alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 03, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 03, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A0566. ANTHONY LEE, SR. et al. v. JOHN JUSTICE et al..
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On November 23, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than December 02, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Exhibit
      31.2




CERTIFICATION




I,
      Chris
      R. Decker, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Security Intelligence
      Technologies, Inc.;




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




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




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




a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
      directors:




a)
      all
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and




b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.




Date:
      November 19, 2007




/s/
                Chris R. DeckerChris
                R. Decker, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012303EN.01001901.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/19

---

Appeal brought on 7 August 2012 by Arav Holding Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)

(Case C-379/12 P)

2012/C 303/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Arav Holding Srl (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Set aside in full the judgment of 19 June 2012 of the General Court of the European Union and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 9 September 2010, on the ground that the latter fully complied with and applied the rules laid down in the Community trade mark regulation (‘CTMR’), (1) in particular Article 8(1)(b) thereof.

1

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, Arav Holding Srl challenges the judgment of the General Court in question in two respects.

First, it complains that the General Court failed to recognise the graphic, phonetic and conceptual similarity between, on the one hand, the Italian national figurative mark ‘H SILVIAN HEACH’ and the international figurative mark ‘H SILVIAN HEACH’ and, on the other, the mark ‘H.EICH’. The General Court failed to identify correctly the essential core of the mark, namely the surname and not the first name. In addition, the General Court failed to take into account the limited significance of the use of a point, which is extremely small in relation to the letters, and failed to take into consideration that the earlier trade mark is a ‘strong’ mark.

Second, Arav Holding Srl submits that the General Court erred in finding that there was no overall likelihood of confusion between the marks resulting from their similarity and the similar uses made of them.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
PUBLIC LAW 115–235—AUG. 14, 2018 132 STAT. 2443 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6414: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

July 25, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–235 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to extend the deadline for promulgation 

of regulations under the tribal transportation self-governance program. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS UNDER TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION SELFGOVERNANCE PROGRAM. 

Section 207(n)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘21 months’’ and 

inserting ‘‘42 months’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ‘‘30 months’’ and 

inserting ‘‘48 months’’. 

Approved August 14, 2018. 

Aug. 14, 2018 

[H.R. 6414] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Opportunities for Women in Professional Accounting

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					,	Inke, Lillian V.					 and 	Lefkowitz, Annie. 						*Employment Opportunities for Women in Professional Accounting : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 258*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1955,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5530,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment and Economic Status of Older Men and Women

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Employment and Economic Status of Older Men and Women : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1213*,												Washington: 								GPO, 										December 1956,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4571,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
No. 56738.

protest 180937-K (New York).

#### Chicago Macaroni Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opiriion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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(a) or 78o(d)); 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: March 10, 2006
    /s/ David J. ObernesserDavid J. ObernesserChief Financial Officer
CentraCore Properties Trust
33849.

#### WOFFORD v. CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Hall, Justice.

This court granted the application for writ of certiorari to review Divisions 1 and 3 and the judgment of the Court of Appeals in *Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wofford,*145 Ga. App. 836 (244 SE2d 899) (1978).

1. The Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his suit at any time before the verdict or the oral announcement of a judgment by the trial court, Code Ann. § 81A-141 (a), and that this right is not abridged by the filing of a motion to dismiss, based upon the plaintiffs failure to comply with Code Ann. § 81A-125 (a) (1). We agree and affirm. See *Jones v. Burton,*238 Ga. 394(1) (233 SE2d 367) (1977) and *Jernigan v. Collier,*234 Ga. 837 (218 SE2d 556) (1975).

2. The Court of Appeals in its Division 3 held that in order for this plaintiff to have taken advantage of Code *339Ann. § 3-808 and tolled the statute of limitation for six months for her renewal suit, she should have first substituted the deceased’s administrator and then voluntarily dismissed. We disagree and reverse.

Argued September 11, 1978

Decided September 28, 1978

Rehearing denied October 16, 1978.

*Lewis, Bynum & Kell, T. J. Lewis, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Palmer H. Ansley, John Stanford, Joseph Watkins,*for appellees.

In construing substantially the same statute as that now found in Code Ann. § 3-808, this court in an opinion by Justice Lumpkin held that a renewal suit by an administrator of a plaintiff is the same as a renewal suit by the plaintiff. *Moody v. Threlkeld,*13 Ga. 55 (5) (1853). See also *Sheldon & Co. v. Emory University,*184 Ga. 440 (191 SE 497) (1937); *Cox v. Strickland,*120 Ga. 104 (47 SE 912) (1904). Therefore, when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a suit filed against a deceased defendant and renews the suit against the deceased’s administrator or representative, the renewal suit may take advantage of the tolling of the statute of limitation for six months under Code Ann. § 3-808.

The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the order of the trial court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who concurs in the judgment only.*
# C_2017213EN.01002801.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — KK v EASME

(Case T-376/15) (1)

1

((Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Call for proposals in respect of the 2014-2015 work programme - Programme to support innovation within SMEs - EASME decision declaring a proposal ineligible - ‘Single submission’ rule - Evaluation review procedure - E-portal for filing proposals temporarily inaccessible - Error of assessment - Infringement of the procedural rules - Non-contractual liability))

(2017/C 213/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KK (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) (represented by: A. Pallares Allueva and E. Fierro Sedano, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EASME of 15 June 2015 rejecting the proposal submitted by the applicant in response to the Call for proposals and related activities under the 2014-15 work programmes under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) and under the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-18) complementing Horizon 2020 (OJ 2013 C 361, p. 9) and, in addition, seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that rejection.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KK to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KK to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

1

---
# C_2012217EN.01000901.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-228/12)

2012/C 217/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

1

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department



## 1450 **CA 11-01138** PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

CLAY LANGENSIEPEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

DAVID KRUML, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

LAW OFFICE OF JACOB P. WELCH, CORNING (ANNA CZARPLES OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
LEVENE GOULDIN & THOMPSON, LLP, VESTAL (SARAH E. NUFFER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, A.J.), entered February 23, 2011. The order denied the amended motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment, granted the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy , 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts , 63 AD2d 566, 567; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: February 17, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Before the Second Division,

September 16, 1940

No. 44304.

#### Protests 991732-G, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372, *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20), and Abstract 38680 the merchandise in question was held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Civil engineers working to give Edwards bright future

By Laura Motes412th Test Wing Public Affairs

                EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif.  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Edwards Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

412th Civil Engineering GroupLEDLED lightingenvironmental and sustainable programsenergy savings
No. 96-5893.

#### Moseley *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 54963.

#### Maya Shanker P. Pattani *v.*United States,

protest 142537-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those ■the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.