alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL14-98-000]

                    On October 3, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL14-98-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation to determine whether market-based rate authority for Arizona Public Service Company (APS) in the APS balancing authority area and the Phoenix Valley Load Pocket is just and reasonable.                     *Arizona Public Service Company,*                     149 FERC ¶ 61,013 (2014).                

                    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL14-98-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: October 3, 2014.

 Kimberly D. Bose,

 Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-24298 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form SB-2 No. 333-31947, Form S-8 No. 333-53159, Form S-8 No. 333-63799, Form
S-3 No. 333-77923, Form S-3 No. 333-35662 and Form S-3 No. 333-40630) of
ViewCast.com, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 18,
2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ViewCast.com,
Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2002.



                                                   Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 11, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0190]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Infant Formula Requirements” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Johnny Vilela, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7651, e-mail:                         *Juanmanuel.Vilela@fda.hhs.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 10, 2010 (75 FR 48350), the Agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0256. The approval expires on October 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: October 25, 2010.

Leslie Kux,

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-27849 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    16869
<ALLOWANCES>                                      6709
<INVENTORY>                                       1040
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 18807
<PP&E>                                            1238
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25677
<BONDS>                                           3050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2267)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27183
<SALES>                                           7203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  7203
<CGS>                                             1590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  8130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
#### BERMAN v. PINCISS

No. 349P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 715

Motion by defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 2001. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001.
Note: 

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

report to Center leadership. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

September 2011 

Science Mission 

Directorate 

Chief, Safety and 

Mission Assurance 

Kennedy Space 

Center 

Marshall Space 

Flight Center 

Langley Research 

Center 

Stennis Space 

Center 

Johnson Space 

Center 

Dryden 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 

Policy Integration 

 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 

Human Exploration 

and Operations 

Mission Directorate
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Alfonzo McMillian, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03446-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 10/26/2017, 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 6, 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 8601 Filed 11/06/17 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 8601 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7827

SHAWN C. BARTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00138-CMH) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 23, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn C. Barton, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Shawn C. Barton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Barton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Barton’s motion for preparation of the transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
#### The State, on the relation of Merrill, &c. *v.*M’Clane and Others.

An action on a sheriff’s bond, for not collecting militia fines due to the county seminaries, lies in the name of the state on the relation of the treasurer, who is the trustee of the fund.

It is unnecessary, in the declaration on a sheriff’s bond, to aver a non-payment of the *193penalty. Miter, in the case of penal bonds payable by one private person to an. other.

APPEAL from the *Wayne*Circuit Court.

Scott, J.

An action was instituted in the *Wayne*Circuit Court by the state of Indiana, on the relation of *Samuel*Merrill, treasurer, for the use of the county seminaries, against *William M’Clane,*sheriff of *Wayne*county, and his sureties, on his official bond. The declaration charges, that certain lists of fines for non-performance of military duty had been put into the hands of the defendant M'Clane, as sheriff, for collection; and that he had neglected and refused *to*collect the same. The defendants demurred generally to the declaration, and had judgment in the Circuit Court.

It is alleged in support of the demurrer, that no person appeared as a relator who ivas responsible for costs. This objection to the declaration we think insufficient. The fines mentioned in the declaration belong, when collected, to the seminary fund: *Samuel*Merrill, as treasurer, is the trustee of that fund; he is, therefore, the proper person to appear as relator in such cases. It is a general rule that the unsuccessful1 party pays costs, but there are some exceptions to that rule. It is a general .rule also, that, in actions brought on official bonds, some person must appear as relator who has a beneficial interest in the suit, and who is responsible for the costs, where costs are legally demandablc; *but it*does not follow, that no man can appear as relator in cases where the law allows no costs.

Another and, we presume, the principal ground taken in support of the demurrer, is, that the declaration contains no averment of the non-payment of the penalty of the bond by the de. fendants or either of them. This ground is also untenable. In actions on common penal bonds for the payment of money, or for the performance of some specific duty to any private person, it is necessary, in the declaration, to aver the non-payment of the penalty as well as the breach of the condition; and such are all the forms; but a sheriff’s official bond is made for a different purpose and is subject to a different rule. Official bonds are made to the state for the benefit of all persons, who may j>e aggrieved by the negligence ormalconduct of the officer. No man in the state is competent to receive the amount *194of such bond; no payment to any man in the state would exo nerate the officer or his sureties; and it is therefore unnecessary to aver, in the declaration, the non-payment of the penalty.

Rariden, for the appellant.

*Bunn,*for the appellees.

For these reasons we think the demurrer ought to have been overruled.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### Pennybaker *v.*The State.

If a wife commit an indictable offence, without the presence or coercion of her husband, she alone is responsible for the offence.

*Thursday, November*24.

ERROR to the *Owen*Circuit Court.

*Whitcomb,*for the plaintiff.

*Brovin,*for the state.

M‘Kinney, J.

This was an indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without a licence. Plea, not guilty; and, by consent, the cause was submitted to the Court without the intervention of a jury. The defendant was found guilty, and judgment rendered against him'. A bill of exceptions, taken to the opinion of the Court overruling a motion for a new trial, furnishes the evidence upon which the judgment of the Court was founded.

A single question is presented for our consideration. Can the judgment be sustained on evidence that the whisky, charged in the indictment to have been sold by the defendant, was sold by his wife, he being absent from his house, and no authority proved to have been given? We.think the evidence insufficient to establish the liability of the defendant. The presumption of agency is inadmissible. The wife, committing offenceswithout the presence or coercion of her husband, is regarded as a feme sole. She is alone responsible. 1 Russell on Crimes, 25.—1 Chitty’s Bl. 348 and note 51.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed. To he certified, &c.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADM

HUMAN RESOURCES

AND EDUCATION (F)

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

GENERAL

COUNSEL (G)

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS AND

FACILITIES (J)

SAFETY AND MISSION 

ASSURANCE (Q)

HEADQUARTERS

OPERATIONS (C)

AEROSPACE SAFETY 

ADVISORY PANEL

NASA ADVISORY

COUNCIL

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

PROGRAMS (E)

LEGISLATIVE 

AFFAIRS (L)

PROGRAM OFFICES

STAFF OFFICES

CHIEF

FINANCIAL OFFICER (B)

EARTH SCIENCE (Y) SPACE FLIGHT (M)

*JPL is a contractor-op

(see par. 102

PROCUREMENT (H)

GODDARD SPACE

FLIGHT CENTER

SPACE SC

POLICY AND

PLANS (Z)

CENTERS

GEORGE C. MARSHALL

SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

SPACE CENTER

JOHN F. KENNEDY

SPACE CENTER

JOHN C. STENNIS

SPACE CENTER

*JET PRO

LABOR

LIFE & MICROGRAVITY 

SCIENCES & APPLICATIONS 

(U)

As of 3/8/99
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,073
<SECURITIES>                                    48,878
<RECEIVABLES>                                  276,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    738,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,120,470
<PP&E>                                          55,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,167,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          970,772
<BONDS>                                          6,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           316
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,064
<SALES>                                         34,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,620
<CGS>                                           43,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,777
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,683
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,530
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (2,660)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,202)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.78)


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. KERNODLE

No. 460P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 504

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 2001. Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001.