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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sheva Powell,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03694-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 11/14/2017, 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 27, 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. 

“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 9199 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PETER SAMUEL.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
### 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 November 23, 2009

p1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139635

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139635 COA: 285481 Wayne CC: 08-000658-FH GRADY JEROME ELERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alphonzo A. McFarland,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03771-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

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) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8922 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


Of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the periodic report of Vertro, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, 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.





This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





/s/James Gallagher


Chief Financial Officer, Vertro, Inc.


Date: March 9, 2011
National 

I I I 

~ 

B G E 

Chief Financial General 

Officer Counsel 

Arnold Holz EdwardA Frankle George E. Reese 

I I I 

H P z 1 Procurement I 1 PublicAffairs 1 1 'O;LZd 1 

Deidre A. Lee Peggy Wilhide Alan M. Ladwig 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

I Adminittnlor A 

I S. Goldin 

I 

External 

Relations 

I I 

I L F 

Le islative Human Resources 

&airs and Education 

John D. Schumacher Jeff Lawrence Spence M. Armstrong 

I I Q C J 

Safety Headquarters Management and 1 s~<~~~~~d 1 1 A~~~~e 1 1 Operations I 

Eenita A. Cooper Frederick Gregory Mlchael D. Christensen 

I Danie 

I 

Smalland 

Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization 

Ralph C. Thomas 

L Inspector General 

Admlnlstrator 23 Dailey(Acti ) AmMts Admi%trator 

John R. Dailey 

ASSOC. Dep. Administrator Obch) Michael 1. Motl 

ChMEn IDaniel R. RuMie 

--, - 

Microgravlty 

Sciences and 

Applications 

Amauld E. Niwgossian 

- Gross 

Mission to Planet 

Joseph Rcihenberg Geo~ge W.S Abbey 

John F. Kennedy &ace Center 

Laboratory 

Edward Stone 

as of March 1997 

'JPL is a cantractor-operated facility.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 6 5 7

E X P A R T E A N D R E L E R O Y G A R R E T T , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . W 9 7 - 5 0 3 8 9
- Q I N T H E 2 0 4 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M D A L L A S C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g rava ted sexual assault and sentenc ed to thirty -five y ear s’ imprisonment. The Six th Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Garrett v. State , No. 06-98-00156- CR (Tex. App. – Tex arka na, Jul y 16, 1999). Applicant contends, inter alia , that he was improperly denied his rig ht to have this Court consider the merits of hi s pro se petition for discre tionary revie w. This Court ref

used hi s petition

as u n timely filed on September 9, 1999, and denied his subsequent motions for rehe ar i n g o r2

rec onsideration. Ba sed on this Court’s rec ent holding in Campbell v. State , 320 S.W .3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), the trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law finding that Applicant’s pro

s e p eti tion was in fac t timely filed by delivery to the prison authorities. We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar y revie w of the judgme nt of the Six th Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 06-98-00156- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Case No. F97- 50389 from the 204th J udicial District Court of Dallas County

. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues. Applicant' s rema ining claims are dismiss ed. See Ex parte Torres , 943 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Deliver ed: Octobe r 5, 2011 Do not publish
#### WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR v. MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

September 24, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.
EXHIBIT 31.2

# CERTIFICATION

I, Robert M. Wolf,
certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Rimage
     Corporation;

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;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The registrants other certifying officer(s)
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The registrants other certifying officer(s)
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|                         |                                       |  |  |                      | 
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------- |  |  | -------------------- | 
|Date:   November 5, 2004 |                                       |  |  | /s/   Robert M. Wolf | 
|                         |                                      
|                         | Robert M. WolfChief Financial Officer | 



---
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-902V (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PATRICIA K. PATTERSON, * * Filed: June 3, 2015 Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s v. * Fees & Costs * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES , * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Matthew F. Belanger

, Rochester, NY

, for Petitioner

Linda Renzi, Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On November 13, 2013

, Patricia Patterson filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ( A the Vaccine Program @ ). On April 6, 2015

, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation.

On June 3, 2015 , counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in regards to attorne y’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $ 45,000 .00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the discl osure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. ( Id. )counsel. This amount represents a sum to which respondent does not object. In addition, and in compliance wi th General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that s he did incur any reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $45,000.00 payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Matthew F. Belanger , Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordanc e with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 2



### IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the ir right to seek review.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachel Hoover","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rlhoove1\/","title":"Wildfire Workshop Finds Ways NASA Aero Tech Can Fight Fires","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sqALvkzVNk\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/wildfire-workshop-finds-ways-nasa-aero-tech-can-fight-fires\/\">Wildfire Workshop Finds Ways NASA Aero Tech Can Fight Fires<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/wildfire-workshop-finds-ways-nasa-aero-tech-can-fight-fires\/embed\/#?secret=sqALvkzVNk\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Wildfire Workshop Finds Ways NASA Aero Tech Can Fight Fires” — NASA\" data-secret=\"sqALvkzVNk\" 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\/2021\/09\/acd21-0008-095_nhq202105040017.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":342}
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2285

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel

of real property to Beaver County, Utah.

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

2

S 2285 ES

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior

4 shall, without consideration and subject to valid existing

5 rights, convey to Beaver County, Utah (referred to in this

6 Act as the ‘‘County’’), all right, title, and interest of the

7 United States in and to the approximately 200 acres de8 picted as ‘‘Minersville State Park’’ on the map entitled

9 ‘‘S. 2285, Minersville State Park’’ and dated April 30,

10 2004, for use for public recreation.

11 (b) RECONVEYANCE BY BEAVER COUNTY.—

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection

13 (a), Beaver County may sell, for not less than fair

14 market value, a portion of the property conveyed to

15 the County under this section, if the proceeds of

16 such sale are used by the County solely for mainte17 nance of public recreation facilities located on the re18 mainder of the property conveyed to the County

19 under this section.

20 (2) LIMITATION.—If the County does not com21 ply with the requirements of paragraph (1) in the

22 conveyance of the property under that paragraph—

23 (A) the County shall pay to the United

24 States the proceeds of the conveyance; and

25 (B) the Secretary of the Interior may re26 quire that all property conveyed under sub-
†

3

S 2285 ES

1 section (a) (other than the property sold by the

2 County under paragraph (1)) revert to the

3 United States.

Passed the Senate September 15, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2285

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a

parcel of real property to Beaver County, Utah.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alea Taylor,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04469-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP

(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 12/4/2017, 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: December 8, 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 9251 Filed 12/11/17 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 9251 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 2