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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Debra Tinlin,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00263-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lopez McHugh LLP - Newport Beach, CA

(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 2/5/2016, 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: February 10, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party 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 839 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of ICOP Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A-3 for the yearended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
|               | /s/ JOHN C. GARRISON                         |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|               | John C. Garrison                             |
|               | *Principal Financial and Accounting Officer* |
|               |                                         |
| June 30, 2005 |                                         |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to ICOP Digital, Inc. and will be retained by ICOP Digital, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 64 EM 2023 

V. 

RICHARD NICOLETTI, 

Plaintiff Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County 

Trial Division 

No. CP-51-CR-0009325-2021 

Defendant. : Change of Venue 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of August 2023, the Honorable Roxanne E. Covington of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County having certified to this Court an Order 

for change of venue in the above matter pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 584, it is hereby 

ORDERED that this case is transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County 

pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 584. 

Chief Justice Debra Todd
Exhibit 21.1

SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF  WATER PIK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

First Tier Subsidiaries (directly owned by Water Pik Technologies, Inc.):

|Laars, Inc.                         |  | Delaware |  | Active
|----------------------------------- |  | -------- |  | ------
|Water Pik, Inc.                     |  | Delaware |  | Active
|Water Pik Technologies Canada, Inc. |  | Canada   |  | Active

Second Tier Subsidiaries (owned by a first tier subsidiary of Water Pik Technologies, Inc.):

|Jandy Industries, Inc.       |  | California |  | Active
|---------------------------- |  | ---------- |  | ------
|Waterpik International, Inc. |  | Delaware   |  | Active

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of Registrant

|Name & Address                                                                                  |  | Year &
State Inc.    |  | Date and % of Voting Shares, Partnership Interests, Voting Trust Certificates, Capital Contributions |  | Description of Activity                                                   
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Home Federal Savings Bank
101 North Broadway
Spring Valley, MN 55975                            |  | 1934
Federal
Charter |  | 6/29/94
HMN owns 100% of voting shares                                                               |  | Federally Chartered Stock Savings Bank                                    
|Osterud Insurance Agency, Inc.
101 North Broadway
Spring Valley, MN 55975                       |  | 1983
MN              |  | Bank owns 100%                                                                                       |  | Offers credit life and annuity products to the Bank's customers and others
|Home Federal Mortgage Services, LLC(1)
7101 Northland Circle, Suite 200
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 |  | 2000
DE              |  | 1/31/01
Bank owns 51% of voting shares                                                               |  | Mortgage Banking/ Brokerage Office                                        
|Security Finance Corporation
101 North Broadway
Spring Valley, MN 55975                         |  | 1929
MN              |  | 12/29/95 HMN owns 100% of voting shares                                                              |  | Corporation invests in securities and loans                               

---

---

QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John C. Garrison, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A-2 of ICOP Digital, Inc.;

 

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

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

 

c. Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors: 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
|                     |                                         |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                     | /s/  JOHN C. GARRISON                        |
|                     | John  C. Garrison                            |
|                     | *Principal Financial and Accounting Officer* |
|                     |                                         |
| Date: June 23, 2005 |                                         |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DEWAYNE C O RNELIUS MELVIN, a/k/a Baby Boy , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00164

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : May 30 , 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Dewayne Cornelius Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6689 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Dewayne Cornelius Melvin appeals the district court’s order s denying his motions for a reduction in sentence and his motion for reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Melvin’s motion to remand and affirm the district court ’s orders

. United States v. Melvin , No. 5:08

- cr - 00164

- D

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2022 & June 13, 2023) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6689 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARY ANN HICKEY.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

April 9, 2024 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics 

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the SpaceX 

Symposium Reception on April 10, 2024 

On April 10, 2024, SpaceX will hold a reception with bowling at the Play at the 

Broadmoor, Colorado Springs, CO, from 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 p.m. SpaceX is in control of 

the planning, organizing, and issuing invitations for this event. 

Approximately 100 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity 

of views or interests and will include personnel from congressional staffers, state and local 

officials, academia, and industry representatives. The estimated value of the event, 

including all food and beverages, is approximately $50 per person. Attendance at this 

event will allow NASA attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA 

programs. I find that the event meets the requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as 

defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees who do 

not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests of SpaceX may accept an 

invitation for free attendance for themselves and a guest to attend the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that 

the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of 

their duties.

However, NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics 

pledge under Executive Order 13989 may only attend the reception if they reimburse the 

sponsor the fair market value of the event. An honor basket will be provided. 

In addition, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting 

the interests of the sponsor, such as procurement duties, program management, or 

negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination 

from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. 
2

You are reminded of the $20 gift exception at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(a), which provides that 

you may accept gifts valued at no more than $20 per occasion (and no more than $50 from 

one source in a calendar year). We understand that SpaceX will be distributing a small 

clothing gift valued at $11.00. However, NASA employees in non-career positions who 

are subject to the ethics pledge may only accept this gift item if they reimburse the sponsor. 

Adam F. Greenstone
I 

! 

19 I 

Q 

If 

it: 3 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

1 'L 

Administrator 

Daniel S. Goldin 

Deputy Administrator 

(Vacant) 

Associate Deputy Administrator 

Daniel R. Mulville 

Chid of Staff 

Ed Heffernan 

Senior Advisor 

Spence M. Arrnstrong 

Chlet Englneer W. Brian Keegan Chlef Health & Medlcal Offlcer 

Dr Arnauld E Ni ossian 

C/IM idonnationCP&Rcer 

Lee B. Holcomb 

Chief Sckntlst 

Kathie L. Olsen 

- 

A 

Chief Financial 

Officer Counsel 

I 

Arnold Holz Edward A. Frankle George E. Reese 

Procurement Public Affairs 

Thomas S Luedtke Peggy Wilhlde Lori Garver 

Disadvantaged 

Utilization 

Ralph C. Thomas 

W 

Inspector General I I 

Roberta L. Gross 

I I 

I II I Li * I Human Resources 

and Education 

External 

Relations 

I I 

John D. Schumacher 

I 

Ed Heffernan 

1 I 

Vicki A. Novak 

Operations Assurance 

1 

Jeffrey E. Sutton Michael D. Christensen 

Lifeand " 

Microgravity 

Sciences and 

Applications 

Arnauld E. Nicogossian 

Ghassern Asrar Samuel L. Venneri Edward J. Weiler 

Alphonso V. Diaz 

Lyndon 8. Johnson 

SpaceCenter 1 I 

Gewge W.S. Akbey 

George C. Marshall 

Space Fllght Center 

Arthur G. Stephenson 

John C. Stennis 

Space Center I I 

Roy S. Estess 

Edward Stone 

as of May 1,2000 

'JPL is a contractor-operated facility.
#### WOODCLIFF MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 21.1

eLOYALTY SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                              
|------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Company                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                           | 
|eLoyalty Europe Holding Corporation        |  | Delaware                     
|eLoyalty International Holding, Inc.       |  | Illinois                     
|eLoyalty (Netherlands) B.V.                |  | Netherlands                  
|eLoyalty (Canada) Corporation              |  | Canada                       
|eLoyalty (Deutschland) GmbH                |  | Germany                      
|eLoyalty (UK) Limited                      |  | England & Wales              
|eLoyalty Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd. |  | Australia                    
|eLoyalty International Limited             |  | Ireland                      
|eLoyalty (Switzerland) Ltd.                |  | Switzerland
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Irma T. Lazo, 

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-17-03475-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 6, 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 8693 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Joseph C. Hete, certify that:


|   |                                                                                                                 
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Air Transport Services Group, 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;

Date: August 7, 2015





/s/ JOSEPH C. HETEJoseph C. HeteChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                        -------------------------------



To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors of
FC Banc Corp.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Banc Corp.
(the "Company") and subsidiary as of March 31, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, and cash flows for the
three-month periods ended March 31, 2002 and 2001.  These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated January 18, 2002, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



/s/ S. R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
May 10, 2002
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY L. MASKE

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

VALERIE ESTRADA; COLORADO

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-1178

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00833-ZLW)

ORDER

On April 29, 2010, this court issued an order directing the appellant to file,

within 14 days, a fully compliant petition for leave to proceed pro se in

accordance with the filing restrictions imposed in Maske v. Murphy, No. 09-1536,

2010 WL 529801 (10 Cir. 2010). The April 29, 2010 order also advised the th

appellant that his failure to file the required documents would be grounds for

dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to 10 Cir. R. 42.1. 

th

Although appellant has submitted various items of correspondence to this

court, none comply with the filing restrictions imposed in Maske v. Murphy, No.

09-1536, 2010 WL 529801 (10 Cir. 2010). The time to file a compliant petition th

for leave to proceed pro se has expired and no attorney has entered an appearance

Appellate Case: 10-1178 Document: 01018425682 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Page: 1
2

on the appellant’s behalf. 

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. 10 Cir. R. th

42.1. 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court

By:

Christine Van Coney

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1178 Document: 01018425682 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Page: 2