alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42021.

#### YATES v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action against the defendant insurer to recover upon a fire insurance policy for loss caused by lightning which struck plaintiff’s residence. The petition revealed that plaintiff and the insurer had ascertained the amount of loss pursuant to policy provisions relating to arbitration only of the amount of loss. Since there was no agreement by the insurer to pay the amount of loss found by the appraisers, the appraisement did not constitute either *361a common law or a statutory arbitration, could not determine the insurer’s liability, and could not alone be the basis of a cause of action or judgment. The question of liability remaining open, the appraisement was nothing more than a contractual method of ascertaining the amount of the loss, suit for which could be founded only upon the policy. See *U. S. Fidelity &c. Co. v. Corbett,*35 Ga. App. 606, 613 (4) (134 SE 336); *National Fire Ins. Co. v. Shuman,*44 Ga. App. 819 (2) (163 SE 306); *Jordan v. General Ins. Co.,*92 Ga. App. 77 (2) (88 SE2d 198). It follows that this was not a suit upon the "award,” ascertained by the appraisers, but was instead an action on the policy. The provision in the policy that' no action on the policy would be maintainable “unless commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss” was a valid limitation of the time within which suit must be brought, and would bar an action brought after expiration of that time. *Melson v. Phoenix Ins. Co.,*97 Ga. 722 (25 SE 189); *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Caudle,*122 Ga. 608 (50 SE 337); *McDaniel v. German American Ins. Co.,*134 Ga. 189 (1) (67 SE 668); *Woodall v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,*33 Ga. App. 694 (128 SE 69); *Springfield Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Carter,*110 Ga. App. 382 (138 SE2d 590). The policy period of limitation was tolled by pendency of the appraisal proceeding. *National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ozburn,*57 Ga. App. 90, 92 (194 SE 756); *Peeples v. Western Fire Ins. Co.,*96 Ga. App. 39, 42 (99 SE2d 349). However, this suit was brought more than twelve months after the loss occurred, after tolling the period of time the appraisal proceeding was pending. The trial court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s general and special demurrers to the petition.

Submitted May 4, 1966

Decided September 14, 1966

Rehearing denied September 28, 1966.

*Wyatt & Wyatt, L. M. Wyatt,*for appellant.

*Richter •& Birdsong, A. W. Birdsong, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheets and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form
10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         754,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,534,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,314,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,644,000
<PP&E>                                          42,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,895,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,785,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     3,871,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,423,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,895,000 
<SALES>                                      2,655,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,041,000
<CGS>                                        2,092,000 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,092,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,252,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (303,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (229,000)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE

To
the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Casino Data Systems and Subsidiaries
Las Vegas, Nevada

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-66275 and No. 333-63577, of Casino Data Systems and subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our report
dated February 21, 2001, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for year ended December 31, 2000.

Our
audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2000
and 1999, listed in Item 14. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Las
Vegas, Nevada
March 28, 2001

---

QuickLinks
OFFiCE 0,F THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN umc.DmNm rommmv~w nho aaL ssur attsiltiou to the OQWat aeoebp

c3uaty c%t%lo co< ‘I* Eo5eraott, ml 9. a* ms* In ?a%%* an* 

# auftwae 

## broughe

barthe SA%Collector Pox!th%mu of #3do,oo bawd on a **oontraat** TnrPIi%h ix had eatered into w;lth an lndivldual fdr the prepamtabisnof a tar oertlXi%ats w&&oh was to 03AkiR llot only the information required that th8 aolloobor Sumlrh War Arttolo 73%. supra, but e&e% ,the sfme wa8 t% be lnmmd &cwia~ that the &exam wemapal& and by whom pnid. The wurt held tbab t&e,tar ool%soDorwould &et be bntitlsd to **reciover for**  the **furnbhlng or**  **fi ctwtifioete**  **euah %B**  **pm vlded**  **in** **;*rtiale** **7SiZd** beoauso the 6wr&was rsithin the 800&w of his dutl*s. EScmovst, the oour$ hold that the **tax** oolleetor am14 reawer w.al* the aoatraot in qwution bwfmea the certifloat in qtsetlon mv$ulraUa4d.ltlo~ lnioruw~tlon 

### abavo that whioh it is the ttu~collector’s duty to furniah,umder eaid arctAOlO. The ootlrt abated as ro~fows:-Lag. 1. 880 - :

ATTORNEY GENEFXL OF Tms
Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table.htm[11/3/2015 10:10:11 AM] About FSA Ask FSA Contact Us En Español 

### United States Department of Agriculture Farm ServiceAgency

MENU Site Map Forms Help 

## Related Topics BCAP Project Area Information ProjectArea FAQ's NEPAfor BCAP RecentlyAdded Items Historical BCAP Data BCAP Handbook Reference Home/ Programsand Services/ Energy Programs/ Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership - State Table



## Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership - State Table

State Primary Responsible State Agency/Offce BIP Federal Funding Amount Proposed Stations Proposed Pumps Proposed Tanks

Colorado Colorado Department of Agriculture $ 600,000.00 7 28 7

Florida Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services $ 15,997,792.68 130 892 70

Illinois Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity $ 11,979,912.75 65 428 54

Indiana Indiana Offce of Energy Development $ 895,000.00 110 110 0Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table.htm[11/3/2015 10:10:11 AM] Iowa Iowa Department of Transportation $ 5,000,000.00 100 187 25

Kansas Kansas Department of Agriculture $ 1,300,000.00 170 174 0

Louisiana Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry $ 1,699,974.66 11 110 11

Michigan Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development $ 3,000,000.00 16 89 20

Minnesota Minnesota Department of Agriculture $ 8,000,000.00 165 620 92

Missouri Missouri Department of Agriculture $ 2,875,284.00 166 171 41

Nebraska Nebraska Energy Offce $ 2,285,000.00 32 80 20

North Carolina North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services $ 5,000,000.00 37 190 0

North Dakota North Dakota Department of Commerce $ 1,200,000.00 12 90 12Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table.htm[11/3/2015 10:10:11 AM] Ohio Ohio Department of Agriculture $ 3,388,036.07 41 148 4
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture $ 7,000,000.00 79 308 0

South Dakota South Dakota Governor's Offce of Economic Development $ 1,500,000.00 34 74 0

Texas Texas Department of Agriculture $ 17,000,000.00 148 763 39

VirginiaMaryland Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy $ 4,998,108.20 41 191 20

West Virginia West Virginia Division of Energy $ 2,500,000.00 22 107 0

Wisconsin Public Service Commission of Wisconsin $ 3,700,000.00 100 120 100
TOTAL $ 99,919,108.36 1,486 4,880 515

FSA Home USDA.gov CommonQuestions Site Map USA.gov White House FOIA Privacy Policy Policiesand Links Accessibility Statement Nondiscrimination Statement InformationQuality
# C_2015245EN.01004801.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 June 2015 — EF v EEAS

(Case F-65/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Member of staff of the EEAS - Officials - 2013 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 - Applicant’s objection to the list of officials proposed for promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Completion of a minimum of 2 years in the grade - Calculation of the two-year period - Date of the promotion decision))

(2015/C 245/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions refusing to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 under the 2013 promotion procedure even though he was included on the list of official eligible for promotion.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that EF is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that EF is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27/10/2014, p. 26.

1

---
42397.

#### LANDERS v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Clifford A. Landers was indicted and convicted of possessing narcotics. On the trial of the case it was stipulated that legal title to the real property where the narcotics were found was in the defendant’s wife, and on appeal the defendant contends that since title to the home was in the defendant’s wife the presumption that the contraband narcotics were possessed by him was rebutted. It is also contended that the search warrant should not have been admitted in evidence over objection, based upon the affidavit as to reasonable cause, because the same was void. *Held:*

1. “Where a husband and wife reside together, he is head of the house, whether it be owned by or rented to the one or the other.” *Bell v. State,*92 Ga. 49 (3) (18 SE 186); *West v. State,*74 Ga. App. 453 (2) (40 SE2d 156). No contention is made that the wife of the defendant did not reside in the *688house, and she, when asked if the defendant was living in the house on the day the narcotics were discovered replied: “I would say that he was because that Whole month he was gone maybe three fourths of the time but not all at once, maybe at two o’clock he might come in.” Therefore, even if legal title to the real estate was in the wife, the defendant was the head of the household and possession of the narcotics was presumed to be his. *Sutton v. State,*57 Ga. App. 251 (195 SE 219); *Pirkle v. State,*54 Ga. App. 203 (187 SE 602). The jury was authorized to find that the presumption was not rebutted.

Argued November 7, 1966

Decided November 14, 1966

Rehearing denied November 29, 1966.

*Gower, Llorens, Noland & McGuigan, John McGuigan, William L. Gower,*for appellant.

*Lewis B. Slaton, Solicitor General, J. Walter LeCraw,*for. appellee.

2. Under the decision in *Marshall v. State,*113 Ga. App. 143 (147 SE2d 666), and the cases there cited, the affidavit in support of the search warrant, based upon information from an informant who had proven reliable in the past together with the personal observation of drug addicts going to the defendant’s home, was sufficient to authorize the issuance of the warrant. See also *Hall v. State,*113 Ga. App. 587 (149 SE2d 175). The cases cited by the defendant do not require a different conclusion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2587 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 390
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2587

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           September 26, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Kenneth 
                 T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. KENNETH T. WHALUM, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kenneth T. 
Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 390

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2587

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Kenneth 
                 T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 26, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
# Official Journal L 99/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 99 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6525 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 99

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6525 March 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Decision No 1/2022 of the Specialised Committee on Fisheries established by Article 8(1)(q) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, of 3 March 2022 as regards the establishment of a Working Group on Fisheries [2022/473] | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Decision No 1/2022 of the Specialised Committee on Fisheries established by Article 8(1)(q) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, of 3 March 2022 as regards the establishment of a Working Group on Fisheries [2022/473]

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 32.1


              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 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  IGENE  Biotechnology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for  the  period  ended
March  31,  2008,  as  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  (the "Report"), I, Stephen F. Hiu, President  of  the
Company,  certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that,
to the best of my knowledge:

          (1). The Report fully complies with the requirements of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934, as amended; 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: May 14, 2008                 By:  /S/ STEPHEN F. HIU
                                        _________________________
                                            STEPHEN F. HIU
                                            President


A  signed original of this written statement required by  Section
906  has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.
# Official Journal C 182A/14 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 182A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5714 June 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 182A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5714 June 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Notice of cancellation | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Notice of cancellation

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                      SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on
Form 10-QSB of Sports Entertainment Enterprises, Inc. for the year ending
March 31, 2004:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sports
Entertainment Enterprises, Inc.


Dated:  May 12, 2004




/s/ Vaso Boreta
Vaso Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and
Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Sports Entertainment
Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Sports Entertainment Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 24

- 00057

- CV

__________________

RUSSELL WAYNE GILES AND MARY FRANCES GILES , Appellant s

V.

DAVID STRICKLAND , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C V 1813015

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Russell Wayne Giles and Mary Frances Giles , Appellants, filed a notice of

appeal on F e bruary 1 4 , 202 4 , from a final judgment signed on February 7, 2024

.

Despite written notice from this Court and an opportunity to cure, to date, Appellant s

ha ve neither established indigence nor paid the filing fee for the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 5, 20.1. We notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless

the filing fee was paid. Appellant s did not respond to the Court’s notice.2 Appellant s did not file a statement of inability to pay costs and ha ve not shown

that t he y are entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See id . 20.1. Furthermore,

Appellant s failed to comply with a notice from the Clerk of the Court requiring a

response within a specified time. See id . 42.3(c). There being no satisfactory

explanation for the failure to pay the filing fee for the appeal, we dismiss the appeal

for want of prosecution. See id

. 42.3, 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 24, 2024

Opinion Delivered April 25, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.