alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Brooklyn Trust Company, Appellant, v. Sarah Ann Bulmer et al., Respondents.

(Submitted March 27, 1872;

decided April 2, 1872.)

Personal service of a summons and complaint can be made out of the State only when publication is ordered. (Code, § 185.) When so made it is equivalent to publication and deposit in the post-office. Such service is not complete until the time prescribed for the publication has expired (g 135); and defendant has twenty days thereafter to answer. A judgment, therefore, entered for want of an answer prior to the expiration of the latter period, is irregular.

*85Appeal from order of General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing order of Special Term directing the purchase at sale of mortgaged premises to complete the sale.

The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage of lands in Brooklyn, H. T. Defendant, Sarah Ann Bulmer, is a nonresident, residing in Hew Jersey. October 2, 1871, an order was made, directing service of the summons on said defendant by publication six weeks, and mailing copy summons and complaint. October 4, 1871, summons and complaint were served personally on said defendant in Hew Jersey. October 26, 1871, judgment, on failure to answer, was entered. Respondent, the purchaser at the sale, refused to. complete the purchase, on the ground that the judgment was irregular; the service on defendant, Sarah Ann Bulmer, not being com píete till the expiration of the six weeks mentioned in order of publication.

*Edgar M. Cullen*for the appellant.

Personal service out of the State where publication is ordered is a completed service. (D*ykers*v. *Woodward,*1 How., 315; Transcript, March 3, 1865.)

*George S. Fox*for the respondents.

Where publication of summons has been ordered, and service of a copy of the summons and complaint has been personally made out of the State, defendant has twenty days to answer after the expiration of the time prescribed in the order for the publication. *(Tomlinson*v. *Van Vechten,*6 How., 199; *Abrahams*v. *Mitchell,*8 Abb., 123.)

Rapallo, J.

Personal service of the summons and com plaint can be made out of the State only when publication is ordered. (Code, § 135.) When so made, it is equivalent to publication and deposit in the post-office. (Id.) Section 137 declares that, in the cases mentioned in section 135, the service of the summons shall be deemed complete at the expira- *86. ,tion of the time prescribed by the order of publication. It is held, and we think correctly,, in *.Tomlinson*v. *Van Vechten,*(6 How., 199), and in *Abrahams*v. *Mitchell*(8 Abb. Pr., 123), that where personal service is thus -made opt of, the State, .such service is not complete until the time prescribed. for- the publication has expired. Section 137 requires the lapse of this time to render the.service complete.in all the cases mentioned in section 135. It- makes, no.exception where ..personal service is, pursuant to the same section, substituted for actual publication.

The order should.be affirmed with, costs.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Prime Air, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB/A  for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report").  I, Blaine Haug,
Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief Financial Officer, 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 and belief:

     (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  result of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  April  30,  2004             /s/  Blaine  Haug
                                     -----------------
                                     Blaine  Haug
                                     Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                     Chief  Financial  Officer
                                     (Principal  Executive  Officer  and
                                     Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


                                       15
<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Kenneth W. Bell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 29, 2007 /s/ Kenneth W. Bell Kenneth W. Bell Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Imaldo ARIAS-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10206

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 18, 2017

Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jesus Imaldo Arias-Lopez, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Imaldo Arias-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for being an alien in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Arias-Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Arias-Lopez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Arias-Lopez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

We remand the case to the district court with instructions to delete “firearm” from the description of the offense and to *583amend the judgment to reflect the correct Bureau of Prisons’s Register Number for Arias-Lopez, which is 51277-408.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN RE AMC ENTERTAINMENT 

HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER 

LITIGATION 

§ 

§ No. 385, 2023 

§ 

§ Court Below—Court of Chancery 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Consol. C.A. No. 2023-0215 

 Submitted: May 8, 2024 

 Decided: May 22, 2024 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 

ORDER

 

 This 22nd day of May 2024, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the 

judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 

reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 11, 2023. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
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 MDU Communications International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2008 (the “Report”), I,
Carmen Ragusa, Jr., Vice President of Finance of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




/s/  CARMEN
      RAGUSA, JR.Carmen
      Ragusa, Jr.Vice
      President of FinanceMDU
      Communications International, Inc.December
      23, 2008Totowa,
      New Jersey





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### LACHMAN *v.*LACHMAN.

1. Divorce — Appeal—Findings of Trial Court.

Special consideration, is given to the findings of the trial court even though review of a divorce action is *de novo,*because the trial court had the opportunity to meet the witnesses and observe their demeanor.

2. Same — Extreme Cruelty — Evidence.

Judgment of divorce granted to defendant wife on her counterclaim charging acts of extreme and repeated cruelty by plaintiff husband after complaint was withdrawn is affirmed, where there was testimony by each of the parties that would support a finding that husband was guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty and Court of Appeals is not persuaded on the record that trial court erred.

^Reference for Points in Headnotes

[1, 2] 24 Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation § 337.

Appeal from Washtenaw, Breakey (James R., Jr.), J.

Submitted Division 2 March 1, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 1,295.)

Decided May 27, 1968.

Rehearing denied July 8, 1968. Leave to appeal denied September 10, 1968.

See 381 Mich 774.

Complaint by Sheldon J. Lachman against G-race Ann Lachman for divorce. Defendant counterclaimed for divorce. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Galvin Klyman,*for plaintiff.

*Crippen, Dever é Urquhart,*for defendant.

*426J. H. Gillis, J.

This appeal contests the granting of a judgment of divorce to defendant wife on her counterclaim for divorce. After the counterclaim for divorce was filed, the plaintiff withdrew his complaint for divorce. No issue was born as a result of this marriage. No alimony was awarded to the wife and there is no dispute over property, real or personal.

Several issues were raised at trial, which may be stated as: Has defendant-counterplaintiff shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her husband has been guilty of certain acts of extreme and repeated cruelty, and if so, did the record establish condonation on the part of the defendant-counter-plaintiff of such a nature as would bar her from receiving a judgment of divorce?

Examination of the transcript in this cause discloses testimony by each of the parties which would support a finding by the trial court that plaintiff-counter defendant was guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty. Each allegation of cruelty is denied by the opposite party. Each allegation of condonation is likewise denied by the opposite party.

While we hear the case *de novo*on the record for this Court, we are mindful of the fact that the trial judge had the opportunity to meet the witnesses face to face and to examine and observe their demeanor on the witness stand. *Dral*v. *Dral*(1967), 8 Mich App 663; *Butgereit*v. *Butgereit*(1967), 8 Mich App 246; *Osius*v. *Dingell*(1965), 375 Mich 605. We are not persuaded on this record that the trial court erred.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

McGregor., P. J., and A. C. Miller, J., concurred.
#### SEALED APPELLEE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SEALED APPELLANT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50354 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Appellant has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Appellant has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          21,902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               300,043
<PP&E>                                       1,311,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                 143,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,390,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,001,087
<BONDS>                                        657,193
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       665,245
<OTHER-SE>                                   (933,496)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,390,029
<SALES>                                        293,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,993
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  580,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (401,272)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (401,272)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (401,272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53022-53023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation 
Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information 
collection. The requested information is included in air carriers 
applications for insurance when insurance is not available from private 
sources.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 24, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on (202) 385-4293, or by 
e-mail at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0514.
    Title: Aviation Insurance.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this 
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information submitted by applicants for insurance 
under Chapter 443 of Title 49 U.S.C. is used by the FAA to identify the 
eligibility of parties to be insured, the amount of coverage required, 
and insurance premiums. Without collection of this information, the FAA 
would not be able to issue required insurance.
    Respondents: Approximately 61 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 616 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla 
Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this

[[Page 53023]]

information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of 
the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility 
and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden 
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected 
information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in 
the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business 
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-21653 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
(LOGO) OCWEN


OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

March 24, 2000

Pursuant to the  applicable  sections of the  Servicing  Agreements,  I Scott W.
Anderson as officer of Ocwen Federal Bank FSB (the "Bank") confirm that a review
of the activities of the Bank ended  December 31, 1999 and of performance  under
the Servicing  Agreements has been made under my supervision.  To the best of my
knowledge,  based on such review,  the Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Servicing Agreement  throughout the period, other than as noted in the
Management Assertion on Compliance with USAP.


Scott W. Anderson
Vice President of Residential Assets