alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF ARES CAPITAL CORPORATION

Name

JurisdictionARCC BB Corp.

DelawareARCC BM, LLC

DelawareARCC C&C Corp.

DelawareARCC CCS, Inc.

DelawareARCC CIC Flex Corp.

DelawareARCC CLPB Corp.

DelawareARCC Crescent LLC

DelawareARCC ECG LLC

DelawareARCC GAC LLC

DelawareARCC GF, LLC

DelawareARCC HBF LLC

DelawareARCC IGS Corp.

DelawareARCC Imperial Corporation

DelawareARCC Imperial LLC

DelawareARCC LVCG Investors LLC

DelawareARCC NPA Corp. (f/k/a ARCC PSSI Corporation)

DelawareARCC OTG Corp.

DelawareARCC PAH Corp.

DelawareARCC PCGI III AIV Blocker, Inc.

DelawareARCC PJMB LLC

DelawareARCC Sage Inc.

DelawareARCC SK Blocker Corp.

DelawareARCC TTL Corp.

DelawareARCC Universal Corp.

DelawareARCC VTH Corp.

DelawareAC Notes Holdings LLC

DelawareAC Finance LLC

DelawareACGP I, LLC

DelawareA.C. Management Services, LLC

DelawareARCC Covestia Corp.

DelawareARCC JTC, LLC

DelawareARES Capital JB Funding LLC

DelawareARES Capital CP Funding LLC

DelawareARES Capital CP Funding Holdings LLC

DelawareIvy Hill Asset Management GP, LLC

Delaware10th Street Equity, LLC

DelawareA.C. Corporation

DelawareARCC S2 LLC (f/k/a AC Postle, LLC)

DelawareACC Universal Corporation

DelawareACE Products Holding Corp.

DelawareAIC Universal Corporation

DelawareALD TBB/WIN Equity, LLC

DelawareAMP Admin LLC

DelawareAlaris Consulting, LLC

DelawareAlbras Equity, LLC

DelawareAllbridge Equity, LLC

DelawareAllied Capital Holdings LLC

DelawareAllied Crescent Equity, LLC

Delaware


---



Name

JurisdictionAmerex Equity Corporation

DelawareARCC Imperial POF LLC (f/k/a Amerex Equity LLC)

DelawareAviation Properties Corporation

DelawareBinks Equity Corp.

DelawareCalder Capital Partners, LLC

DelawareCalder Equity, LLC

DelawareCalder Investment Partners LLC

DelawareCleveland East Equity, LLC

DelawareConectel, Inc.

DelawareCrescent Equity Corp.

DelawareDynamic Equity, LLC

DelawareFinancial Pacific Company

WashingtonForesite Equity, LLC

DelawareGlobalCom Equity, LLC

DelawareHavco Equity Corporation

DelawareHCI Equity, LLC

IllinoisIAT Equity, LLC

DelawareMultiad Equity Corp.

DelawareNPH, Inc.

MarylandOld Orchard Equity Corp.

DelawarePostle Equity Corp.

DelawareRWI, LLC

DelawareS2 Equity Corp.

DelawareSlate Equity, LLC

DelawareSMF II Equity, LLC

DelawareSoteria Mezzanine Corporation

DelawareStag Equity, LLC

DelawareStartec Equity, LLC

DelawareSubfractional Motors, Inc.

DelawareTransamerican Equity Corporation

DelawareVan Ness Hotel, Inc.

Delaware


In
addition, we may be deemed to control certain portfolio companies identified as "Affiliated" companies that we "Control" in footnote (7) to the Consolidated Schedule of
Investments as of
December 31, 2012 included in the Financial Statements portion of Ares Capital Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

---



QuickLinks
#### N. Grief v. A. Maks, Etc.

Pleadings — Amendments—Lost Pleading.

The amended petition filed January 4, 1869, was still pending when the defendant offered to file his answer thereto and cross-petition, and as the matter of the lost pleading was such, if true, as to authorize the relief it sought, as a cross-petition as well as to constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s claim to further relief than had already been adjudged. The court should have allowed the answer to be filed, although the plaintiff had dismissed his amended petition.

APPEAL PROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 11, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The amended petition filed January 4, 1869, was still pending on the 20th of January, 1870, when the defendant, N. Grief, offered to file his answer thereto and cross-petition, and as the matter of the lost pleading, was such, if true, as to authorize the relief it sought, as a cross-petition as well as to constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s claim to further relief than had already been adjudged. The court should have allowed the answer to be filed; and although before the action of the court in refusing to allow the answer to be filed the plaintiff dismissed the amended petition, yet as the action was still pending for some purposes, and further proceedings were required to complete the relief sought by the plaintiff, it would have been proper to permit the filing of the paper offered and rejected as a supplemental answer and cross-petition for vacating the judgment and sale to King and subsequent proceedings asked to be set aside on the ground and for the reasons disclosed, and the court erred in refusing to let it be filed. The clerk, who has failed to copy the amended petition, states that it is not on file, but does not explain why it is not, but it may be proper on the return of the case to require is production, on the motion of either party, if possible, or an explanation of its absence. This would seem to be due to the parties as well as to the clerk.

Therefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to permit the answer and cross-petition to *378be filed, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Yeiser, for appellant.*

*Bramlette, for appellee.*
**Exhibit31.1**

**RIVERROCK ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Shawn S. Smyth,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of the River Rock Entertainment Authority;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)         Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: April 17, 2007    |                |
|-------------------------|---------------------|
|                    |                |
| By:                     | /s/ SHAWN S.  SMYTH |   |
| Shawn S. Smyth          |                |
| Chief Executive Officer |                |
|                    |                |
|                         |                     |  |  |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:5
Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:6
Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:7
Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:9
Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:10
Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:11
Case: 1:20-cv-02801 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.F., A MINOR

PETITION OF: V.R., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 315 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.N.F., A MINOR

PETITION OF: V.R., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 316 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of January, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
H. Res. 164

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 18, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 437) to reauthorize the National Sea Grant

College Program Act, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall

be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, with

forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources

and twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Science. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Science now printed

in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill

for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the

amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Con-
2

•HRES 164 EH

gressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of

rule XXIII. Each section of that amendment shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute

made in order as original text. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### J. D. Kline et al. *v.*Baker Flaugher.

Husband and Wife — Sale of Wife’s Real Estate — Coercion.

Where the evidence fails to establish any act or acts upon the part of the husband tending toward coercion, the questions of delicacy and propriety cannot be considered by courts of justice.

APPEAL PROM BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 30, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The deed from Mrs. Flaugher and her husband to Stephen B. Flaugher is valid if made by the wife without coercion or undue influence upon the part of the husband.

The evidence wholly fails to establish any act or acts upon his *198part fending in the slightest degree towards coercion. Whilst it is more than probable that he contracted the marriage from mercenary motives, it does not appear that the wife was ever cognizant of, or even suspected that such was the fact. The evidence leaves.no doubt but that she entertained for 'her husband a sincere affection, and we are inclined to the opinion that the conveyance herein sought to be vacated, was freely and willingly executed by her on account of such affection.

*Clark, Marshall, Taylor, for appellant.*

*Menzies, Furber, for appellee.*

There was nothing unnatural nor unreasonable in the action of .the wife in the premises, and although her health was exceedingly delicate it seems that, her mind was not impaired at the time of the execution -of the deed.

Questions of delicacy and propriety can not be considered by courts of justice in such cases as this. The appellee under the law is entitled to the relief granted him by the judgment of the court below. Wherefore said judgment must be affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Annual Report of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raymond D. Martz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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/    RAYMOND D.
MARTZ
|Raymond D. Martz       
|Chief Financial Officer

February 21, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7708

VINCENT BARR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION,

PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES; CURTIS KEELS,

Agent of SCDPPPS; STEVEN BENJAMIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-01-3175-2-22)

Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Barr, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Barr appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and

denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barr v. South

Carolina Dep’t of Probation, Parole & Pardon Servs., No. CA-01-

3175-2-22 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 12, 2001, entered Sept. 14, 2001; and

filed Feb. 7, 2002, entered Feb. 11, 2002). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Abby Graf","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/agraf\/","title":"VIPER","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JyL0JCb2J8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/viper\/\">VIPER<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/viper\/embed\/#?secret=JyL0JCb2J8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“VIPER” — NASA\" data-secret=\"JyL0JCb2J8\" 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\/2024\/03\/viper-featured-img.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000574

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STEPHEN I. ADLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

DISCOVERY HARBOUR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 3CCV-20-0000367)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that we lack

appellate jurisdiction over self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant

Stephen I. Adler's (Adler) appeal from the Circuit Court of the

Third Circuit's (circuit court) October 11, 2021 Order Granting

Defendant[-Appellee] Discovery Harbour Community Association's

Motion to Strike [Adler]'s Court Filings Dkt. Nos. 13, 15, 19,

21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 35, 39, and 41, Filed June 23, 2021

(Order) because the circuit court has not entered a final,

appealable judgment, and the Order is not independently

appealable. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1 (2016); Hawai#i

Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 58 & 54(b); Jenkins v. Cades

Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334,

1338 (1994); Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai#i 18, 20, 889 P.2d 702,

704 (1995).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000574

09-FEB-2022

07:56 AM

Dkt. 103 ODSLJ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 9, 2022.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

2
Case: 1:20-cr-00256 Document #: 11 Filed: 07/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25
EXHIBIT
32.2










CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying
Annual Report of Index Oil and Gas Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Andrew Boetius, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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






Date:
      June 30, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Andrew
      BoetiusAndrew
      BoetiusChief
      Financial Officer
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fred Crandell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02354-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 The Court has reviewed the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with prejudice of 

Chase Bank USA, N.A., only. (Doc. 99.) For good cause shown, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A., only, is dismissed with 

prejudice. Each party shall bear his or its own attorneys’ fees and costs included herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating all pending hearings. 

 Dated this 9th day of September, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02354-DLR Document 102 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65990-65991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26470]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-14-038]


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: November 12, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-509 and 731-TA-1244 (Final) (1,1,1,2-
Tetrafluoroethane (``R-134a'') from China). The Commission is currently 
scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the 
Commission on November 24, 2014.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.


[[Page 65991]]


    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 3, 2014.
William R. Bishop
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-26470 Filed 11-4-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 22, 2014

t1015

Order 

Clerk

October 22, 2014

Rehearing No. 601

146478

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146478

COA: 307758

St. Clair CC: 06-001700-FC

RAYMOND CURTIS CARP,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing and/or clarification is considered. 

On November 6, 2013, this Court granted the defendant’s application for leave to appeal 

limited to whether Miller v Alabama, 567 US ___ (2012), applies retroactively under 

federal law and/or state law. People v Carp, 495 Mich 890 (2013). With regard to the 

other issues that were raised in the defendant’s application for leave to appeal but not 

addressed in this Court’s prior opinion, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. In all other 

respects, the motion for rehearing and/or clarification is DENIED.