alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23**

 
|  | **Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP**Certified Public Accountants & Consultants | **VALUE THE DIFFERENCE** |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|

 

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference of our report dated January 30, 2004 on our audits of theconsolidated financial statements of Heritage Oaks Bancorp and Subsidiaries asof December 31, 2003 and 2002, and for each of the three years in the periodended December 31, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

 

 
| /s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Rancho  Cucamonga, California           |
| March 18,  2004                         |

 

 

8270 Aspen Street  RanchoCucamonga, CA 91730  Tel:909.466.4410  Fax: 909.406.4431  www.vtdcpa.com**FRESNO ****• LAGUNA HILLS ****•  PLEASANTON ****•  RANCHO CUCAMONGA ****•  SAN JOSE**

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sherry Diane Morris,

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-17-02494-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 9005 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobby Stokes,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03706-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 8945 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
Note: 

* Center functional office directors report to Agency functional AA. Deputy and below 

report to Center leadership. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

March 2014

Human Exploration 

and Operations 

Mission Directorate

Chief, Safety and 

Mission Assurance

Kennedy Space 

Center

Marshall Space 

Flight Center

Langley Research 

Center

Stennis Space 

Center

Johnson Space 

Center

Armstrong Flight 

Research Center

Goddard Space 

Flight Center

Glenn Research 

Center

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory

Ames Research 

Mission Support Center

Directorate

Administrator

Deputy Administrator

Associate Administrator

Chief of Staff

Associate Deputy Administrator

Associate Deputy Administrator for 

Strategy and Policy

 Assistant Associate Administrator

Chief Engineer

Chief Health and 

Medical Officer

Chief Financial Officer*

Chief Information Officer*

Chief Scientist

Chief Technologist

Diversity and Equal 

Opportunity

Legislative and 

Intergovernmental 

Affairs*

International and 

Interagency Relations

Education Communications*

Small Business 

Programs

General Counsel

Advisory Groups

NAC and ASAP

Inspector General

Internal Controls and 

Management Systems

Human Capital Management

Strategic Infrastructure

Headquarters Operations

NASA Shared Services Center

Procurement

Protective Services

NASA Management Office

Aeronautics 

Research Mission 

Directorate

www.nasa.gov

Reporting Structure

Administrator

Deputy Administrator

Associate Administrator

Science Mission 

Directorate

Space Technology 

Mission Directorate
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD LEE DAVIS.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1Certification of Chief Executive Officer     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hawthorn Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, James E. Smith, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: November 9, 2007    /s/ James E. Smith     James E. Smith  Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive Officer
45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Siranosh Yousif,

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-17-03744-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: October 18, 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 8333 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32

                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  Penn  Octane  Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  Jerome B. Richter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ian
T.  Bothwell,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 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;  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/  Jerome  B.  Richter
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Jerome B. Richter, Chief Executive Officer
                                 July 23, 2004


                                             /s/  Ian T. Bothwell
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Ian T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer
                                 July 23, 2004


<PAGE>
#### Fishback, Appellee, *v.*Norman, Appellant.

(No. 6660

Decided May 20, 1946.)

*Messrs. Gray cion, Head é Ritchey*and *Mr. John W. Warrington,*for appellee.

*Mr. Fred L. Hoffman*and *Mr. Joseph D. Martin,*for appellant.

Matthews, J.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from a collision between two automobiles. The defendant filed a cross-petition in the action. Each party attributed the collision to the negligence of the other.

*141The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff and answered several special interrogatories, one of which was: “Was the defendant guilty of contributory negligence?” To such interrogatory an affirmative answer was given. Another interrogatory elicited the answer that the collision did not result proximately from the negligence of both plaintiff and defendant.

The defendant filed a motion for judgment on the answer to the first interrogatory, claiming that contributory negligence imports negligence by the plaintiff, and also filed a motion to set aside the general verdict and for a new trial.

The court overruled the motion for judgment and granted the motion for a new trial “for the reason that the court was in error in submitting at the request of plaintiff special charge No. 3A to the jury.”

This appeal is by the defendant from the order overruling his motion for judgment.

There is no bill of exceptions and, of course, we are not advised as to the content of special charge No. 3A, for error in giving which the new trial was awarded. For this reason, this court cannot say that the charge was such as to affect the validity of the answer to the interrogatory as to whether the defendant was guilty of contributory negligence. Furthermore, the answer to the other interrogatory, that the collision did not occur by reason of the negligence of both, is contradictory of and neutralizes the answer to the first interrogatory and would prevent the court from basing a judgment upon it.

Counsel have cited cases where special verdicts have been returned. Those cases are inapplicable. A general verdict was returned in this case. However, the *142same result would follow. In *Globe Indemnity Co.*v. *Schmitt,*76 Ohio App., 35, 63 N. E. (2d), 169, this court pointed out that even where a special verdict alone is returned and a motion for a new trial is filed, the court has no jurisdiction to enter a judgment on such special verdict unless and until the court has overruled the motion for a new trial, and where the motion for new trial was granted, the power to enter .judgment did not exist.

On this record, prejudicial error does not affirmatively appear.

For these reasons, the order of the trial court, overruling the motion for judgment, is affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*

Hildebrant, P. J., Matthews and Ross, JJ., concur in the syllabus, opinion and judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62167-62168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24601]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Integrative and Clinical Endocrinology and Reproduction Study 
Section.
    Date: October 14, 2014.
    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dianne Hardy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 6175, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
1154, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35515c545b5b501b5d5447514c755b5c5d1b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b6f626a65656e25636a796f724b656263256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844,

[[Page 62168]]

93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 9, 2014.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24601 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CV Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                                    |  |                                                    
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 25, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    LOUIS G.
LANGE, M.D., PH.D.
|                         |  |  |  |                                    |  | Louis G. Lange, M.D., Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
“We Go ...”

ACCP 2022 focused on “We Go ... Bringing 

NASA Science Home Together!” The 

program incorporated NASA’s Next Gen 

STEM Artemis Camp experience modules, 

the Texas State University-NASA Educational 

Professional Development Collaborative, and 

various science collaboration opportunities.

Cross-Collaborations

Science Mission Directorate–Science 

Activation cross-collaborations in 

2022 included: NASA eClips; NASA’s 

Neurodiversity Network from Sonoma State 

University in California; Planetary Learning 

that Advances the Nexus of Engineering, 

Technology, and Science from Northern 

Arizona University in Arizona; and Northwest 

Earth and Space Sciences Pipeline from 

Central Washington University in Washington.

Information

For more information about collaborating 

with the NASA ASTRO CAMP Community 

Partner program, contact: Kelly Martin-Rivers 

at kelly.e.martin-rivers@nasa.gov or 228-688-

1500; or Maria Lott at maria.l.lott@nasa.gov 

or 228-688-1776.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2

                      PROGRESSIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, INC.

                               ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                         TO
                             ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION


     The undersigned President of Progressive Distribution Systems, Inc., a
corporation formed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes (the "Corporation"), in order
to amend the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation hereby states as
follows:

     The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation
was adopted by the Written Action of the Corporation's sole shareholder taken in
lieu of a meeting in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 302A.441,
effective February 24, 1994:

     RESOLVED, that Article I of the Articles of Incorporation of the
     Corporation be amended as follows:

                                     "ARTICLE I

          The name of this corporation shall be PDS Financial Corporation."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of
February, 1994.



                    /s/  Johan P. Finley
                    ---------------------------
                    Johan P. Finley, President
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Town of Niskayuna, Respondent, and Billy J. Fortune et al., Appellants.

[789 NYS2d 746]

Crew III, J.P. Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Kramer, J.), entered August 8, 2003 in Schenectady County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay arbitration between the parties.

Petitioner and respondent Niskayuna Police Benevolent Association are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA) containing a grievance procedure that concludes *914with arbitration. Respondent Billy J. Fortune, employed by petitioner’s police department, sustained an illness during the performance of his duties, as the result of which he was found eligible to receive General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. While receiving such benefits, Fortune sought to change his health insurance plan under article 13 of the underlying CBA, but was advised that employees out of work receiving General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits are not entitled to health care coverage under the terms of the statute. Accordingly, respondents filed a grievance and, ultimately, filed a notice of intention to arbitrate seeking arbitration of petitioner’s denial of benefits. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding requesting a stay of arbitration. Supreme Court granted a stay, and this appeal by respondents ensued.

We affirm. It is now clear that the benefits provided to a police officer under General Municipal Law § 207-c are exclusive, and a CBA will not be construed to implicitly expand such benefits *(see Matter of City of Cohoes [Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO],*94 NY2d 686, 694 [2000]). In order to be entitled to additional benefits, the CBA must expressly provide that such benefits are applicable to disabled police officers receiving General Municipal Law benefits *(see Matter of Chalachan v City of Binghamton,*55 NY2d 989, 990 [1982]). Here, the CBA is entirely silent as to whether the health benefits accorded regular police officers are applicable to disabled officers receiving General Municipal Law benefits and, accordingly, Supreme Court quite properly granted a stay of arbitration *(see Matter of City of Cohoes [Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO], supra*at 695). To the extent that our decision in *Matter of County of Schenectady (Kelleher)*(134 AD2d 127 [1988]) suggests to the contrary, we decline to follow it in light of the Court of Appeals’ pronouncement in *Matter of City of Cohoes (Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO) (supra).*

Peters, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID MARK JAMES.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2171

___________ William G. Carter, and others similarly * situated, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Julia Hassell, (SA); Jay Englehart; * Dillian Hogan; Janet Sidebottom, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 21, 2005 Filed: October 25, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. William G. Carter, confined to the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment Center, brought an action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. On defendants’ motion, the district court 1 dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Having reviewed the record and appellate submissions, see Atkinson v. Bohn , 91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (de novo review), we agree Carter’s-2- federal claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment because he named defendants only in their official capacities. See Randolph v. Rogers , 170 F.3d 850, 859 (8th Cir. 1999) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal court from ordering state officials to conform conduct to state law); Morstad v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. , 147 F.3d 741, 743-44 (8th Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 lawsuit against state official in official capacity even if state entity is moving force behind deprivation of federal rights); Murphy v. Arkansas , 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997) (without clear statement that officials are being sued in personal capacities, complaint is interpreted as including only official-capacity claims). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. However, we modify the dismissal of the state-law malpractice claim--over which the district court implicitly refused to exercise jurisdiction, seeFranklin v. Zain , 152 F.3d 783, 784-86 (8th Cir. 1998)--to be a dismissal without prejudice, Labickas v. Ark. State Univ. , 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 968 (1996).

______________________________