alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Lou S. Fulton, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03489-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of 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 10/26/2017, 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: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

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. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8758 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“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.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8758 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 2
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 on Form 10-K of Jesup & Lamont, Inc. (the
"Company") for fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald A.
Wojnowski Jr., Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 (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.
 
 /s/ Donald A. Wojnowski Jr.
                  
                  April
      14, 2009Donald A. Wojnowski Jr., President
                  
                  Date(Principal
      Executive Officer)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

QFFlCE P 

BUSINESS AhUlNlSTRPllON 

1 EOlD C UYERS 1 

I 4ST DIRECTOR FOR 1 STR'XTURES AND 

ORMTllCI PRMLEYS 

AS1 OIRECTQR TOR 

OFFICE OF RESEARCH 

ROBERT J LKKLEN 

lSS1 DIIECTOR FOR 

SLTELLITE I) XUNWK 

ROCKET PROGRAMS 

PLANETAR1 PROCRAWS 

FOR PRWJLYW 

I 

ASST omcrnn FOR LIFE WENffS 

RESELRCH CENTER 

ASS1 >RECTOR I FOR B1)5ClElUE 

PROCUREMENT 110 

SJPPLY DIVISiON 

ERNEST 1 BRACKET1 

DlVlSloll 

I 

ASS1 OlRfCTMl FOR 

POWER PLANTS 

EmnsO* w um~cu VACuCl VACUCY SAMUEL SNYDER 

I 

SERVICES ADUINISTRATIVE DIVISION 

RESEARCH CENTER 

YOFFETl FlELq ULIF 

sum J DEFRANCE 

LANGLEY FIELD. U 

HERI* J REI0 

RASA-UR 

OIOLATHWS OFFICE Af+WVED' 1 KEIW OLENNAN CENTER 

PAUL F 8lKLE 

EWMJ, CALIF ADYIUISTRATDR. N41 

WTE 

RESEARCH CENTER 

EWIRD R SWP 

CLEVELAND. oHm 

b SLIRRYMS WU(1 MTEO FE8RUU)Y 1.1%0
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
June 15, 2018
No. 04

- 18

- 00107

- CR
Robert MARTINEZ, Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR6698 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On June 6, 2018, Mr. Martinez, acting pro se, filed a motion requesting a copy of the appellate record in Appeal No. 04

- 18

- 00107

- CR. Mr. Martinez does not have an active case before this court. Appeal No. 04

- 18

- 00107

- CR was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on March 14, 2018. See Moreno v. State , No. 04

- 18

- 00107

- CR (Tex. App.

— San Antonio March 14, 2018, no pet.). Accordingly, Mr. Ma rtinez’s request for a copy of the appellate record is DENIED

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Cou rt
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MACHUCA-MACHUCA, aka Otoniel Santos-Sanchez, Francisco Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10137.

D.C. No. CR-01-00951-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Janice M. Marquez, Esq., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, *AZ,*for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael S. Reeves, Esq., Phoenix, *AZ,*for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Machuca-Machuca appeals his 53-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Machuca-Machuca’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: M.W. :

:

:

:

: No. 454 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2080 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2080

To suspend temporarily the duty on flat panel screen assemblies for use 
                in plasma flat panel screen televisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2004

  Mr. Santorum (for himself and Mr. Specter) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on flat panel screen assemblies for use 
                in plasma flat panel screen televisions.

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

SECTION 1. PLASMA DISPLAY PANELS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.23       Flat panel screen    Free       No change        No change        On or before 12/
                          assemblies for use                                                31/2006           ''
                          in plasma flat                                                                       .
                          screen televisions
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8529.90.53).......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.40

Summary of 2010 Executive Officer Compensation

The
following shows the current and anticipated annual salary for each of eLoyaltys current executive officers:



|                                                                               |  |         |         |                       |   |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------- | ------- | --------------------- | - | -------
|                                                                               |  | Current |         | EffectiveAs of 4/1/10
|Kelly D. Conway, President and Chief Executive Officer:                        |  | $       | 425,000 |                       | $ | 425,000
|                                                                               |  |        
|William B. Noon, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer:                   |  | $       | 190,000 |                       | $ | 200,000
|                                                                               |  |        
|Steven C. Pollema, Vice President, Integrated Contact Solutions Business Unit: |  | $       | 300,000 |                       | $ | 300,000
|                                                                               |  |        
|Christine R. Carsen, Vice President, General Counsel And Corporate Secretary:  |  | $       | 170,000 |                       | $ | 175,000

Mr. Conway and
Mr. Pollema have target bonus percentages as set forth in their employment agreements with eLoyalty. Additional information concerning the compensation of these executive officers is set forth in the Proxy Statement on Form 14A filed by
eLoyalty Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.3


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference into the previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement, File No.
333-94763 of California Community Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated
February 25, 1998, relating to the consolidated statements of operations and
cash flows of California Financial Bancorp and subsidiary (formerly known as
"Belvedere Bancorp and subsidiary") for the period from inception (September
11, 1997) through December 31, 1997, appearing in the annual report on Form
10-K of California Community Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1999.


/s/ Arthur Andersen


Orange County, California
April 14, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         844,626                 591,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,875                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                   9,074
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               851,501                 601,054
<PP&E>                                          60,053                  19,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 911,554                 620,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          382,071                  34,978
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           412                     414
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   911,554                 620,306
<SALES>                                      1,374,127                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,374,127                       0
<CGS>                                          976,680                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  976,680                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               493,145                 377,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (95,698)               (377,753)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,262                  33,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,374,127                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0



</TABLE>
#### STATE v. BROWN

No. 602P01

Case below: 146 N.C. App. 299

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 18 December 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S, 7A-31 denied 18 December 2001.
Exhibit 99.2

                   (Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP)



                         Report of Independent Auditors

To the Boards of Directors and Shareholder of A.I. Credit Corp., AICCO, Inc.,
AICCO, Inc., Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. and Imperial Premium Funding, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Exhibit I,
that A.I. Credit Corp, AICCO, Inc. ("AICCO I"), AICCO, Inc. ("AICCO II),
Imperial Premium Finance, and Imperial Premium Funding Inc. (collectively, the
"Servicers") have complied with the specified servicing related requirements
related to the Series 2004-1 AICCO Premium Finance Master Trust (the "Trust"),
for the eight months ended December 31, 2004, as set out in Article III and
Article IV of the Trust's Sales and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") and
Section 2.20 and Article 5 of the Trust's Base Indenture (as supplemented by the
2004-1 Series Supplement), subclause (c) of Section 2.01 of the Agreement and
subclause (ii)(A) of subsection 2.06(d) of the Agreement. The applicable
sections are listed in Exhibit I, and sections noted as not applicable are
excluded from the scope of this report. Management is responsible for the
Servicers compliance with these specified servicing related requirements. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Servicers compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Servicers
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Servicers compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that A.I. Credit Corp., AICCO I, AICCO
II, Imperial Premium Finance, Inc., and Imperial Premium Funding, Inc. complied
with the aforementioned requirements during the eight months ended December 31,
2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2005
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YOUFU QIN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-71912 Age n c y No. A201-188-320 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, B EA, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Youfu Qin, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m i gration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e 

# FIL ED JUL 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Gu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t, e v e n if c re dible , Qin fa ile d to e sta

blish his e xpe rie nc e s in C hina c onstitute d pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of “ othe r re sista

n c e ” to C hina ’ s c oe rc ive popula tion c ontrol polic y . Se e Hev . Holde r , 749 F.3d 792, 795-96 (9th C ir. 2014). Substa n t ia l e vide n c e a lso supports the

B IA’ s finding tha

t Qin fa ile d to de m onstra

te an obje c tive ly

re a sona b le we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution in C hina . Se e Gu , 454 F.3d a t 1022 (e ve n c onside ring c ontinuing inte re st in pe titione r, re c ord did not c om pe l the finding tha

t pe titione r e sta

blishe d a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution); se e also N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (possibility of pe rse c ution too spe c ulative ). W e re

je c t Q i n’ s c onte n tion tha

t the B IA e rre d or m i sinte rpre t e d the re c o rd, a nd his c o nte n tion tha

t the B IA should ha

v e re m ande d

his c a se for an opportunity

to submit a dditiona l c orroboration. Thus, Qin’ s a sy lum c la im fa ils. Se e N agoulk o , 333 F.3d a

t 1018. B e c a use Qin fa ile d

to e sta blish e ligibility

for a s y l um , his withholding of re m ova l c la im

ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se e Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006).

1 4 - 7 1 9 1 2 2Fina lly , Qin’ s m otion for a sta y of re m ova l is de nie d. The te m pora ry sta y of re m ova l will te rm inate upon issua nc e of the m andat e . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 4 - 7 1 9 1 2 3
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANDY’S AUTO BODY AND PAINT, LLC a/a/o ANDREW ROSEBROUGH,

Appellant,

v.

TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-177

[April 22, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Marni A. Bryson, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 50-2019-AP000134-CAXX-MB and 50-2018-SC-015635-XXXX-SB.

David B. Pakula of David B. Pakula, P.A., Pembroke Pines, and 

Christopher Kasper of Ovadia Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Steven H. Preston of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-37304, 333-74940,333-114979, 333-123948 and 333-137869 of The Management Network Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the“Company”) on Form S-8 of our report dated March 28, 2008 relating to the consolidated financialstatements of the Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of new accounting standards) appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Management Network Group, Inc. for the fiscal year endedDecember 29, 2007.            /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP   KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI   March 28, 2008  
-62-
#### NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS, INC., DAVID A. ROBINSON AND ANTHONY CARUSO v. DAVID KRAUSE, WILFRED SMITH AND ARTHUR FORBES AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

August 17, 1984.

Motion for leave to dismiss the appeal of Intervenor is granted.