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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James A. Barker,

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-17-03656-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 9084 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CLIFTON DORSEY.

September 24, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### JOAN LIEBERMAN v. ALBERT LIEBERMAN.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,593)
<INVENTORY>                                     10,624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,520
<PP&E>                                          35,828
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,388)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,481
<SALES>                                        669,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               669,875
<CGS>                                          591,977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  591,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (130)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,630)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,991)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       4.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.20


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelly M. Matter","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kmatter\/","title":"NASA One Step Closer to Fueling Space Missions with Plutonium-238","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5jGFGLLhai\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/nasa-one-step-closer-to-fueling-space-missions-with-plutonium-238\/\">NASA One Step Closer to Fueling Space Missions with Plutonium-238<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/nasa-one-step-closer-to-fueling-space-missions-with-plutonium-238\/embed\/#?secret=5jGFGLLhai\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA One Step Closer to Fueling Space Missions with Plutonium-238” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5jGFGLLhai\" 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\/11\/pia25171-figure-a-persevereance-looks-back-at-wheel-tracks.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":447}
Exhibit  32.1





Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63  of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the periodic report  of MIVA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,  2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,  Craig A. Pisaris-Henderson, Chairman and Chief Executive 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/ Craig A.    Pisaris-Henderson                                      | 
|                                                                       | 
|Craig A.    Pisaris-Henderson,    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 
|MIVA, Inc.                                                             | 
|                                                                       | 
|Date: March 16,    2006                                                |
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Crash Tests eVTOL Concept","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0AERVMSTyp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/nasa-crash-tests-evtol-concept\/\">NASA Crash Tests eVTOL Concept<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/nasa-crash-tests-evtol-concept\/embed\/#?secret=0AERVMSTyp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Crash Tests eVTOL Concept” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0AERVMSTyp\" 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\/2022\/12\/52490789464-09ce9c1b76-k.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
#### Smith *v*Smith’s Admr.

Partnership — Process on One Member — Default Judgment.

A defendant on whom process was served had no right to assume that judgment could not be taken before the process was served on his partner and codefendant.

■Same — Counterclaim.

A counterclaim may be set up by one partner after judgment has been rendered against the other by default.

Xaches.

One who is guilty of *laches*cannot complain of a default judgment, though mistaken in his belief of his rights.

APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.

February 26, 1866.

Opinion

by the Court :

The defendants had no right to assume that the plaintiff would •sue or had sued and would take a judgment for such balance only as was admitted to be due by the account made out by themselves.

The defendant on whom process was served had no right to assume that judgment could not or would not be taken before the process was served on his partner and codefendant. If he had attended to his case he would have learned that judgment might be taken against himself alone, without service of process on his codefendant. The defendants having in reliance upon these assumptions, or from some other cause, failed to make timely defense or answer in the action, and having shown no sufficient excuse for this failure, have no right to complain of the refusal to *412set aside a valid judgment against the defendant served with the process, and to permit the defendants *by*joint answer to set up a counterclaim, arising to a great extent since the death of the intestate creditor, and which if available may still be set up by one of the defendants in the further prosecution of this action against him — or if that be abandoned, may be set up in another action by him, if not by both of the present defendants.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kathryn Hambleton","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kathrynhambleton\/","title":"Artemis II SLS Rocket Booster Segments Arrive to Kennedy Space Center","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5fEQXZMGQ7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/marshall\/artemis-ii-sls-rocket-booster-segments-arrive-to-kennedy-space-center\/\">Artemis II SLS Rocket Booster Segments Arrive to Kennedy Space Center<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/marshall\/artemis-ii-sls-rocket-booster-segments-arrive-to-kennedy-space-center\/embed\/#?secret=5fEQXZMGQ7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Artemis II SLS Rocket Booster Segments Arrive to Kennedy Space Center” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5fEQXZMGQ7\" 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\/09\/ksc-20230925-ph-fmx01_0041large.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### CITY OF NEW BERN v. CARTERET-CRAVEN ELEC. MEMBERSHIP CORP.

No. 450PA01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 140

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 October 2001.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 10, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00808

- CV

Daniel CRISP

, Appellant

v.

Ismael CLAY,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar Coun ty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI10107

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File the Brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to January 9, 2019.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Just ice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES COGER.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Authurine C. Elliott,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03655-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 8933 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2122

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                            State of Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2004

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                            State of Hawaii.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN HAWAII.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) No cca areas within hawaii.--A CCA area shall not 
        include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
        Hawaii.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Artissia Lawson,

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-17-04189-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 8932 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Mary Crosson, Appellant, v Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 216]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter the Hospital). On June 1, 2000, while working her scheduled shift, she was stuck in the finger with a surgical needle. Fursuant to stated Hospital procedure, the plaintiff informed her supervisor of the incident, who directed her to the Hospital emergency room for a blood test. While in the emergency room having her blood drawn, the plaintiff alleged that she was injured when the phlebotomist negligently drew her blood. The plaintiff was compensated for her injuries through workers’ compensation benefits.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the Hospital to recover damages for medical malpractice. The Hospital moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) precluded the plaintiff from maintaining a cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice. The trial court granted the Hospital’s motion, and we affirm.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), which pertains to remedies of employees, provides, in relevant part, “[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee . . . when such employee is injured ... by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). The plaintiffs remedy against the Hospital is limited by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) because the blood was drawn as the result of a *588work-related incident *(see Garcia v Iserson,*33 NY2d 421 [1974]). Further, although the treatment was rendered in the emergency room, which is open to the general public, she sought treatment as an employee, not as a member of the public, such treatment was arranged by her supervisor, and the Hospital administered treatment as part of its protocol for injured employees *(see id.; Faele v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*283 AD2d 547 [2001]). Therefore, the Workers’ Compensation Law provides the plaintiffs exclusive remedy. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, JJ., concur.