alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

p1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141436 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141436 

 COA: 284649 

Wayne CC: 07-020910-FC 

WINSTON ROBERT BRIGGS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 25, 2010 

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.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THURMAN JOHNSON.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                        

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CARRAMERICA
REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
JUNE 30, 1998 AND FROM CARRAMERICA REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000893577
<NAME>                        Carr America Realty Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000
<CURRENCY>                                    US Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               Jan-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.000
<CASH>                                           79,638
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    46,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                        2,781,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                  216,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                3,495,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                       1,393,964
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                          96
<COMMON>                                            716
<OTHER-SE>                                    1,885,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  3,495,638
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                264,116
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   209,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  85,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              85,567
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     74,616
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.87
        

<FN>
<F1>Notes & accounts receivable are presented net of allowance for doubtful
    accounts as the allowance is immaterial.
</FN>

</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A1 39 5 . J AMI SON ASHLEY COLLI ER v

. J ESSI CA HOPE DELAI GLE.

J am i s o n As h l ey Co l l ier an d J es s i ca Ho p e Del ai gl e were di v o rced i n 2 0 1 4

. In

2 0 1 6

, D el ai g l e i n it i at ed t h i s act i o n b y fi l i n g a p et it i on fo r m od i fi cat i o n of paren t i n g

t i m e an d co n t em

pt

, an d Co l l i er co u n t ercl ai m ed fo r m o d i fi cat i o n o f ch i l d s u p p o rt an d

co n tem p t . In i ts fi n al o rd er, t h e t ri al co u rt d id n o t m od i fy act ual p aren t i n g t i m e b ut

o rd ered t h at Co l li er p ay at t o rn ey fees

. Co ll i er t hen fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal

, i n wh i ch

h e o n l y ch al l en g es t h e fee award . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct io n.,

W h ere, as h ere, t h e u n derl y i n g act i on i n v o l v es ri g h t s an d o b li g at i o n s ari s i n g

o u t o f a d i v o rce d ecree, an d d o es n o t i n v o l v e ch il d cu s to d y , t h e cas e i s a d o m es t i c

rel at i o n s m at t er wi t h i n t h e m ean i n g o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (2 ). See W a lker v. Es t a t e

o f Ma ys , 2 7 9 Ga. 65 2

, 6 5 3 (1 ) (6 1 9 SE2 d 6 7 9 ) (2 0 0 5 ). Ap p eal s i n su ch m at ters m u s t

b e i n i ti at ed b y fi l i n g an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i scret i o n ary rev i ew. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a)

(2 ), (b ); acco rd V

o yl es v. V o yl es , 3 0 1 Ga. 4 4, 4 7 (7 9 9 SE2 d 1 6 0) (2 0 1 7 ) (an ap p eal

i n a d o m es t i c rel at io n s cas e i n wh i ch cu st od y i s n o t at i s s u e m u st b e b ro u g h t b y

d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n ). Here, Co l l ier d oes n o t ch al l en g e cu s t o dy

. T herefo re, h e

was req u ired t o fi l e an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o nary ap p eal

.

“ [C] o m p l i an ce wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s pro ced u re i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al .”

Fa b e v. F l o yd

, 1 9 9 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 2

, 3 3 2 (1 ) (4 0 5 SE2 d 2 6 5 ) (1 99 1 ). Co l l i er’ s fai l u re to

fo l l o w t h e d i scret i on ary rev i ew p ro ced u re dep ri v es u s of ju ri s di ct i o n o v er t h i s ap p eal

, wh i ch i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED. See i d

. November 14, 2017C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/14/2017
**EXHIBIT 15.2**

**Letter from KPMG Auditores Independentes to the SEC, dated April 30, 2013 regarding the**

**change in independent public accounting firm.**

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549 

April 30, 2013 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously the independent registered public accounting firm for Ultrapar Participações S.A. and, under the date ofApril 30, 2012, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of Ultrapar Participações S.A. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingas of December 31, 2011. On November 9, 2011, we were formally notified that we were dismissed. 

We have read UltraparParticipações S.A.’s statements included under item 16F of its Form 20F dated April 30, 2013, and we agree with such statements. 

 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ KPMG AuditoresIndependentes 

KPMG Auditores Independentes 

São Paulo, Brazil
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. OLIVER DONALDSON.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"2024 Dream with Us Design Challenge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"z2GT2dxkpV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/2024-dream-with-us-design-challenge\/\">2024 Dream with Us Design Challenge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/2024-dream-with-us-design-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=z2GT2dxkpV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2024 Dream with Us Design Challenge” — NASA\" data-secret=\"z2GT2dxkpV\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/dream-with-us-1f.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":432}
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 26, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00068-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF P.J.H. AND M.J.H., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court 

Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 85368 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Smith 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and appellant’s brief to be filed by June 18, 2021. By postcard 

dated June 22, 2021, we notified appellant the time for filing her brief had expired. 

We directed appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We 

cautioned appellant that failure to file her brief by that time might result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a 

brief, filed an extension motion, nor otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

210068F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF P.J.H. AND 

M.J.H., CHILDREN 

No. 05-21-00068-CV 

 On Appeal from the 354th Judicial 

District Court, Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 85368. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating. 

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

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered July 26, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2136 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2136

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend the final report date and termination date of the National 
  Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, to provide 
     additional funding for the Commission, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON 
              THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) Final Report Date.--Subsection (b) of section 610 of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
306; 6 U.S.C. 101 note; 116 Stat. 2413) is amended by striking ``18 
months'' and inserting ``20 months''.
    (b) Termination Date.--Subsection (c) of that section is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``60 days'' and inserting 
        ``30 days''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``60-day period'' and 
        inserting ``30-day period''.
    (c) Additional Funding.--Section 611 of that Act (6 U.S.C. 101 
note; 116 Stat. 2413) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
        subsection (b):
    ``(b) Additional Funding.--In addition to the amounts made 
available to the Commission under subsection (a) and under chapter 2 of 
title II of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 
(Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 591), of the amounts appropriated for the 
programs and activities of the Federal Government for fiscal year 2004 
that remain available for obligation, not more than $1,000,000 shall be 
available for transfer to the Commission for purposes of the activities 
of the Commission under this title.''; and
            (3) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by striking 
        ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``this section''.

            Passed the Senate February 27, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2136

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend the final report date and termination date of the National 
  Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, to provide 
     additional funding for the Commission, and for other purposes.
```
# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

April 3 , 2013

ERRAT A

______________________

Appeal No. 2012

- 3167

WILLIAM T. JONES

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Decided: April 3, 2013

Nonp recedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following change:

Page 4 , line 9 , change “ represented” to “misrepresented.”
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2104

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

2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ‘‘Barber Conable 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, 

as the ‘‘Barber Conable 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. BARBER CONABLE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Barber 

7 Conable Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•S 2104 IS 

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

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Barber Conable Post 

3 Office Building.

Æ
**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

**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 theAnnual Report of ICOP Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A-4for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|              | /s/  DAVID C. OWEN                      |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|              | David  C. Owen                          |
|              | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|              | * *                                |
| July 5, 2005 | * *                                |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ICOPDigital, Inc. and will be retained by ICOP Digital, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**EXHIBIT 2.11**

**English Summary of the Second Amendment to Ultrapar Participações S.A.3rd Public Offering Indenture of Simple Debentures,Non-Convertible, Unsecured and Non-Preferred in a Single Series between Ultrapar Participações S.A. and Pentágono S/A DTVM , dated December 4, 2009.**

The agreement amends the indenture between Ultrapar Participacoes S.A. (“Ultrapar”) and Pentágono S/A DTVM, dated May 20, 2009 forUltrapar’s third public debentures offering. The following changes have been introduced: i) the annual interest rate, from 100% of the interbank certificate of deposit rate (CDI) plus 3.0% per annum to 108,5% of the interbank certificateof deposit rate (CDI) per annum; ii) the date of the final maturity, from May 19, 2012 to December 4, 2012;, and iii) the dates on which interest payments are due, requiring that Debentures be paid on December 4,2009, December 4, 2010, December 4, 2011 and December 4, 2012, among others. 

 

1
#### REED v. HOFFMAN PROPS., INC.

No. 414P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 448

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2247 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2247

          To reduce temporarily the duty on potassium sorbate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2004

Mr. Lautenberg introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To reduce temporarily the duty on potassium sorbate.

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

SECTION 1. POTASSIUM SORBATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.28.12       Potassium Sorbate    1.0%       No change        No change        On or before 12/
                          (Cas No. 24634-61-                                                31/2006           ''
                          5) (provided for                                                                     .
                          in subheading
                          2916.19.10).......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6028
WILLIE MAYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CHAPIN POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR OF CHAPIN; JAMES METTS, Sheriff in his individual and official capacity; LEXINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-1299-3-19BD) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 9, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Mayers, Appellant Pro Se. Wilburn Brewer, Jr., Thomas C.R. Legare, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court order dismissing his claims against the Lexington County Sheriff's Department ("LCSD"), substituting Sheriff James Metts as a party defendant in place of LCSD, and allowing Appellant to proceed with his claim against Sheriff Metts in his individual capacity. He also challenges the district court order denying appointment of counsel. We dismiss theappeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marianne Nissen,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03622-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 18, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8317 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 1
#### WELLS v. CONSOLIDATED JUD’L RET. SYS. OF N.C.

No. 156A00

Case below: 354 N.C. 313

Petition by plaintiff to rehear pursuant to Rule 31 denied 18 December 2001.