alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                                                    ------------




                  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Earth Search
Sciences, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Date:  July 12, 2004                         /s/ Larry F Vance
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Larry F Vance
                                             Chairman of the Board and
                                             Chief Executive Officer
#### Donnis Sumerall HUGGINS v. The HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 53297.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 20, 1973.

In re: Milton J. Mongrue applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 271 So.2d 876.

Application denied. The result is correct.
# C_2022359EN.01007002.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/70

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — dennree v EUIPO (BioMarkt)

(Case T-641/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark BioMarkt - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) du of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 359/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: dennree GmbH (Töpen, Germany) (represented by: K. Röttgen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) du 9 August 2021 (Case R 783/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders dennree GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      19,651,978
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,514,558
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            26,600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 85,092,069
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    326,134,483
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,131,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             491,838,846
<DEPOSITS>                                 440,888,631
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,630,387
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,924,786
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,397,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       203,161
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,775,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             491,838,846
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             31,759,123
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,122,758
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               909,143
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            37,791,024
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          18,764,865
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          19,541,409
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       18,249,615
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  772,579
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              (2,590)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             17,422,661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,963,697
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,512,278
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,512,278
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.32
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,093,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   975,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,425,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,188,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   111,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,131,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,131,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14586]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial 
Consortium-Americas

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 11, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute--
Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas 
(``RIC-Americas'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, PickNik LLC. Boulder, CO., has been added as a party to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open and RIC-Americas intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership 
or planned activities.
    On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32999).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 25, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 26092).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-14586 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
DANIEL J. LEVITAN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1438

Opinion filed February 5, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Daniel J. Levitan, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, 

Criminal Appeals, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KAREEM FARRELL

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2335

[ December 28, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Gary L. Sweet , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 562010CF2086A

.

Kareem Farrell, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, C ONNER and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### COLUMBIAN NAT. LIFE INS. CO. v. WELCH, Collector of Internal Revenue.

No. 3206.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Feb. 12, 1937.

H. Nash, of Boston, Mass. (Bailey Aldrich, of Boston, Mass., on the brief) for aPPellant.

Edward H. Horton, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp*.*Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Francis J. W. Ford, U. S. Atty., and Arthur L. Murray, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., on the brief) for appellee.

„ *,*T „TTA1._ -n,. , Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and „. . T j MORTON, Circuit Judges, *’ J a*

PER CURIAM.

*.W*e perceive no ground for this suit. The bill contains no allegation of threatened or irreparable injury to the plaintiff by seizure of its property for the debt of another [see Lion Coal Co. v. Anderson, 62 F.(2d) 325, 328 (C.C.A. 10)], and nothing is alleged which takes the case out of provisions of Revised Statutes, § 3224 (26 U.S.C.A. § 1543), that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court.

The “Notice of Levy” served upon the plaintiff by the collector stated that all rights of Pr0Perty belonging to the taxpayer, House, and “all sums of *money owing from you*to the said James Arthur House are hereby seized and levied upon for the payment of the aforesaid tax * * * and demand is hereby made upon you for the sum of * * * $1049.35 of the amount *334now *owing from you*to the said James Arthur House or for such lesser sum as you may be *indebted to*him, to be applied in payment of the said tax liability.” The warrant of distraint states the amount of tax due and directs the collector to levy upon by distraint and to sell so much of the goods, chattels, effects, or other property or rights of property including stocks, securities, evidences of debt of the person liable *on which a lien exists*for the tax or taxes, etc. (Italics supplied.)

No stated amount is demanded nor is any property of the taxpayer or of the plaintiff specified as that affected by the distraint and subject to seizure. In United States v. Bank of Shelby, 68 F.(2d) 538 (C.C.A. 5), the collector claimed a bank deposit standing in the name of the taxpayer-and served a warrant of distraint upon the bank. The bank, asserting a right of set-off, refused to pay the collector on the warrant. The collector then brought an action at law to determine the rights of the parties. In United States v. Bank of United States (D. C.) 5 F.Supp. 942, the same situation was dealt with in .the same way. This appears *to*be the proper procedure. The plaintiff has an adequate remedy in its right to defend any action at law that may be brought against it. See, too, United States v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (C.C.A.) 50 F.(2d) 102.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 122

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalena.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel

Kalena.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

5 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer6 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica7 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

8 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

9 for the vessel Kalena, United States official number HA–

10 1923E.

Æ
#### Ted Horowitz, Appellant, v Aviva Horowitz, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 980]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated December 5, 1995, as directed him to pay the defendant interim maintenance in the sum of $250 per week, interim child support in the sum of $250 per week, interim counsel fees and expert fees in the sum of $10,000, and to pay all carrying charges on the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*491The plaintiff contends that the pendente lite relief awarded to the defendant was excessive. We disagree. The purpose of an award of pendente lite relief is to "tide over the more needy-party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution” *(Roach v Roach,*193 AD2d 660). "Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, with due regard for the preseparation standard of living *(see, Byer v Byer,*199 AD2d 298)” *(Kesten v Kesten,*234 AD2d 427; *see, Campanella v Campanella,*232 AD2d 598). The remedy for a perceived inequity in a pendente lite order is a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored *(see, Campanella v Campanella, supra; Cavanagh v Cavanagh,*227 AD2d 365; *Beige v Beige,*220 AD2d 636).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the defendant interim counsel fees and expert fees *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879; *Lieberman v Lieberman,*187 AD2d 567; *Cole v Cole,*182 AD2d 738). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Hedges, Controller and 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2010                        
|                                            
|/s/ David A. Hedges                         
|                                            
|David A. Hedges                             
|VP, Controller and Chief Financial Officer  
|(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                    CONSULTING AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT


     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT (the
"Amendment") is entered into as of July 1, 1998 between Analytical Surveys,
Inc., a Colorado corporation ("ASI"), and Sol C. Miller (the "Consultant").

                                    RECITALS

     A.     ASI and the Consultant are parties to the Consulting and
Noncompetition Agreement dated as of July 2, 1997 (the "Agreement").

     B.     The Agreement will expire on its terms on July 2, 1998.

     C.     ASI and the Consultant desire to extend the terms of the Agreement
and to make certain other amendments to the Agreement, as set forth below.

                                   AGREEMENT

     The parties agree as follows:

            1.     Section II.2(i) of the Agreement is amended and restated, as
of July 1, 1998, as follows:

                   "(i)   The Consultant will receive an annual consulting fee
of $100,000, payable monthly on or about the 15th day of each month, in addition
to normal Director Fees; and"

            2.     Section II.5(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated, as
of July 1, 1998, as follows:

                   "(a)   The Consultant's consulting agreement under this
Agreement will begin on the date of this Agreement and continue until July 2,
1999."

            3.     The references to "July 2, 1998" in Section II.5(b) and (c)
are changed to "July 2, 1999."

            4.     The reference to "Kansas City, Missouri" in Section IV.3 is
changed to "Indianapolis, Indiana."

<PAGE>

            5.     The address of Buyer in Section IV.14 is changed to:

                   Analytical Surveys, Inc.
                   941 North Meridian Street
                   Indianapolis, IN 46204

            6.     In all other respects, the provisions of the Agreement remain
in full force and effect.

     The parties to this Amendment have executed this Amendment as of the date
first above written.

                                        ANALYTICAL SURVEYS, INC.



                                        By:    /s/ Sidney V. Corder
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Sidney V. Corder
                                               Chief Executive Officer/President


                                               /s/ Sol C. Miller
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Sol C. Miller


                                       2
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 120

To amend title 38, United States Code, to deem certain service in the

organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of

the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts to have been active service

for purposes of benefits under programs administered by the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

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

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to deem certain

service in the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the

Philippine Scouts to have been active service for purposes

of benefits under programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Filipino Veterans Eq5 uity Act of 1993’’.
2

•S 120 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN SERVICE IN THE ORGANIZED MILITARY

2 FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE PHIL3 IPPINE SCOUTS DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE

4 SERVICE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 107 of title 38, United

6 States Code, is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a)—

8 (A) by striking out ‘‘not’’ after ‘‘Army of

9 the United States, shall’’; and

10 (B) by striking out ‘‘, except benefits

11 under—’’ and all that follows and inserting in

12 lieu thereof a period; and

13 (2) in subsection (b)—

14 (A) by striking out ‘‘not’’ after ‘‘Armed

15 Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945

16 shall’’; and

17 (B) by striking out ‘‘except—’’ and all that

18 follows and inserting in lieu thereof a period.

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) The heading

20 of such section is amended to read as follows:
3

•S 120 IS

1 ‘‘§ 107. Certain service deemed to be active service:

2 service in organized military forces of the

3 Philippines and in the Philippine

4 Scouts’’.

5 (2) The item relating to such section in the table of

6 sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is

7 amended to read as follows:

‘‘107. Certain service deemed to be active service: service in organized military

forces of the Philippines and in the Philippine Scouts.’’.

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this

10 Act shall take effect on October 1, 1993.

11 (b) APPLICABILITY.—No benefits shall accrue to any

12 person for any period before the effective date of this Act

13 by reason of the amendments made by this Act.

Æ
# C_2021242EN.01000201.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/2

---

Appeal brought on 6 January 2021 by Deutsche Post AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2020 in Case T-25/20, Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a stylised horn)

(Case C-5/21 P)

(2021/C 242/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Pošta Slovenije d.o.o.

By order of 5 May 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Deutsche Post AG should bear its own costs.

---
# C_2023094EN.01003502.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — NS v Parliament

(Case T-805/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reassignment - Interests of the service - Correspondence between the grade and the post - Loss of an allowance - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure)

(2023/C 94/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NS (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor, L. Darie and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 21 January 2021 by which she was reassigned to [confidential information redacted] and, in so far as necessary, of the decisions of 16 September 2021 rejecting her complaint and of 8 March 2021 on the recovery of the overpayment; second, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage she is alleged to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders NS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
[No. 852-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

December 20, 1971.]

#### Philip Kaplan *et al., Respondents,*v. Mayer Baron & Associates, Inc., *et al., Appellants.*