alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S91A1632.

S91A1633.

#### McCOLLUM v. POPE et al. FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF GEORGIA, N.A. v. POPE et al.

(411 SE2d 874)

Weltner, Presiding Justice.

Upon the default by the grantor of a security deed, the grantee initiated a sale under power contained in the deed. It is undisputed that the grantee mailed a notification of the sale under power correctly addressed to the grantor in accordance with OCGA § 44-14-162.2.1 Under these circumstances, the actual receipt (or want of re*836ceipt) by the grantor of the notice of sale under power is immaterial to the right of the grantee to sale under power.

Decided January 17, 1992 —

Reconsideration denied February 5, 1992.

*Schwall & Ruff, Emory A. Schwall, Frederick B. Whittington III, Donald L. Mize,*for appellants.

*Jerome C. Ware,*for appellees.

The judgment of the trial court to the contrary must be reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Clarke, C. J., Bell, Hunt, Fletcher, JJ., and Judge John W. Sognier concur. Benham, J., disqualified.*

1

 (a) Notice of the initiation of proceedings to exercise a power of sale in a mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract shall be given to the debtor by the secured creditor no later than 15 days before the date of the proposed foreclosure. Such notice shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return *836receipt requested, to the property address or to such other address as the debtor may designate by written notice to the secured creditor. *The notice required by this Code section shall be deemed given on the official postmark day.*

(b) The notice required by subsection (a) of this Code section shall be given by mailing to the debtor a copy of the published legal advertisement or a copy of the notice of sale submitted to the publisher. [Emphasis supplied.]

Before the enactment of OCGA § 44-14-162.2 in 1981, foreclosure required only notice by publication. OCGA § 44-14-162. See *Nat. Community Builders v. C & S Nat. Bank,*232 Ga. 594 (207 SE2d 510) (1974) (foreclosure pursuant to realty foreclosure statutes does not violate procedural due process rights).
Exhibit 99.1****

** **

**Certification of Glen L. Shank**

**President and Chairman of the Board**

**of******

**Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc.******

** **

I, Glen L. Shank, President and Chairman of the Board of Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc., hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. ss 1350,    as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(a)        The Annual Report on Form    10-K for the year ended February 2, 2003, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)        The information contained    in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 2, 2003, which accompanies this certification, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and will be retained by    Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Dated:  April 25, 2003.

                                                                                By: */s/ Glen L. Shank*                           

                                                                                             Glen L. Shank

                                                                                             President and Chairman of the Board
No. 10-6508.

#### Larry Arnold Young, Petitioner v. Patricia R. Stansberry, Warden.

562 U.S. 979, 131 S. Ct. 435,

178 L. Ed. 2d 319,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8199.

October 18, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and the petition for writ of certio-rari dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 394.
# C_2014235EN.01003502.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2014 — Fasano v Commission

(Case F-76/13) (1)

1

2014/C 235/48

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 291, 5/10/2013, p. 7.

1

---
# C_2015190EN.01001301.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX)

(Case T-282/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX - Earlier Community word mark IGLO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 190/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iglotex SA (Skórcz, Poland) (represented by: I.-M. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Iglo Foods Group Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom) (represented initially by C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Brandreth and C. Hall, Barristers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2013 (Case R 67/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Iglo Foods Group Ltd and Iglotex SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Iglotex SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iglotex SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17126]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (98-081)]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that Boundary Layer Research, Inc., a 
corporation of the State of Washington having its principal place of 
business at 3125 100th St. SW, Hangar C75-5, Everett, Washington 98204, 
has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions 
disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,209,430, entitled ``HELICOPTER LOW SPEED 
YAW CONTROL,'' and U.S. Patent No. 4,708,305 entitled ``ANTI-TORQUE 
SYSTEM FUSELAGE STRAKES,'' both of which are assigned to the United 
States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the 
prospective grant of a license should be sent to Langley Research 
Center.

DATE: Responses to this notice must be received by August 25, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly A. Chasteen, Patent Attorney, 
NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212, Hampton, VA 23681-0001, 
telephone (757) 864-3227; fax (757) 864-9190.

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-17126 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000017030-APR-201308:14 AM
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2262

To amend the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act to

provide greater flexibility in the expenditure of funds, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. BRADLEY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act to provide greater flexibility in the expenditure

of funds, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES

4 RESTORATION EXPENDITURES.

5 Section 9 of the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fish6 eries Restoration Act (Public Law 102–495; 106 Stat.

7 3178) is amended—
2

•S 2262 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘for expenditure through the

2 Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’’;

3 and

4 (2) by striking ‘‘for expenditure through the

5 National Marine Fisheries Service’’.

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Covansys Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Rajendra B. Vattikuti, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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/ Rajendra B. Vattikuti Rajendra B. Vattikuti
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
March 14, 2005
Exhibit 31.3

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Rajeev Madhavan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Magma Design Automation, Inc.; and

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.

Date: May 1, 2009



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/S/ RAJEEV MADHAVAN                                  
|Rajeev Madhavan                                      
|Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Filed 5/1/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 109

Ashlie N. Carnes, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

Robin S. Snider, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20140345

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Gail Hagerty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Lynn M. Boughey, Box 836, Bismarck, ND 58502-0836, for plaintiff and appellant.

Thomas M. Jackson, 418 E. Rosser Ave., Ste. 320, Bismarck, ND 58501, for defendant and appellee.

Carnes v. Snider

No. 20140345

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Ashlie Carnes appealed from a district court judgment awarding her and Robin Snider joint residential responsibility over their minor child.  She argues the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous because they could only be explained through application of a presumption against awarding her primary residential responsibility based on her sexual orientation and same-sex marriage.  In Jacobson v. Jacobson, we held that, “because of the mores of today’s society, because [the mother] is engaged in a homosexual relationship in the home in which she resides with the children, and because of the lack of legal recognition of the status of a homosexual relationship, the best interests of the children would be better served by placing custody of the children with [the father].”  314 N.W.2d 78, 82 (N.D. 1981).  We have since held that, “[t]o the extent Jacobson can be read as creating such a presumption, it is overruled.”  Damron v. Damron, 2003 ND 166, ¶ 9, 670 N.W.2d 871.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

William A. Herauf, D.J.

[¶3]The Honorable William A. Herauf, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2435 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2435

  To amend title 28, United States Code, regarding appointment of an 
                          independent counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 13 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, regarding appointment of an 
                          independent counsel.

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

SECTION 1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

    Section 593(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after the second sentence the following: ``The division of 
the court shall appoint as independent counsel an individual who is 
without an actual or apparent personal, financial, or political 
conflict of interest.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Report)
of SunCom Wireless, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, Michael E. Kalogris, Chief Executive Officer 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:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as appropriate, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



/s/ Michael E. KalogrisName:

Michael E. KalogrisTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 13, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to SunCom Wireless, Inc. and will be retained by SunCom Wireless, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of SunCom Wireless, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or
after the date of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 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, March 03, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0293. NATHANIEL HARPER, JR. v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

93F18642
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

d1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139850

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139850 COA: 285565 Oakland CC: 2007-218368-FH IVAN JERMAINE MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 3, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 10-6404.

#### Thelma Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. L. Hicks, et al.

562 U.S. 1039, 131 S. Ct. 604,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8987.

178 L. Ed. 2d 430,

November 15, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
**Exhibit No. 32.1**

**Certification of CEOPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with theAnnual Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for theyear ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark S. Newman, ChiefExecutive Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of DRS Technologies, Inc.
| /s/ MARK S. NEWMAN        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Mark S. Newman            |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |
| May 29, 2007         |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIREDBY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDEDTO DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRSTECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONOR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

----
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (No. 333-169623, 333-165651, 333-46068) of Dynasil Corporation of America and Subsidiaries (the Company)of our report dated December 16, 2014, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements as of and for the yearsended September 30, 2014 and 2013, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dynasil Corporation of America for the yearended September 30, 2014.

 

/s/ McGladrey LLP

 

Boston, Massachusetts

December 16, 2014
# C_2016038EN.01004702.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-563/13) (1)

1

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Fruit and vegetables - Obligation to state reasons - Conditions for recognition of a producer organisation - Outsourcing of core activities by a producer organisation - Amount to be excluded - Proportionality))

(2016/C 038/61)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Tuytschaever and M. Varga, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 219, p. 49), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium or, in any event, limitation of the amount which must be excluded from financing.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---
# C_2014395EN.01004601.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

(Case T-605/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE - Earlier Community word mark VIÑA SOL - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons))

(2014/C 395/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Bal Harbor, Florida, United States) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 18/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA, and Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 September 2013 (Case R 18/2013-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 September 2013 (Case R 18/2013-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP;

| 3. | Orders Miguel Torres, SA, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Miguel Torres, SA, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---