alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A98A2348.

#### EPPINGER v. THE STATE.

(512 SE2d 320)

Decided February 11, 1999

*Saia, Richardson & Meinken, Joseph J. Saia,*for appellant.

Andrews, Judge.

James E. Eppinger appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction for driving with a suspended license, contending that the evidence of notice to him was insufficient. Because we find the evidence more than sufficient, we affirm.

We note that, because the recording equipment malfunctioned at trial, there is no transcript and the parties have stipulated that “the issue this court is to decide is whether the notice which was provided to [Eppinger] was sufficient to inform him that his license was suspended, as evidenced by properly admitted exhibits 1, 2, and 3.”

The exhibits were his driver’s license history report which showed that Eppinger’s license was suspended on September 12, 1996 for a June 20,1996 DUI, Uniform Traffic Citation charging DUI on June 20, 1996 and Eppinger’s plea of guilty and resulting sentence, and the Department of Public Safety Notice of Suspension and Service By Court dated September 12, 1996. Eppinger was charged with driving with a suspended license on May 30, 1997.

It is this third document which Eppinger contends was legally insufficient as notice because it states that he is notified “as provided by Georgia Law the following offense(s) will result in suspension of your driver’s license upon conviction for the following offense(s): DUI.” The argument is that, since there is nothing after this date indicating he was given separate notice of his suspension, the evidence was insufficient.

Such an argument, however, overlooks the fact that, upon conviction of OCGA § 40-6-391 (DUI), “[t]he driver’s license of any .person convicted . . . shall by operation of law be suspended.” OCGA § 40-5-63 (a). “ Tt thus appears that the legislature intended OCGA § [40-5-63 (a)] to effectuate suspension or revocation automatically upon a conviction for DUI, the notice being the trial for violation of OCGA § 40-6-391; i.e., notice “by operation of law.” ’ *Hale v. State,*188 Ga. App. 524, 525 (1) (373 SE2d 250) (1988).” *Payne v. State,*209 Ga. App. 780, 781 (1) (434 SE2d 543) (1993).

Additionally, Eppinger’s driver’s license history also was sufficient to show the requisite notice. *Arnold v. State,*189 Ga. App. 900 (1) (377 SE2d 918) (1989).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*

*427
      *Steven L. Harris, Solicitor, Lura Landis, Assistant Solicitor,*for appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1740 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 305
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1740

                          [Report No. 112-139]

 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2011

   Mr. Cardin (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Webb, Mr. 
 Carper, and Mr. Coons) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                            January 26, 2012

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (16 
U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
years'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting ``fiscal years 2012 through 2016.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 305

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1740

                          [Report No. 112-139]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 2012

                       Reported without amendment
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130855 & (49) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan MICHAEL EUGENE DRAKE, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130855 COA: 257800 Hillsdale CC: 03-000318-NF CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On October 3, 2007, the Co urt heard oral argument on th e application for leave to appeal the February 23 , 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The motion to permit defendant to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. On order of the Court, the application is again considered , and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 26, 2007

Clerk
Searched for **https://www.lacoast.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.lacoast.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
# C_2014395EN.01003602.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a turnbuckle)

(Case T-171/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trademark - Shape of a turnbuckle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 1209/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a turnbuckle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---
Exhibit 10.18
 Additional Grantor Administrative Agent Lenders
 W I T N E S S E T H
 SuperHoldings Holdings Borrower Credit Agreement
 Guarantee and Collateral
Agreement
    Guarantee and Collateral Agreement
 2. Governing Law . THIS ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND
INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.




---



##### 



CAMPUS AUTHENTIC LLCBy:
    /s/ Alan G. SiemekName:
    Alan G. SiemekTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Assistant Secretary




---



##### 



Annex 1-A
 Schedule 1




---



##### 



Schedule 2
  Pledged Stock: None.
 Issuer
    
    Class of Stock
    
    Stock Certificate No.
    
    No. of Shares
 Pledged Notes: None.
 Issuer
    
    Payee
    
    Principal Amount




---



##### 



Schedule 3
  Uniform Commercial Code Filings
 Grantor
    
    State
    
    JurisdictionCampus Authentic LLC
    
    DE
    
    Secretary of State




---



##### 



Schedule 4
  Grantor
    
    LocationCampus Authentic LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
    
    Jurisdiction of Organization : DelawareChief Executive Office: Lincoln, NebraskaOrganizational ID Number: 3446488




---



##### 



Schedule 5
  Grantor
    
    LocationsCampus Authentic LLC
    
    4700 South 19th StreetLincoln, Nebraska  68501




---



##### 



Schedule 6
      Trademark
    
    Serial No.
    
    Registration No.
    
    Jurisdiction
    
    Owned by:Campus Authentic
    
    77/105056
    
    3328622
    
    U.S. Federal
    
    Nebraska Book Company, Inc.




---



##### 



Schedule 7
No. 39097.

#### Protests 761204-G, etc., of Portland Co. et al. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Portland*v. *United States*(T. D. 48631) the protests were sustained as to the bottles containing rum.
No. D-35.

#### In re Disbarment of Raimondi.

Thomas Paul Raimondi, of Baltimore, Md., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause heretofore issued on January 20, 1975 [419 U. S. 1118], is hereby discharged.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVEN BURNS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 97 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVEN BURNS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 98 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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

# DLA Aviation celebrates Air Force 70th birthday

By Kimberly K. Fritz, DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                Richmond, Va  –              
Air Force****Col. John Waggoner, director, Customer Operations Directorate, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and Airman 1st Class James Googe, 633rd Force Support Squadron, Joint Base  Langley-Eustis, Virginia, Honor Guard member, cut the cake celebrating the Air Force’s 70th birthday as the oldest and youngest members of the Air Force at the celebration. The theme for this year’s birthday was “Breaking Barriers.” The observation took place in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, Sept.18, 2017. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
**EXHIBIT 32.1** **906    CERTIFICATION**     The certification set forth below is being submitted in    connection with the    Form 10-K    Annual Report (the “Report”) for the purpose of    complying with Rule 13 - 14(b) or Rule 15d -    14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange    Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of    Title 18 of the United States Code.     Alex P. Marini, the Chief Executive Officer and Jeffery B. Park,    the Chief Financial Officer of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc., each    certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:     a. the Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and     b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,    in all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. /s/  Alex    P. Marini    Name: Alex P. Marini*President and Chief Executive Officer* /s/  Jeffery    B. Park    Name: Jeffrey B. Park*Chief Financial Officer*     Date: December 7, 2006
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the PBSJ Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |                                                  
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 26, 2007 |  | /s/ John B. Zumwalt III                          
|                       |  | John B. Zumwalt III                              
|                       |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                       | 
|Date: January 26, 2007 |  | /s/ Donald J. Vrana                              
|                       |  | Donald J. Vrana                                  
|                       |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2527
JOHN R. CLEMENTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-94-1557-A) Submitted: March 29, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John R. Clements, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Margaret Ann Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Mary Anne Gibbons, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order grantingDefendant's motion for summary judgment on his employment discrimination claims. When the non-moving party bears the burden of proof, sum mary judgment is appropriate when that party fails to establish, by sworn evi dence, an essential element of the case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We have reviewed the record and find that, despite explicit warning, Appellant failed to present any sworn evidence in response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Defendant. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6530

DERRICK Q. MCFADDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MIKE BALL, Superintendent; DIRECTOR 

ROBERT C. LEWIS, NCDOC,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02218-FL)

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Q. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Q. McFadden seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition

without prejudice because he failed to comply with the court’s 

order to pay the required filing fee. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51225 Summary Calendar

MARY L. LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-724-SC

-------------------- September 10, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mary L. Lucas appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Lucas contends that the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) regarding her disability status was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, she asserts that the ALJ erred in disregarding the opinion of Dr. D. M. Hamilton, failing to determine the treatment relationship between Lucas and Dr. WillisNo. 01-51225 -2- Thorstad, failing to consider the combined effect of all of her impairments, and finding that she could perform her past relevant work as a CD packer. Because Lucas failed to present this latter issue in district court, review is for plain error. See Kinash v. Callahan , 129 F.3d 736, 739 n.10 (5th Cir. 1997). Any error must be “‘plain’ and ‘affect substantial rights.’” Id . Lucas does not allege, and the record does not indicate, that this court’s failure to consider the instant issue will affect her substantial rights. Therefore, she has not shown plain error. The ALJ explicitly considered the combined effect of all of Lucas’s impairments. Furthermore, although the Appeals Council subsequently included Dr. Thorstad’s medical opinion into the administrative record, his opinion was not part of the record at the time of the ALJ’s decision. Accordingly, the ALJ had no basis for determining the treatment relationship between Lucas and Dr. Thorstad. Based on our review of the record, the ALJ’s decisions disregarding Dr. Hamilton’s opinion and denying benefits to Lucas were supported by substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Corey Goodman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 8, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Corey Goodman
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Corey Goodman          
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Chief Executive Officer

I, John Doyle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 8, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John Doyle
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                |  | John Doyle             
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                |  | Chief Financial Officer