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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leslie Dixon,

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-17-04236-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 9144 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
{"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\u2019s DC-8 Deploys to the U.S. Virgin Islands","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kN0s2iNAhO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-dc-8-deploys-to-the-u-s-virgin-islands\/\">NASA\u2019s DC-8 Deploys to the U.S. Virgin Islands<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-dc-8-deploys-to-the-u-s-virgin-islands\/embed\/#?secret=kN0s2iNAhO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s DC-8 Deploys to the U.S. Virgin Islands” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kN0s2iNAhO\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/AFRC2021-0106-06\/AFRC2021-0106-06~large.jpg?w=600&h=1287&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1287}
#### SALVATO CLEANING SERVICE, INC. v. THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

____________________________________

This Document Applies to Plaintiff(s):

Thelma Mae Ward

No. CV-17-4619-PHX-DGC

_____________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice before this Court, and I appear in this case

as lead counsel for: Thelma Mae Ward.

DATED: December 15, 2017

Respectfully submitted, 

THE NATIONS LAW FIRM

 /s/ Howard L. Nations

Howard L. Nations

Texas Bar No. 14823000

3131 Briarpark Dr., Suite 208

Houston, TX 77042-3795

(713) 807-8400

(713) 807-8423 (Fax)

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

-1-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9335 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 2
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed on this

15th day of December, 2017. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the court’s system. Copies

will be delivered by other means to the following parties not served by the Court’s ECF system.

 /s/ Howard L. Nations

Howard L. Nations

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9335 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Two Month UAS Flight Test Series Concludes","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"IYpvd1mlT7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/two-month-uas-flight-test-series-concludes\/\">Two Month UAS Flight Test Series Concludes<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/two-month-uas-flight-test-series-concludes\/embed\/#?secret=IYpvd1mlT7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Two Month UAS Flight Test Series Concludes” — NASA\" data-secret=\"IYpvd1mlT7\" 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\/2016\/07\/afrc2016-0138-01_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### RICKY JOHNSON, Employee v. LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC., Employer, SELF-INSURED (GAB ROBINS, Servicing Agent)

No. 286A01

(Filed 9 November 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 143 N.C. App. 348, 546 S.E.2d 616 (2001), affirming an opinion and award entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 2 November 1999. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 October 2001.

*Franklin Smith for plaintiff-appellant.*

*McElwee Firm, PLLC, by Karen Inscore McElwee, for defendant-appellees.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.21

Bank of America
                                                          Amendment to Documents


                  AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT


     This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") dated as of 10/6, 1998 is between
                                                        ----
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association (the "Bank") and
Variflex, Inc. (the "Borrower").


                                   RECITALS
                                   --------

   A.   The Bank and the Borrower entered into a certain Business Loan Agreement
dated as of January 23, 1998 (the "Agreement").

   B.   The Bank and the Borrower desire to amend the Agreement.


                                   AGREEMENT
                                   ---------

   1.   Definitions.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment
        ------------
shall have the meaning given to them in the Agreement.

   2.   Amendments.  The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
        -----------

        2.1    The first sentence in Paragraph 6.4 of the Agreement is amended
               in its entirety to read as follows:

               "To maintain tangible net worth equal to at least the amounts
               indicated for each period specified below:

                       Period                          Amount
                       ------                          ------

                       For the period ending
                       October 31, 1998                $35,000,000

   3.   Effect of Amendment.  Except as provided in this Amendment, all of the
        --------------------
terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

        This Amendment is executed as of the date stated at the beginning of
this Amendment.

Bank of America
National Trust and Savings Association         Variflex. Inc.



  /s/  Timothy J. Egan                           /s/  Roger M. Wasserman
  --------------------                           -----------------------
By:    Timothy J. Egan                         By:    Roger M. Wasserman
Title: Vice President                          Title: Chief Financial Officer

                                      -1-
#### Scott *v.*Williams.

*Wednesday, May*28.

*Scire facias*to have execution on a justice’s transcript. *Held,*that the question whether there was a transcript of the justice’s judgment, duly filed in the clerk’s office, was for the Court to decide *;*the transcript, if filed, being a record of the Circuit Court.

To a plea in such case, denying that there was a record of the justice’s judgment in his Court, the replication should he, that there was such a record in the justice’s Court.

ERROR to the *Miami*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

— Scire *facias*to have execution on the . transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace filed in the Circuit Court. The writ avers that the plaintiff recovered a judgment before the justice, áre.; that a *fieri facias*issued thereon and was returned *nulla bona;*that a certified transcript of the judgment and proceedings was filed in the clerk’s office, áre.

There are two pleas: 1. There is no record of the supposed recovery in the *scire facias*mentioned, duly filed in the clerk’s office, áre., as alleged, áre., and this the defendant is ready to verify, wherefore he prays judgment. 2. There is no record of the judgment in the *scire facias*mentioned, as alleged, áre., and this the defendant is ready to verify, wherefore he prays judgment.

Replication to the first plea, that there is such a record of the recovery mentioned in the *scire facias,*duly filed, áre., as alleged, áre., and this the plaintiff is ready to verify by the record, áre. Replication to the second plea, that there is such a record of the judgment remaining in the office of the clerk, of the Circuit Court as the plaintiff' has alleged, and this he is ready to verify by the record remaining in said Court.

General demurrer to the replication to the second plea and joinder.

The demurrer was overruled and final judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

The defendant contends that the issue on the first plea should have been to the country, and have been tried by a jury. We think otherwise. The first plea to be valid must be considered as meaning, that there was no transcript of the judgment of the justice, mentioned in the *scire facias,*duly filed, áre. ’ And the replication to that plea must be under*371stood as averring that there was such transcript duly filed, &c. Whether there was a transcript of the justice’s judgment duly, filed in the clerk’s office, was a question to be decided by the Court; for the transcript, if filed, was a record of the Circuit Court.

*D. D. Pratt,*for the plaintiff.

*TV. Wright,*for the defendant.

It is also contended, that the demurrer to the replication to the second plea should have been sustained; and we are of that opinion. The second plea is a denial that there was a record of the justice’s judgment remaining in his Court. The replication to that plea, therefore, should have been, not that there was a record of the judgment remaining in the clerk’s, office of the Circuit Court, but that there was such a record in the justice’s Court.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. A TO Z CHEMICAL RESOURCE RECOVERY INC.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DELBERT RAY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 80 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DELBERT RAY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 81 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DELBERT RAY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 82 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v. :

:

:

:

:

: No. 83 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court[ 80 WAL 2020, 81 WAL 2020, 82 WAL 2020 and 83 WAL 2020 ]

- 2

DELBERT RAY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4035

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

A.W.L., *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 7, 1997

 Filed: July 16, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, A.W.L.--a minor--appeals the district court’s1

adjudication of him as a juvenile delinquent pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042 for

knowingly engaging in sexual acts with a child under the age of 12 while in Indian

country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 1153. On appeal A.W.L. argues he

is not an “Indian” under section 1153, and therefore not subject to federal jurisdiction.
-2-

Evidence adduced at the adjudication hearing established that although A.W.L.

was not an enrolled member of the Tribe at the time of the offenses, he has 15/32

Indian blood; he held himself out to be Indian; he lived on the reservation all of his life,

attending reservation schools and receiving benefits of BIA schools; he was removed

from the Tribe’s enrollment only pending clarification of his paternity; and both of his

parents--with whom he lives--live and are respected as Indians. Our de novo review

of the relevant factors, see United States v. Lawrence, 51 F.3d 150, 151-52 (8th Cir.

1995) (standard of review; factors considered), leads us to the conclusion that A.W.L.

is an “Indian” for purposes of section 1153. See United States v. Keys, 103 F.3d 758,

761 (9th Cir. 1996) (tribal enrollment not sole means of proving status as Indian);

United States v. Broncheau, 597 F.2d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir.) (noting “[e]nrollment is the

common evidentiary means of establishing Indian status, but it is not the only means

nor is it necessarily determinative”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 859 (1979); United States

v. Dodge, 538 F.2d 770, 786 (8th Cir. 1976) (finding defendants who held themselves

out to be Indians and who were of Indian blood to be Indians for purposes of § 1153),

cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1099 (1977).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           4,208,359
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          5,911,544
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                      4,970
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                1,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,917,599
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>         463,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>               463,598
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        3,750,816
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>              79,716
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>              79,716
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>        1,703,185
<NET-ASSETS>                    5,454,001
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                   4,032
<INTEREST-INCOME>                       0
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    137,390
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (133,358)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>         239,894
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>             106,536
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>            106,536
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              39,649
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   137,440
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            5,400,733
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  49
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (2)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                    47
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                       2.5
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                  0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                    0
<FN>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is 
not allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not 
taxable.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Filed 01/23/2020 by C lerk of Su preme Court


### I N T H E S U P RE M E C O U R T S T A T E O F N O R T H D A KO T A

2020 ND 3

Nicole Ga bel, Petitioner and Appellee

v. Jacob D. Thompson, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20190295

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lindsey R

. Nieuwsma , Jud icial Referee

. AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Amanda R. Harris, Mandan, N

. D ., for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Jacob D. Thompson, self

- represented , Bismarck, N

. D

. , respondent and appellant ; submitted on brief.1 Gabel v. Thompson No. 20190295
Per Curiam. [¶1] Jacob Thompson appeals from a disorderly conduct restraining order entered by the district court. On appeal, Thompson argues the district court abused its discretion in issuing a disorderly conduct restraining order without allowing him a fair hearing and because his attempted communication with the petitioner was protected by the First Amendme nt

. [¶2] We do not address Thompson’s constitutional claim because it was not raised below. See Matter of Didier , 2019 ND 263, ¶ 11, 934 N.W.2d 417 (“When a party fails to raise an issue before the district court, even a constitutional issue, we generally will not address the issue on appeal.”) . We conclude there was sufficient competent evidence to support the district court’s findings and the findings support the district court’s conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe Thompson engaged in disorderly conduct. The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers
#### Sherman *v.*Wilson.—In error.

*Wednesday, May*28.

IP the declaration in assumpsit contain a count on a promissory note, and a common count, and the defendant appear to the suit and suffer judgment by *nil dicit,*the Court cannot assess the damages without the consent of parties.
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2013-04-08 14:37:14","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"}],"value":"2013"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Repoeting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"7"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"7"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["ARC","DFRC","GRC","GSFC","JSC","LaRC","MSFC","JPL","NSSC","OIG","SSC","KSC","OGC","HQ"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["23","2","6","34","32","8","25","9","1","3","3","24"," ","79"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["12","1","4","43","29","8","34","10"," ","3","3","21"," ","75"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["3"," ","1","4"," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ","2"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2013","quarter":"Q2"}