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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry Conner,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03781-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse LLC

(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 10/16/2017, 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 18, 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 8295 Filed 10/20/17 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 8295 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 2
#### AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY ONE, INC. v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification granted. (See 193 *N.J.Swper.*503)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 17, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130988 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130988 

 COA: 268031 

Genesee CC: 05-015648-FH 

BERNARD GEORGE HARPER, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 24, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the intermediate sanction described 

in MCL 769.31(b) and MCL 769.34(4), which require the trial court to impose a sentence 

that does not include prison, constitutes a statutory maximum sentence under Blakely v 

Washington, 524 US 296 (2004), for which the departure reasons must be decided by a 

jury or admitted by the defendant; (2) whether, in general, a defendant’s failure to 

challenge the accuracy of facts contained in a presentence investigation report constitutes 

an admission of those facts for purposes of an analysis under Blakely, supra at 303, 310; 

(3) whether in this case an admission occurred where the sentencing judge informed the 

defendant that it is important that any mistake in such a report be caught and specifically 

asked the defendant if he saw any such mistake, and where both the defendant and his 

counsel stated that they were not contesting anything in the report; and (4) whether, by 

affirmatively stating that he did not contest the facts in the presentence investigation 

report, the defendant waived his right to argue that the facts were not admitted for 

purposes of sentencing. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 (2000). 

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. 

l1114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 17, 2006 

 Clerk
NASA ADMINISTRATOR 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY 

ADMINISTRATOR 

ASSISTANT FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

1 

CHIEF CHlEF 

,

SCIENTIST ENGINEER 

I--- -1 

Safety 1 1 1 OF 1 I lNSp<&ONS j j OF 1 I I DIRECTOROFPUBLIC 

AUDIT AFFAIRS I DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE 

, AFFAIHS 

AND 

SECURITY 

PROCUREMENT 

OPPORTUNITY 

RECTOR OF INTERNATIONA 

ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR 

COMPTROLLER 

ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR 

rRACKlNG &DATA 

SYSTEMS 

November 8, 1977 EFFECTIVE 

lruperreder Chart dated March 29. 19761
- Front Cover
- Contents
- Figures, Tables, Boxes
- Preface
- Introduction
- Leadership in Space
- Strategic Option Development
- Leadership Initiatives
Mission to Planet Earth
Exploration of the Solar System
Outpost on the Moon
Humans to Mars

- Programmatic Assessment
- Evaluation of Initiatives
- Conclusion
- Additional Studies
- References
- Picture Credits
- Acknowledgements
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61856-61857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24457]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


Bioenergy Technologies Office: Waste to Energy Roadmapping 
Workshop

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting: Waste to Energy Roadmapping Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) today gives notice of a 
workshop hosted by the Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) to discuss 
the current state of technology and efforts needed to achieve 
affordable, scalable, and sustainable drop-in hydrocarbon biofuels 
derived from waste feedstocks.

DATES: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:30 a.m.--5:00 p.m.; Thursday, 
November 6, 2014 9:00 a.m.--12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: DoubleTree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be directed to--Aaron 
Fisher at (410) 953-6231 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3a2a2b1acadeda5aab0aba6b183a6a6eda7aca6eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b6a6a796465256d6278636e794b6e6e256f646e256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this workshop is to bring 
together waste-to-energy experts to identify key technical barriers to 
the commercial deployment of liquid transportation fuels from waste 
feedstocks, and ultimately develop a roadmap which highlights the key 
pathways and metrics to meeting this goal. Participants will be led in 
facilitated breakout sessions to address anaerobic digestion, 
hydrothermal liquefaction, and other processes from feedstock streams 
consisting of wastewater residuals, biosolids, foodstuffs, and organic 
municipal solid

[[Page 61857]]

waste. These discussions will lead to a roadmap that will be a 
synthesized output from the information gathered at the workshop.

    Issued in Golden, CO on September 15, 2014.
Nicole Blackstone,
Contracting Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-24457 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DANIEL ALBERTO CADAVID.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pipex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter period June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 14, 2007

By: /s/ Steve H. KanzerName: Steve H. KanzerTitle: Chairman & Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24322]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (ComE-IN); Notice 
of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice 
is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic 
Inclusion, which will be held in Arlington, Virginia. The Advisory 
Committee will provide advice and recommendations on initiatives to 
expand access to banking services by underserved populations.

DATES: Thursday, October 29, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Auditorium C on the Third Floor 
of the FDIC William Seidman Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive (Building 
C), Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for further information 
concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, 
Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The agenda will be focused on the results of the FDIC's 
National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, safe banking 
products, and the BankOn program. The agenda may be subject to change. 
Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the 
meeting.
    Type of Meeting: The meeting will be open to the public, limited 
only by the space available on a first-come, first-served basis. For 
security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security 
screening procedures and must present a valid photo identification to 
enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids 
(e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those 
attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or 
TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary 
arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the committee before 
or after the meeting. This ComE-IN meeting will be Webcast live via the 
Internet at: https://fdic.primetime.mediaplatform.com/#/channel/1384299229422/Advisory+Committee+on+Economic+Inclusion. Questions or 
troubleshooting help can be found at the same link. For optimal 
viewing, a high speed internet connection is recommended. The ComE-IN 
meeting videos are made available on-demand approximately two weeks 
after the event.

    Dated: October 8, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2014-24322 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JOSHUA MENDELSOHN; WENDY 

MENDELSOHN, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SUNPEAK ASSOCIATION, a Utah nonprofit corporation, d/b/a Sunpeak 

Homeowners Association ; DAVID 

DUBOIS; BRENT SANFORD; JOHN 

RENOLA; JAMES REVEL; BRENDA 

LAKE, individuals; and JOHN DOES 1 

through 10, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-4092

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00923-RJS)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal of 

Appeal. The Stipulation to dismiss is granted. See 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(9) and Fed. R. 

App. P. Rule 42(b).

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

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 15, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-4092 Document: 01019370595 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Daniel Curry Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-02493-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC

(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 11/12/2017, 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 8982 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32.2











CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Aviation Upgrade Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Torbjörn B. Lundqvist, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Torbjörn B.
                LundqvistTorbjörn B. Lundqvist
                Chief
                    Financial Officer
                February
                    23, 2006
1 P ursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-50232

_____________________

MARTIN ALVAREZ; PETE ALVAREZ; SERGIO ARMENDARIZ; ANDREW BROOKS; TAYLOR BARKLEY; GARY CADD; HECTOR JESUS CANO; PEDRO A. CHAVEZ; BRUCE A. CRUMP; MARIO D’AGOSTINO; ROBERTO FLORES; RAUL GARCIA-FLORES; DAVID GONZALEZ; GREG HERNANDEZ; MARIO HERNANDEZ; RICHARD HOLGUIN; MARK KLINE; LORENZO MARQUEZ; ANTONIO MURO, JR.; MICHAEL NELIGH; CARLOS A. PIEDRA; ERIC SODEMANN; MICHAEL A. STUBBLEFIELD; DANIEL TARIN; JOSEPH A. TELLEZ; MIGUEL A. TORRES; DAVE VALERO

All individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CITY OF EL PASO, Defendant - Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

No. EP-00-CV-103-H

February 14, 2002 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Martin Alvarez and twenty-seven other firefighters brought2

suit against the City of El Paso based on the Fair Labor Standards

Act (FLSA). They claimed that the City had violated the FLSA, 29

U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), by refusing to pay compensation for their lunch

hour. They argued that, because the City placed so many

restrictions on the firefighters’ activities during lunch, it was

impossible to derive any personal b enefits from the lunch hour.

Thus, because the lunch hour did not qualify as a bona fide meal

period under the FLSA, they were entitled to be compensated for the

hour. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary

judgment. Alvarez now appeals.

We have studied the briefs, heard the argument of the parties,

and considered the issues raised in this appeal. It is now clear

to us that the finding and conclusions of the district court are

not reversible. In deciding whether a lunch hour qualifies as a

bona fide meal period, the courts apply a “predominant benefit

test.” S ee Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Nebraska

, 154 F.3d 259, 264

(5th Cir. 1998). “The critical question [under this test] is

whether the meal period is used predominantly or primarily for the

benefit of the employer or for the benefit of the employee.” Id.

at 264-65. In resolving this question, we must decide whether the

employee can use the time during lunch for his or her own purposes.

Id. at 266. The restrictions placed here on the employees’ dress

and use of city-owned automobiles were more in the nature of

inconveniences than restrictions on the free use of the time at3

issue. The district court therefore did not err when it

determined, as a matter of law, that the firefighters could use the

lunch hour time primarily for their own personal benefit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael L. Jones,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03765-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 9128 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 1