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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

ANTONIO COLBERT, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civil Action No. 11-667 (JDB) 

 ) 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICES, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

MEMORANDUM 

Plaintiff filed this action in Superior Court against defendant U.S. Postal Services, 

complaining that defendant caused him mental anguish by providing him with poor customer 

service during telephone calls. Defendant removed the case and has now moved to dismiss under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), (5), and (6). See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 

3. The Court ordered plaintiff to respond to defendant’s motion on or before May 6, 2011 and 

warned plaintiff that failure to timely respond could result in defendant’s motion being granted 

as conceded. Order, ECF No. 4. To date, plaintiff has not filed any response. The Court will 

therefore grant the motion to dismiss as conceded and dismiss this case. A separate order 

consistent with this Memorandum shall issue this date. 

/s/ 

JOHN D. BATES 

DATE: May 18, 2011 United States District Judge
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 connection with the Annual Report of Avici Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul F. Brauneis, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | (2) |  | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    PAUL F.
BRAUNEISPaul F. Brauneis Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and
Treasurer March 11, 2005
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24551]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL03-3-009]

Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets; Notice of 
Filing

    Take notice that on September 15, 2014, Canadian Enerdata Ltd. 
filed supplemental information to its June 10, 2014 filing, providing 
clarification of respective index methodologies for Enerdata NGX 
Canadian natural gas indices and Enerdata U.S. natural gas indices.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to 
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 20, 2014.

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24551 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Thomas *v.*Bailey.

Wednesday, *June*5.

Notice in a newspaper to a non-resident defendant in a bill in chancery, to appear before the Circuit Court of the proper county on the first day of its next term, is sufficiently certain as to the time and place of appearance.

ERROR to the *Clinton*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— This was a bill in equity to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant made default, and the bill was taken as confessed. Final decree for the complainant according to the prayer of the bill.

It is contended the decree is erroneous, because the defendant was not legally notified of the pendency of the bill. The notice, which was given in a newspaper by the clerk of the Court on affidavit of non-residence filed in vacation, stated the names of the parties, the nature of the bill, the time of filing it, the filing of the affidavit, and required the defendant to appear before the Circuit Court of the proper county “ on the first day of its next term, and plead, &c., on or before the calling of the cause,” &c. The objection urged against the notice is, that it omits to state the time and place of holding the Court at which the defendant was required to appear. We do not think the objection valid. The statute, prescrib*150ing the mode of giving notice to non-resident defendants in bills of equity of the pendency of the suit, was complied with, so far as the time and place of appearance are concerned, by notifying the defendant to appear on the- first day of the Circuit Court at its next term. R. S. 1838, p. 444.

*G. Taylor*and *J. H.*Bradley, for the plaintiff.

*R.*Jones, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The decree is affirmed with costs.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 4, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

L.A. DAVIS; SARAH DAVIS, husband

and wife, d/b/a D&D Equipment, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SECRETARY UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-2142

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00982-WJ-CG)

(D. New Mexico)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

The district court dismissed this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act,

holding in part that the FTCA's time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to

equitable tolling. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court has held in

United States v. Wong, Nos. 13-1074, 13-1075, 2015 WL 1808750 (U.S. Apr. 22,

2015), that the FTCA's time limits are nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable

* The Court has determined that oral argument would not materially aid our

consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs. Our order and judgment does

not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res

judicata, and collateral estoppel.

Appellate Case: 14-2142 Document: 01019424930 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 1 
tolling. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wong, the parties agree that this

case should be remanded to the district court for further proceedings. We agree. The

action is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of the Supreme

Court's decision in Wong.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

2

Appellate Case: 14-2142 Document: 01019424930 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 2
No. 14,492.

#### Berridge *v.*Banks et al.

*'MAEKiEDrWoMAn.*— Purchase *of Property.*— Execution *of Promissory Note in Payment.*— A married woman may purchase property for herself or for another, and hind herself hy the execution of a promissory note in pay.ment for the property purchased.

From the Pike Circuit Court.

*562Filed Oct. 30, 1890.

*F. B. Posey*and *W. J. Thurman,*for appellant.

*E. P. Richardson, A. H. Taylor*and *E. A. Ely,*for appellees.

Elliott, J.

— The evidence which the trial court accepted as trustworthy shows that the appellant purchased a marble shop and executed in payment the promissory note upon which the appellees' complaint is founded. It also appears that she executed the note as principal, and that her husband executed it as surety. We can not weigh the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the trial court was right in its decision upon the facts, but, as the finding is supported by some evidence, we must accept the conclusions of the court as to the facts proved, so that nothing remains for us to do except to ascertain whether the trial court ruled the law correctly. That the law was correctly ruled there can be no doubt. A married woman may purchase property for herself, or, indeed, for another, and bind herself by the execution of a promissory note in payment for the property purchased by her. *Chandler*v. *Spencer,*109 Ind. 553; *Young*v. *McFadden, ante,*p. 254.

Judgment affirmed.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1789

To authorize the exchange of certain lands within the Martin Luther King, 

Junior, National Historic Site for lands owned by the City of Atlanta, 

Georgia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2003

Mr. MILLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To authorize the exchange of certain lands within the Martin 

Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site for lands 

owned by the City of Atlanta, Georgia, and for other 

purposes.

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 ‘‘Martin Luther King, 

5 Junior, National Historic Site Land Exchange Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
2

•S 1789 IS 

1 (1) Public Law 96–438 established the Martin 

2 Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site, and al3 lows acquisition, by donation only, of lands owned by 

4 the State. 

5 (2) The National Park Service owns a vacant 

6 lot that has no historic significance. The City of At7 lanta has expressed interest in acquiring this prop8 erty to encourage commercial development along 

9 Edgewood Avenue. 

10 (3) The National Historic Site Visitor Center 

11 and Museum is land-locked and has no emergency 

12 ingress or egress, making it virtually impossible for 

13 firefighting equipment to reach. 

14 (4) The acquisition of city-owned property 

15 would enable the National Park Service to establish 

16 easy street access to the National Historic Site Vis17 itor Center and Museum, and would benefit the City 

18 by exchanging a piece of property that the City 

19 could develop. 

20 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to author21 ize the exchange of certain lands within the Martin Luther 

22 King, Junior, National Historic Site for lands owned by 

23 the City of Atlanta, Georgia. 
3

•S 1789 IS 

1 SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE. 

2 Section 2(b)(1) of the Act of October 10, 1980 (Pub3 lic Law 96–428; 94 Stat. 1839; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) is 

4 amended by striking the period and inserting ‘‘or ex5 change.’’.

Æ
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LOUIS PERKINS.

May 8, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



I, M P Vijay Kumar, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report on Form 20-F of Sify Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2015, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form
20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sify Technologies Limited.



|Date: June 18, 2015 | /s/ M P Vijay Kumar           
|------------------- | ------------------------------
|                    | Name: M P Vijay Kumar         
|                    | Title: Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### *F.*E. Walker *v.*Thomas Snowden.

New Trial — Verdict Not Sustained by the Evidence.

On the issues formed, there was a contrariety of evidence before the jury, which it was their peculiar province to weigh. On well settled principal of practice, the Court should not have granted a new trial on the grounds that the jury had erred, unless the verdict was clearly against the evidence.

APPEAL PROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The principal question presented for our decision is, whether or not the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient ■ evidence.

The action was for the recovery of a balance of $300 as the reasonable value of work claimed by the plaintiff in the construction of an abuttment and two road-ways upon the levee in front of defendant’s farm on the Ohio River.

The defense admitted the employment of the plaintiff to do the work but controverted the claim, mainly on the ground that the work as performed was not of the value claimed for the plaintiff nor executed skilfully or in a workman-like manner.

On the issue thus formed there was a contrariety of evidence *277before tbe jury, which it was their peculiar province to weigh. Nor obvious reasons, and on well settled principles of practice, the court should not have granted a new trial on the ground that the jury had erred in their construction of the value of the work, unless the amount fixed by them was clearly unwarranted by the evidence. Such does not appear to have been the case, and it seems to us, the court did not err in refusing a new trial on the ground in question.

*John M.*Brown, *for appellant.*

*Oissel*& Vance, *for appellee.*

No error is perceived in the instructions or other rulings of the court to the prejudice of the appellant.

"Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dukieen Wilson, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 383]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered May 31, 2002, as amended June 17, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3x/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation, since it was highly probative of defendant’s motive, explained the relationship between defendant and the victim, and was central to the jury’s understanding of an otherwise unexplained assault *(see e.g. People v Edwards,*295 AD2d 270 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 557 [2002]; *People v Newby,*291 AD2d 460 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 679 [2002]; *People v Bernard,*224 AD2d 192 [1996], *lv denied*
      *46488 NY2d 964 [1996]). The court’s thorough instructions minimized the potential for prejudice.

Defendant’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged remarks were generally responsive to defense arguments, and that the court’s curative actions prevented any improprieties in the summation from causing undue prejudice *(see People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
#### JOHN TOMASIN v. THE TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Summary:

Kayla Barron was selected by NASA to join the 2017 Astronaut Candidate Class. She reported for duty in August 2017. 

The Washington native graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with a bachelor’s degree in Systems Engineering. A 

Gates Cambridge Scholar, Barron earned a master’s degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Cambridge. As 

a Submarine Warfare Officer, Barron was a member of the first class of women commissioned into the submarine 

community. She served as member of the NASA SpaceX Crew-3 mission to the International Space Station, which 

launched on November 10, 2021. NASA’s SpaceX Crew-3 astronauts safely splashed down on Friday, May 6, 2022

completing the agency’s third long-duration commercial crew mission to the International Space Station. The 

international crew of four spent 177 days in orbit.

Personal Data:

Born in Pocatello, Idaho, Barron considers Richland, Washington, to be her hometown. She is married to Tom Barron 

of New York, New York. Her parents, Scott and Lauri Sax, live in Richland, Washington. She enjoys hiking, backpacking, 

running, and reading.

Education:

Graduated from Richland High School in Richland, Washington, in 2006. Earned a bachelor’s degree in Systems 

Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, in 2010. Earned a master’s degree in Nuclear 

Engineering from the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England, in 2011, as a 2010 Gates Cambridge Scholar.

Experience:

Barron was commissioned as a Navy officer in 2010 and immediately attended graduate school. Her graduate research 

focused on modeling the fuel cycle for a next-generation, thorium-fueled nuclear reactor concept. Following graduate 

school, Barron attended the U.S. Navy’s nuclear power and submarine officer training before being assigned to the USS 

Maine, an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine homeported in Bangor, Washington. Barron qualified as a submarine 

warfare officer and completed three strategic deterrent patrols while serving as a division officer aboard the Maine. At 

the time of her selection, Barron was serving as the Flag Aide to the Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy.

NASA Experience:

Barron reported for duty in August 2017 and completed two years of training as an Astronaut Candidate. She served as 

member of the NASA SpaceX Crew-3 mission to the International Space Station. The international crew of four spent 

http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies

Kayla Barron

(Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy) NASA Astronaut

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas 77058

May 2022
177 days in orbit.

Awards/Honors:

Awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, and various 

unit commendations. Trident Scholar and Distinguished Graduate, U.S. Naval Academy. Gates Cambridge Scholar.

Organizations:

U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association and Gates Cambridge Alumni Association.

http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies

Kayla Barron
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gustavo R. Egizi, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03468-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 8680 Filed 11/08/17 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 8680 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2