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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7172

RICCARDO DARNELL JONES, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. SGT. RIGGS, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00390-UA-RAE)

Submitted: December 18, 2008 Decided: January 9, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Riccardo Darnell Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Riccardo Darnell Jones appeals from the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for preliminary injunction. Because we find that the magistrate judge did not have authority to enter a final, appealable order in this matter, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge may enter a final order directly appealable to the court of appeals upon consent of all parties. Otherwise, under § 636(b), a district court must initially review the magistrate judge’s order or proposed findings under either a de novo or clearly erroneous standard of review depending upon the nature of the ruling appealed. Absent an express adoption, modification, or rejection of the magistrate judge’s ruling by the district court, the ruling is generally not reviewable by the court of appeals. See Reynaga v. Cammisa , 971 F.2d 414, 416-18 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, we find nothing in the record showing that the parties agreed to have the motion decided by the magistrate judge. As a result, the magistrate judge lacked the authority to enter a final dispositive order.

See Gleason v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 777 F.2d 1324, 1324 (8th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand to the district court for further proceedings. See

23 Massey v. City of Ferndale , 7 F.3d 506, 510-11 (6th Cir. 1993) (dismissing appeal from unauthorized order issued by magistrate judge but remanding to district court for corrective action). We further deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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 AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,861
<PP&E>                                          12,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,442
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,936
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,987)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,173
<SALES>                                          9,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,950
<CGS>                                            1,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,836
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       333
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,370)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,370)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Neptune,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03766-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 9207 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jamie Adkins","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jamieladkins-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2\/","title":"Field Carrier Landing Practice at Wallops","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JJC0XnfijN\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/wallops\/fclp-at-wallops\/\">Field Carrier Landing Practice at Wallops<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/wallops\/fclp-at-wallops\/embed\/#?secret=JJC0XnfijN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Field Carrier Landing Practice at Wallops” — NASA\" data-secret=\"JJC0XnfijN\" 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\/2018\/08\/fclpcrew.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7998

JAMES LOUIS LEE, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

PATRICK GURNEY, Assistant Warden, Nottoway Correctional 

Center, in Official and Individual Capacity; FRED SCHILLING, 

M.D., Director, in Official and Individual Capacity; HARVARD 

STEPHENS, M.D., Chief Physician, in Official and Individual 

Capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00161-RLW) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Louis Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 James Lee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Patrick Gurney, 

Fred Schilling, and Harvard Stephens. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because proceedings 

are ongoing as to one defendant in the district court, and the 

district court did not direct entry of judgment as to the other 

parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the order Lee seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis 

& Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny 

Lee’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6577
In Re: KEENAN KESTER COFIELD, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-2885-MJG) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keenan Kester Cofield, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Keenan Kester Cofield has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking this Court to review an order of the district court denying his motion to remand. In his mandamus petition, Cofield fails to establish that he has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n. , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988); see also In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We therefore grant Cofield’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny the motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED .
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating Partners 1992-B, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         163,257
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  601,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               779,525
<PP&E>                                         9,211,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,390,967)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,969,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,957
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,409,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,969,250
<SALES>                                        230,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,146
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                22,684
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            22,684
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   22,684
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes gene al and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.23


 


 






    1


     


    

 


 






    2


     


    

 


 



    3


     


    

 


 



    4


     


    

 


 



    5


     


    

 


 



    6


     


    

 


 



    7


     


    

 


 



    8


     


    

 


 



    9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Waneva Morris,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04513-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 12/5/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9320 Filed 12/13/17 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 9320 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Wilson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04517-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: McGlynn, Glisson & Mouton

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 12/11/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: December 20, 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 9475 Filed 12/28/17 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 9475 Filed 12/28/17 Page 2 of 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2463

To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2004

Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

GRAHAM of South Carolina, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Code Termination 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 

7 1986. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No tax shall be imposed by the 

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986—

10 (1) for any taxable year beginning after Decem11 ber 31, 2009, and 
2

•S 2463 IS 

1 (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the 

2 basis of a taxable year, on any taxable event or for 

3 any period after December 31, 2009. 

4 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

5 taxes imposed by—

6 (1) chapter 2 of such Code (relating to tax on 

7 self-employment income), 

8 (2) chapter 21 of such Code (relating to Fed9 eral Insurance Contributions Act), and 

10 (3) chapter 22 of such Code (relating to Rail11 road Retirement Tax Act). 

12 SEC. 3. NEW FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM. 

13 (a) STRUCTURE.—The Congress hereby declares that 

14 any new Federal tax system should be a simple and fair 

15 system that—

16 (1) applies a low rate to all Americans, 

17 (2) provides tax relief for working Americans, 

18 (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces 

19 tax collection abuses, 

20 (4) eliminates the bias against savings and in21 vestment, 

22 (5) promotes economic growth and job creation, 

23 and 

24 (6) does not penalize marriage or families. 
3

•S 2463 IS 

1 (b) TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION.—In order to en2 sure an easy transition and effective implementation, the 

3 Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system 

4 should be approved by Congress in its final form not later 

5 than July 4, 2009.

Æ