, MICHAEL A.SKUBISZ, )

JERRY A. SHANAHAN, and )

HOR CHONG (David) BOEY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 07-00039-SM

NOTICE OF

WITHDRAWAL OF

JOHN C. KISSINGER, JR.

Please enter my Withdrawal as counsel for Bruce D. Kay.

Please note that Attorney Michael D. Ramsdell of Ramsdell Law Firm located at

69 Bay Street, Manchester, NH 03104, will be filing an Appearance as counsel for Bruce

D. Kay.

Respectfully submitted,

BRUCE D. KAY,

By and through his attorneys,

NELSON KINDER + MOS SEALT, PC

Dated: June 6, 2012 By: /s/ John C. Kissinger, Jr., Esquire

John C. Kissinger, Jr., Esquire (NHBA #10245)

99 Middle Street

Manchester, NH 03105

Tel.: (603) 647-1800

Email: jkissinger@nkmlawyers.com

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 300 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, John C. Kissinger, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF

system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice

of Electronic Filing (NEF) on this 6 th day of June, 2012.

Dated: June 6, 2012 By: /s/ John C. Kissinger, Jr., Esquire

John C. Kissinger, Jr., Esquire (NHBA #10245)

2

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 300 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.01

                            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  Eventemp  Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ended September  30,  2002,
as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  the undersigned certifies, 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.


November 18, 2002                                 By: /s/ Keith D. Spickelmier
                                                          Keith D. Spickelmier
                                                          President
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

 

Direct Dial: 972-819-0219

Fax: 972-819-0201

Email: erodriguez@efji.com

 

October 14, 2008

 

Mr. MichaelE. Jalbert

1440 CorporateDrive

Irving, Texas75038

 

RE:                EmploymentAgreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated October 15, 2002 by and betweenEF Johnson Technologies, Inc. (formerly known as EFJ, Inc.) andMichael E. Jalbert

 

Dear Mr. Jalbert:

 

As you know,the above-referenced Employment Agreement expires according to its terms on October 14,2008.  You and the Compensation Committeeof the Company’s Board of Directors have been discussing a new employmentagreement between the parties; however, you have not yet reached finalagreement on all of the key points of such new agreement.  Therefore, in the interim, the CompensationCommittee wishes to extend the Employment Agreement through October 31,2008, in order to allow the parties additional time to finalize a newagreement.

 

At the requestand instruction of the Chairman of the Compensation Committee of the Board ofDirectors, the Company hereby extends the Employment Agreement through October 31,2008.  Please sign where indicated belowto signify your agreement with such extension.

 
|   |   | Very truly yours,                                 |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | /s/ Elaine Flud Rodriguez                         |
|   |   | Elaine Flud Rodriguez                             |
|   |   | Sr. Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |

 

AGREED this 14th day of

October, 2008

 

 
| /s/ Michael E. Jalbert |   |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|
| Michael E. Jalbert     |   |   |

 

EF Johnson Technologies, Inc. ·1440 Corporate Drive, Irving, TX 75038-2401

800.328.3911 ·972.819.0700 • fax 972.819.0639

www.EFJohnson.com

 

----
Exhibit 32.1
                            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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Micek, President and Chief Executive 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),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  July 11, 2005

/s/ David Micek
-------------------
David Micek
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       28
#### John Lee HARRIS and Jack Davis v. STATE.

No. 31718.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

June 10, 1935.

A. M. Edwards, of Mendenhall, for appellant.

W. D. Conn, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

The instruction complained of presents no reversible error, if error at all.

The questions propounded to one of the witnesses may have violated the proprieties and the rights of the witness, but present no reversible error.

The evidence supports the verdict.

Affirmed.
1 “[#52]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by

the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02239-REB-KMT

(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-REB-KMT

EDIE GARCIA, and

NICHOLE WITTER-GORTNER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOTEL POWERS, INC., d/b/a Hampton Inn,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J. 

The matter is before me on the Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice [#52]1

 filed

April 16, 2013. After reviewing the stipulation and the record, I conclude that the stipulation

should be approved, and that this action should be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to

pay its own costs and fees.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice [#52] filed April 16, 2013, is

APPROVED; and

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay their own

attorney fees and costs. 

Dated April 16, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02239-REB-KMT Document 53 Filed 04/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-96-PB

Anthony Sawyer

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for January 6, 2009, citing the need for

additional time to complete additional discovery and prepare for

trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from January 6, 2009 to March 3, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 19 Filed 12/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 18, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to February 18, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 19, 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 19 Filed 12/19/08 Page 2 of 2
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00921

- CR

David Cepeda JONES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas

, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 1994CR5367W Honorable Sid L. Harle , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 26, 2011

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on August 5, 1997. The notice

of appeal was due to be filed on September 4, 1997. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a). Appellant filed a

notice of appeal on November 30, 2010. A timely notice of appeal is ne cessary to invoke a court

of appeals’ jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Because appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal, this appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. See id. ; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App.04

- 10

- 00921

- CR

- 2

- 1991) (out

- of

- time appeal from final felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11


                         TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (Unaudited And As Restated, See Note 13)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------
                                                           September 30,  September 30,  September 30, September 30, 
                                                               1997         1996            1997          1996   
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>          
Pro Forma Net Income (Loss)                                $(11,026,667)    $ (3,904,591)    $(11,674,390)    $ (3,913,268)
                                                           ============     ============     ============     ============

                                                                         PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE - BASIC
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares                              9,844,087        6,783,078        9,275,637        6,783,078
                                                           ============     ============     ============     ============
  Pro forma net loss per share - Basic                     $      (1.12)    $      (0.58)    $      (1.26)    $      (0.58)
                                                           ============     ============     ============     ============

                                                                         PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE - DILUTED
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares - Basic                      9,844,087        6,783,078        9,275,637        6,783,078
  Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plans*              --               --               --               --
                                                           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
  Weighted average common shares - Diluted                    9,844,087        6,783,078        9,275,637        6,783,078
                                                           ============     ============     ============     ============
Pro forma net loss per share - Diluted                     $      (1.12)    $      (0.58)    $      (1.26)    $      (0.58)
                                                           ============     ============     ============     ============
</TABLE>


* Common stock equivalents were not included as their effect would be
anti-dilutive.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132521 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132521 

 COA: 261570 
 Wayne CC: 04-007893-01

TERI BERNARD TWILLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2006 

judgment 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. 

d0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk