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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Joseph Giambra, Sr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03891-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(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 10/25/2017, 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: October 26, 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 8594 Filed 11/03/17 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 8594 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 2
#### MANTOLOKING SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. TOWNSHIP OF BRICK AND ROY J. WINANS.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1856 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1856

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
Sunnyside, Queens, New York, as the ``Thomas P. Noonan, Jr., Department 
                of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 2003

 Mrs. Clinton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
Sunnyside, Queens, New York, as the ``Thomas P. Noonan, Jr., Department 
                of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. THOMAS P. NOONAN, JR., DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient 
clinic in Sunnyside, Queens, New York, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Thomas P. Noonan, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 
Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic 
described in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Thomas P. Noonan, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 
Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
AMENDMENT N0. 11


NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT





AMENDMENT NO. 11, dated as of August 8, 2009, among The STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Company”), CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association (“Citibank”), and CITIGROUP INC., a Delaware corporation and the ultimate parent of Citibank (“Citigroup” and, together with Citibank, the “Parents”).





WHEREAS, the Company, Citibank (successor by merger to Citibank (New York State)), and Citicorp, a Delaware corporation, have heretofore entered into a Non-Competition Agreement, dated as of December 22, 1992, the term of which was extended pursuant to a letter agreement dated November 1, 1999, the term of which was further extended pursuant
to Amendment No. 1 dated as of June 22, 2000, Amendment No. 2 dated as of June 22, 2001, Amendment No. 3 dated as of May 5, 2002, Amendment No. 4 dated as of June 22, 2003, Amendment No. 5 dated as of June 22, 2004, Amendment No. 6 dated as of June 22, 2005, Amendment No. 7 dated as of June 22, 2006, Amendment No. 8 dated as of June 22, 2007, Amendment No. 9 dated as of June 22, 2008, and Amendment No. 10 dated as of August 8, 2008, and Citigroup Inc. was substituted as a party in lieu of Citicorp (the Non-Competition
agreement, as so extended and amended, being referred to herein as the “Agreement”); and





WHEREAS, the parties wish to further amend the Agreement.





NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup hereby consent and agree as follows:





SECTION 1. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 11, all defined terms used therein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.





SECTION 2. The term of the Agreement (originally scheduled to expire on December 22, 1999, and previously extended to August 8, 2009) shall be extended for an additional twelve (12) months to August 8, 2010.





SECTION 3. This Amendment No. 11 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.





SECTION 4.  From and after the date of this Amendment No. 11, all references in the Agreement to this “Agreement” shall refer to the Agreement as amended hereby and all references in the Agreement to the “seventh anniversary” of the Agreement shall be deemed amended to refer to August 8, 2010.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup have each caused this Amendment No. 11 to the Agreement to be duly executed by the respective officers as of the day and year first above written.







THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION


By: /s/ Michael J. ReardonName: Michael J. ReardonTitle: Principal Executive Officer


CITIBANK, N.A.


By: /s/ William E. BrownName: William E. BrownTitle: Executive Vice President

CITIGROUP INC.
By: /s/ Michael ZuckertName: Michael ZuckertTitle: Deputy General Counsel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sean F. Powers,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03778-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 9197 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

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:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8841 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Kendrick Lamar Hill, Appellant

No. 06-21-00028-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 202nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

20F0097-202). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Carter,* participating. 

*Justice Carter, Retired, Sitting by 

Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Kendrick Lamar Hill, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 6, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dr. Maganlal K. Sutaria, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this transition report on Form 10-Q of Interpharm Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a 14 and 15d 14) for the registrant and we have:

           a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

           b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

           c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

           a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

           b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:      November 14, 2003


/s/ Dr. Maganlal K. Sutaria
--------------------------------
Dr. Maganlal K., Sutaria
Chief Executive Officer





<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward K. Wissing, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(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.

 

 

Date: August 12, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Smith,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04327-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(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 11/29/2017, 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 9339 Filed 12/15/17 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 9339 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 2
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 14
- 00158
- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E .C., A CHILD

---------- FROM THE 393RD DISTR ICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 125

- 393

- 2013

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------- --- On May 13, 2014, the trial court signe d an order granting Appellees’
motion to strike the plea in intervention filed by L.G

. L.G. filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2014, challenging t he order. On May 21, 2014, we notified the parties that it appea red the order striking L.G. ’s plea in intervention was not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. See Metromedia Long

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Distance, Inc. v. Hughes , 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1991, writ denied) (recognizing order dismissing or striking petition in intervention may not be appealed by intervenor before entry of final judgment). We instr ucted
L.G. , or any party desiring to continue the appeal, to respond no later than June 2, 2014, showing grounds for continuing the appeal , and we warned that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 44.3. No party respond ed . Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GAB RIEL, J. ; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DELIVERED: July 17, 2014
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Artemis Mission Progresses with SpaceX Starship Test Flight","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dTqCtqVUhk\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/artemis-campaign-development-division\/human-landing-system-program\/nasa-artemis-mission-progresses-with-spacex-starship-test-flight\/\">NASA Artemis Mission Progresses with SpaceX Starship Test Flight<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/artemis-campaign-development-division\/human-landing-system-program\/nasa-artemis-mission-progresses-with-spacex-starship-test-flight\/embed\/#?secret=dTqCtqVUhk\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Artemis Mission Progresses with SpaceX Starship Test Flight” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dTqCtqVUhk\" 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\/2024\/03\/flight-3-liftoff-20240314-001195.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}