alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint,

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment 

 Eastern District of Texas

Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

SES-imagotag SA et al.

2:23-CV-00617

Mr. Hao Tan (Arch & Lake LLP)

01/05/2024

01/09/2024

Captana GmbH

/s/C. Gregory Gramenopoulos

C. Gregory Gramenopoulos

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP

 901 New York Avenue, NW

 Washington, DC 20001-4413

c.gregory.gramenopoulos@finnegan.com

(202) 408-4000

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 8 Filed 01/10/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 313
| 1.     | The Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and, |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |   |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |   |

| By:    | /S/    | KEVIN KREISLERKEVIN KREISLERChief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                |
| Date:  |   | August 23, 2010                                     |

| By:    | /S/    | EDWARD R. CARROLLEDWARD R. CARROLLChief Financial and Accounting Officer |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                     |
| Date:  |   | August 23, 2010                                                          |
Irvin Junior PHILLIPS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5150

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
James Gregory ARMISTEAD, Petitioner, v. David MILLIS, Superintendent, Hyde Correctional Institution

No. 19-5046

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
SAMACA, LLC, Petitioner, v. CELLAIRIS FRANCHISE, INC., et al.; and

Samaca, LLC, Petitioner, v. Cellairis Franchise, Inc., et al.

No. 19-1188.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
Exhibit 35.1



ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE



Synchrony Bank (the “Servicer”) hereby
certifies as of December 31, 2023 as follows:



|1. | The undersigned has reviewed, for the period beginning January 1, 2023 and ending December 31, 2023: (a) the activities
of the Servicer as they related to the Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2018, between Synchrony Card
Issuance Trust and the Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”) and (b) the Servicer’s performance under the
Servicing Agreement. Such review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance by the Servicer of its obligations under the Servicing
Agreement has been made by persons under the direct supervision of the undersigned.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To the best knowledge of the undersigned, based on my review of the Servicer’s performance under the Servicing Agreement, the
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects for the period beginning January 1,
2023 and ending December 31, 2023.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This report is delivered pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation
AB.



| | SYNCHRONY
    BANK
| | ------------------
|
| | By:               
| | Name:             
| | Title:            





SYNIT: Bank Compliance Certificate
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6903

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PETE SMITH, a/k/a Jose, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-93-117, CA-02-265) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pete Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Patrick Mebane, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Pete Smith appeals the district court’s order denying his motion construed as filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Smith , Nos. CR-93-117; CA-02- 265 (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

No. 18-1027.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of *Thryv, Inc.* v. *Click-to-Call Technologies, LP* , 590 U.S. ---- (2020).
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE 

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 29, 2017 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2017-4 Owner Trust, as follows:

|   | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2018, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of May, 2018.

 

|   | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul C. Honda                                        |  |
|   | Vice President and Assistant Secretary               |  |
|   | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |  |
Brian Jermaine WASHINGTON, Petitioner v. Jennifer SAAD, Warden

No. 19-5492

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Wade Hampton BIGELOW, aka Ray Ford Gore, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5598

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Shane Austin PETERS, Petitioner v. Eric ARNOLD, Warden.

No. 19-6057

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

*460Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 23
- 00338
- CV

In re Jeffery D. Tolson

OR I GINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Jeffrey D. Tolson has filed a petition for writ of mandamus com pl aining
of the district court ’ s alleged failure to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a , concerning the recu sal and disqualification of judges

. A relator seeking mandamus relief has the burden of providing the Co urt with a sufficient record to e st ablish the right to relief. Walker v.
Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). By rule, the relator must file with the petition
“a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for reli ef
and that was filed in any un de rlying proceeding.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7 (a)(1). Here, Mr. To lson has provided no sworn record or exhibits in support of his submission. Accordingly, the petition
is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.

____________ ______________________________ Tho mas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Baker, Kelly , and Smith
Filed: June 23, 2023
**Exhibit 32.1**
 **CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC REPORT**
 I,
      Dennis G. McLaughlin, III, Chief Executive Officer of Earth Biofuels, Inc.
      (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:
 (1) the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the six months ended June
      30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
      (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)); 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:
      November 20, 2007
 /s/
                Dennis G. McLaughlin, IIIDennis
                G. McLaughlin, IIIChief
                Executive Officer
 A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Kevin Terrell TATUM, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-9548

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 106 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 106

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 14, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public 

              

Law 113-46) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) 
and inserting ``January 18, 2014''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 14, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000875186
<NAME> MULTI-STRATEGY MARKET NEUTRAL INVESTMENTS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       32,656,758
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      33,467,140
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,994,497
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                 287,942
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,749,579
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                     2,013,712
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                   22,152,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                         24,166,696
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    31,843,374
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        3,899,768
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                                0
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                      526,607
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                        190,775
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                        22,127
<NET-ASSETS>                                32,582,883
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              277,700
<INTEREST-INCOME>                              917,050
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                 603,290
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        591,460
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                     1,011,883
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                       22,127
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                        1,625,470
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                       64,760
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                       821,201
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                      5,740,012
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                  1,947,300
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            107,056
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                      32,582,883
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          443,631
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                588,981
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        24,966,805
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                             8.00
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                   0.19
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                           0.44
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                              0.02
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                         0.25
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                              0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                               8.36
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   2.70


</TABLE>
Edward KRAMER, Petitioner, v. Antonio VITTI, et al.

No. 18-1355

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
VIA EDGAR


May 5, 1998

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


ATTN.:	Office of Filings, Information and Consumer Services

RE:		Smith Barney Variable Account Funds (the Company)
		File No. 33-10830 and 811-4959

	Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 
please accept this letter as certification that the prospectus and statement 
of additional information of the Fund do not differ from those contained in 
Post-Effective Amendment No. 10 (the Amendment) to the Funds Registration 
Statement on Form N-1A.  This Amendment was filed electronically on April 30, 
1998 and became effective immediately.

	Any comments on this filing should be directed to the undersigned at 
(212) 816-6392.  Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence of your 
receipt of this filing.


	Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence of your receipt of 
this filing.

				Very truly yours,
				SMITH BARNEY VARIABLE ACCOUNT FUNDS.


				/s/ Marc A. Schuman
				Marc A. Schuman
				Assistant Secretary






g:\funds\arms\1996\secdocs\497j.doc
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Petitioners v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-587

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 1, 2019

A total of 80 minutes is allotted for oral argument, and the time is divided as follows: 40 minutes for the Solicitor General, 20 minutes for private respondents, and 20 minutes for state respondent.
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
High Yield Bond Trust:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of High Yield Bond Trust (the "Fund") of Travelers Variable
Products Funds for the year ended December 31, 1998, we
considered its internal control, including control activities
for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form
N-SAR, not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial
statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Those
controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized
acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more
of the internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error
or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the
financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected
within a timely period by employees in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted no
matters involving the internal control and its operation,
including controls for safeguarding securities that we consider
to be material weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Trustees of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.





February 8, 1999
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD and

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00285-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Amend Docket Control Order filed by Defendants 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Plaintiff Cobblestone 

Wireless, LLC. Dkt. No. 64. After consideration, and noting its unopposed nature, the Motion is 

GRANTED. It is

ORDERED that the Parties’ deadline to comply with P.R. 4-2 and exchange preliminary 

claim constructions is August 28, 2024. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ deadline to comply with P.R. 4-3 and file a joint 

claim construction statement is September 11, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 08/08/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 5196