that the agreement was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. [Atl. Leasing & Fin., Inc. v. IPM Tech., Inc., 885 F.2d 188, 198 (4th Cir.1989).] The Estate has failed to meet this burden. After reviewing all the documents and considering the executor’s certification, we find no support for concluding Burnett’s execution of the Guaranty was involuntary or unknowing. We also reject the Estate’s due process challenge. The Maryland judgment was entered and plaintiff served Burnett, individually, as mandated by Maryland Rule 2-611(a). The post-judgment process affords additional notice and an opportunity to challenge the confessed judgment’s validity within sixty days of its entry. This fully complies with the rigors of due process. See Tam Enters., supra, 369 N.J.Super. at 56, 848 A.2d 27 (<HOLDING>). Despite the availability of a
holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that a new jersey liquor license is a property interest for purposes of due process analysis and that the statutory process by which municipalities set the hours during which alcoholic beverages may be sold must afford procedural due process to licensees recognizing in certain contexts  a postjudgment hearing may afford the requisite due process recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process holding that board of pardons must afford inmate due process in original parole hearing