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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Moody, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00286-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lopez McHugh LLP - Newport Beach, CA

(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 2/5/2016, 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: February 10, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party 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. 

“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 822 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2320 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2320

                   For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 20, 2004

  Mr. Nickles introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Renato Rosetti 
shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the 
United States for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment 
of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Renato Rosetti as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 15, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 10-5062

(D.C. No. 4:10-CV-00203-GKF-FHM)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, Chief Circuit Judge.

This matter is before me on Plaintiff Keith Judd’s response to the show

cause order entered on May 18, 2010. Pursuant to Judd v. University of New

Mexico, 204 F.3d 1041 (10th Cit. 2000), I have carefully reviewed this response

and conclude that Mr. Judd has failed to comply with the filing restrictions

imposed. 

Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED. Mr. Judd’s motion for an 

Appellate Case: 10-5062 Document: 01018441108 Date Filed: 06/15/2010 Page: 1 
2

extension of time is DENIED as moot.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 10-5062 Document: 01018441108 Date Filed: 06/15/2010 Page: 2
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

135163 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. BEVERLY GALLIHER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 135163 COA: 267185 Oakland CC: 04-061389-NO TRINITY HEALTH - MICHIGAN, d/b/a ST. JOSEPH MERCY OAKLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 2, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld now be reviewed by this Court.

M ARKMAN , J., dissents and states as follows:

Because I cannot im agine any more “open and obvi ous” condition than a pothole in a driveway during daylight hours, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment and remand for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendant. “[P]otholes in pavement are an ‘everyday occurrence’ th at ordinarily should be observed by a reasonably prudent person.” Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 523 (2001).

It is hard to know whether the majority is more persuaded he re by the argument: (a) that a shadow cast by a hospital on a pothole constitutes a “special aspect,” thus removing the pothole from the realm of the “open and obvi ous”; (b) that plaintiff’s testimony that she fell during “dark evening ho urs” should be accord ed credit despite the fact that 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm on the afternoon of March 1, 2003, the time of the accident, was a daylight hour; (c) that plaintiff’s si multaneous arguments th at there were sunny conditions at the time of her accident, ther eby creating a shadow over the pothole, and
that there were “overcast” conditions at th e time of the accident with “heavy, dense clouds and fog and scattered snow showers, ” thereby obscuring the pothole, should be accepted as legitimate alternative arguments; or (d) that plainti ff’s assertion that she “did_______________________________________ __ 2

not discover the condition” is somehow relevant to this Court’s analysis of premises liability cases.

That any of these argumen ts have been found to be persuasive by this Court evidences why Lugo has become an increasingly “dea d letter,” to be replaced by no
coherent alternative rule of law.

t0205 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.

February 8, 2008

Clerk
#### Lucy Pendleton's Admr. *v.*James L. Lawson et al.

Ante-Nuptial Contract.

The written consent of tbe husband to *the*use of tbe wife’s property, made at tbe date of marriage, and attached to and recorded with the wife’s will, held to be an ante-nuptial contract.

Contract Between Husband and Wife — Use of Wife’s Property — Express Contract.

Under a written agreement between husband and wife, that she retained the right to hire out her personal property or keep same as she may think proper, should she decide to keep same for the family use, the law will imply no contract on the part of the husband to Pay hire during their joint lives.

*467Same — Use of Property by Husband After Wife’s death.

The retention and use of the personal property of the wife, by the husband, after her death, will imply a promise to make a reasonable compensation therefor.

APPEAL EROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 4, 1868.

Kennedy, Lindsey, *Bullock and*Davis, *for appellant.*

*Feland & Kvans,*Petrie, *for appellees.*

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Williams:

The written consent of John Pendleton, dated October 3, 1844, attached to Lucy Miller’s will, both of which were made in contemplation of their intended marriage, were properly regarded by this court as an ante-nuptial contract, these being put to record at their date.

By this writing she retained the right *“to hire out her negroes or keep them as she may think proper”;*if she chose to keep them for her own or the families use, it was as much the exercise of her legitimate power as to hire them out, but if she chose to retain them for such purpose, the law would imply no contract on the part of the husband to pay hire during their joint lives, his responsibility therefor could only be fixed by an express contract, which is not even set up by the plaintiff, nor established by the evidence. But as the husband retained said slaves after the wife’s death, and when they became the property of her estate and heirs the law would imply a promise to make reasonable compensation therefor; therefore, his estate should be held responsible for all reasonable hire not barred by lapse of time, and as to this, the judgment is erroneous and is therefore reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ELIJAH JAMES.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1895 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1895

To temporarily extend the programs under the Small Business Act and the 
 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through March 15, 2004, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 19, 2003

 Ms. Snowe (for herself and Mr. Kerry) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To temporarily extend the programs under the Small Business Act and the 
 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through March 15, 2004, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY.

    (a) In General.--Any program, authority, or provision, including 
any pilot program, authorized under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
631 et seq.) or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 
661 et seq.) as of September 30, 2003, that is scheduled to expire on 
or after September 30, 2003, and before March 15, 2004, shall remain 
authorized through March 15, 2004, under the same terms and conditions 
in effect on September 30, 2003.
    (b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), section 303(g)(2) 
of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(g)(2)) is 
amended by striking ``1.38 percent'' and inserting ``1.46 percent''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD ALLEN YOUNG.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Gianine Figliozzi","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/gfiglioz\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Moon Rover Prototype Conquers Steep, Scary Lander Exit Test","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"POzPzIg3eu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/ames\/nasas-moon-rover-prototype-conquers-steep-scary-lander-exit-test\/\">NASA\u2019s Moon Rover Prototype Conquers Steep, Scary Lander Exit Test<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/ames\/nasas-moon-rover-prototype-conquers-steep-scary-lander-exit-test\/embed\/#?secret=POzPzIg3eu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Moon Rover Prototype Conquers Steep, Scary Lander Exit Test” — NASA\" data-secret=\"POzPzIg3eu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/acd23-0066-049.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
GIRL SCOUTS OF NORTH EAST OHIO

Roaming the Red Planet: Connecting Girl 

Scouts to NASA

Katie Brenckle 

2/01/22 - 1/31/24

Ten one-day programs and a 2 week-long summer 

camps connect a different Girl Scout badge to NASA’s 

work, making difficult concepts more relatable to 

young minds. The variety of programming will provide 

opportunities for 250 girls ages 5-17 to participate, 

with a heavy emphasis on the Scout’s largest 

population of members ages 5-10. In each program, 

girls will 

complete activities to earn a Girl Scout STEM badge, 

learn about NASA’s efforts in the field, and ponder the 

question, “How can we use what we learned to sustain

life on Mars?” Through their participation in this series, 

girls will develop an interest in STEM, build their selfconfidence, develop critical-thinking and problemsolving skills, and learn the value of STEM in our 

society.

The "Showcasing Robots" badge

Credits: GSUSA

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC22K0442, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

...................................................... . ....... 

A ADMINISTRATOR 

RICHARD H. TRULY INSPECTOR 

GENERAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

VACANT 

SAMUEL W. KELLER 

JOHN E. OBRIEN 

JESSIE J. HARRIS 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR - BILL D. COLVIN 

ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR BUSINESS UTlLlZAnON 

EXECUTIVE OFflCER EUGENE D. ROSEN 

- SMALL h DlSADVANTAOEO 

I 

I 1 I 1 

I I I 

B 0 E 

EQUAL 

PROGRAMS 

HARRIETT G,. JENKINS 

GENERAL OPPORTUNITY CHIEF FINANCIAL 

COMPTROLLER 

THOMAS CAMPBELL ;u---, 

OFFICER/ COUNSEL 

EDWARD A. FRANKLE 

I I I 

C H P 

COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMS 

X)HN G. MANNIX DARLEEN A. DRUYUN SUE M. RICHARD (ACTING) 

I 1 

I D S 

I I I F' 

I L 

POLICY HUMAN LEGISLATIVE RESOURCES & COORDINATION & 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS EDUCATION RELATIONS I 

MARGARET G. FlNARELLl MARTIN P. KRESS SPENCE M. ARMSTRONG 

I 1 I X 

J 0 

SYSTEMS & SAFETY & EX PLO R AT1 ON 

MANAGEMENT 

MISSION QUALITY FACILITIES 

, BENITA A. COOPER GEORGE A. RODNEY MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN 

I SPACE SCIENCE & 

APPLICATIONS II SPACE SYSTEMS 

DEVELOPMENT 

1 

OODDARD SPACE 

FUGM CENTER 

ARNOLD D. ALDRICH 

EDWARD STONE 

SPACE FLIGHT 

I 

LYNDON B. JOHNSON 

SPACE CENTER 

JOHN F. KENNEDY 

SPACE CENTER 

GEORGE C. MARSHALL 

ROY S. ESTESS 

AERONAUTICS & 

SPACE TECHNOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS 

RICHARD H. PETERSEN 

AMES RESEARCH 

CENTER 

CHARLES T. FORCE 

I 

DALE L. COMPTON 

LANGLEY 

RESEARCH CENTER I 

PAUL F. HOLLOWAY 

LEWIS RESEARCH 

CENTER 

LAWRENCE J. ROSS 

JMU~ I992
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kara Marie LaManna Faas,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03584-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Bertram & Graf LLC

(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 10/10/2017, 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: October 18, 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 8288 Filed 10/20/17 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 8288 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Exchange National Bancshares,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James E. Smith,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify
in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (a) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: May 10, 2005

                                                /s/ James E. Smith
                                                -------------------------------
                                                James E. Smith
                                                Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                                Executive Officer

                                      190