alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

I I I 

External Relations (I) Systems (J) Business Utilization (K) 

Michael F. O’Brien Jeffrey E. Sutton Ralph C. Thomas, I11 

Assistant Administrator Assistant Administrator Assistant Administrator 

Management Small and Disadvantaged 

, ........................................... 

I I I 

Security Management 

and Safeguards (X) 

David ASaleeba 

Legislative Affairs (L) Public Affairs (P) 

Charles T. Homer, I11 Glenn Mahone 

Assistant Administrator Assistant Administrator Assistant Administrator 

i Inspector General (w) j ............. i Robert W. Cobb i ............................................. 

Biological and Physical 

Research (U) 

Mary E. Kicza 

Space Science (S) 

Edward J. Weiler 

Aerospace 

Technology (R) 

J. Victor Lebacqz 

(Acting) 

Office of the Administrator 

Sean O’Keefe, Administrator 

Frederick D. Gregory, Deputy Administrator 

John D. Schumacher, Chief of Staf 

James L. Jennings, Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions & Asset Management 

Michael A. Greenfield, Associate Deputy Administrator for Technical Programs 

Theron M. Bradley, Jr., ChiefEngineer 

Vacant, Chief Technologist 

Patrick A. Ciganer, Program Executive Officer for Integrated Financial Management 

J.T. Jezierski, White House Liaison 

Richard S. Williams, Chief Health & Medical Officer 

Patricia L. Dunnington, Chief Information Oflcer 

John M. Grunsfeld, Chief Scientist 

Earth Science (Y) 

Ghassem R. Asrar 

Associate Administrator 

I I 

I I I I I 

Ames Research Center i Jet Propulsion 

G. Scott Hubbard i Laboratory * 

Chief Financial Equal Opportunity 

Officer (B) Programs (E) 

Dorothy Hayden-Watkin 

Assistant Administrator 

* Goddnrcl Space 

Flight Center 

Human Resources (F) 

Vicki A. Novak 

P 

Safely and Mission 

Assurance (Q) 

Bryan D. O’Connor 

Associate Administrator 

HQ Operations (C) 

James J. Frelk 

Education (N) 

Adena Williams Loston 

Space Flight (M) 

William F. Readdy 

Lyndon B Johnson 

Space Center 

Jefferson D Howell, Jr 

- John F Kennedy 

Space Center 

James W Kennedy 

George C Marshall 

Space Flight Center 

David A King 

* John C Stennrs 

Space Center 

Michael Rudolphi 

(Acting) 

4 

General Counsel (G) Procurement (H) 

Paul G. Pastorek Thomas S. Luedtke 

General Counsel Assistant Administrator 

September 8,2003
#### Hagaman *v.*Stafford.

A paper, purporting to be an affidavit made before a justice of the peace in another* county, was' offered in evidence. *Held,*that there must be proof of its authenticity in order to authorise its admission; but that it might he proved by parol evidence.

ERROR to-the *Owen*Circuit Court.

Saturday, *November*27.

Holman, J.

Action on the case by a father for the seduction of his daughter, whereby he lost her service. Plea, not guilty. On the trial, the daughter was introduced as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, and stated in her evidence that the *352child she had borne was begotten by the defendant at her father’s in *Greene*county. In order to discredit her testimony, the defendant offered in evidence a paper, purporting to be an affidavit made by the witness before a justice of the peace of *Greene*county in a case of bastardy, in which it is said that she then swore, that the defendant was the father of the child, and that it was conceived at *Peter Iiagaman’s*in *Greene*c,ounty. The plaintiff objected, to the reading of this affidavit, because it Was not authenticated by tlie certificate and seal of the clerk; but the Circuit Court, on receiving proof that the man before whom the oath appeared to be sworn, was, at the time of making the affidavit, an acting justice of the peace of *Greene*county, permitted it to be read in evidence without any proof, says a hill of exceptions, of the hand-writing of the justice, or that he •ever made the certificate. The defendant obtained a verdict. The plaintiff moved for a new-trial. The Circuit Court overruled the motion, and gave judgment for the defendant.

Naylor, for the plaintiff.

Merrill, for the defendant.

The affidavit should not have been read without proof of its authenticity. It purports to be a part of a legal proceeding, before the justice of the peace, between the state and the present defendant; and, being detached from the case, is not entitled to the same credit as if the whole proceedings had been •certified. Again, it purports tobe the original affidavit, being nowhere spoken of in the record as a copy; and, being a document that should not be thus removed from the office of the justice, its exhibition in this case for a purpose entirely foreign to that for which it was originally intended, and in a county different from that in which the justice resided, is calculated to excite suspicion. The party introducing it should, therefore, be held to the strictest proof of its authenticity; which, however, may be furnished by oral testimony.

*Per*Curiam,

The judgment is reversed, and the verdict set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c. (1).

(1)

 A re-hearing was granted in this case; but the same judgment in it, as above, ivas afterwards rendered.
Order entered November 23, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-20-00926-CV

IN RE MILTON LEE TARVER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F98-02379-QU

ORDER
Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Evans

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s October 20,

2020 petition for writ of mandamus. We DENY AS MOOT all motions.

/s/ DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1350

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of Credence Systems Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended May 3, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kevin C. Eichler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: June 12, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Kevin C. Eichler   
|Kevin C. Eichler       
|Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Kittle,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04246-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Bertram & Graf 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 11/17/2017, 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 9087 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1
#### BURT KRONER v. WENDELL TRIPLETT.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wade Wilemon,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04070-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Curtis Law Group

(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 11/27/2017, 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 9322 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9322 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Building the Infrastructure for Advanced Air Mobility","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"t2kqJF4yMW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/building-the-infrastructure-for-advanced-air-mobility\/\">Building the Infrastructure for Advanced Air Mobility<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/building-the-infrastructure-for-advanced-air-mobility\/embed\/#?secret=t2kqJF4yMW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Building the Infrastructure for Advanced Air Mobility” — NASA\" data-secret=\"t2kqJF4yMW\" 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\/2022\/07\/new_infrastructure_b_rev1.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
#### W. E. Jardon *v.*S. Williams.

Notes — Federal Stamp.

A note on which the original petition was filed having been excluded, on the plea that it was void for want of a revenue stamp; Held, that appellant was estoppel from objecting to an amended petition on the oral contract, for which the note was given.

APPEAL PROM ANDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 19, 1867.

*Iiarlan, for appellant.*

*Drajfin, for appellee.*

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge Kobertson :

The motion which the original petition was filed having been excluded at the appellant’s instance on the plea that it was void for want of Federal stamp, he was estopped from objecting to the amended petition afterwards filed on the oral contract which was a good cause of action, if the note was void.

The testimony authorized the deduction that the appellee’s slave was bought by the appellant for $1,000 assumed to be paid on condition that the slave should be accepted as appellant’s substitute as a drafted soldier in the Federal army, and that he was so received and thereby exonerated the appellant.

I'Ve perecive no error in th admission of testimony, ■ or in the giving or refusing of instructions.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed, as sustained on the amended petition if the note was void, or on the original petition if the note was binding.
Exhibit 13.1

Certifications required by Rule 13A-14(B) or Rule 15D-14(B)

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officers of Trintech Group PLC (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31,
2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Cyril McGuireCYRIL MCGUIREChief Executive Officer/s/ Joseph SeeryJOSEPH SEERYVice President Finance, Group


Dated: May 29, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure to this statement

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to Trintech Group PLC and will be retained by Trintech Group PLC and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. PRATT

No. 99P01

Case below: 141 N.C. App. 352

Motion by defendant to treat notice of appeal and petition for discretionary review as petition for writ of certiorari allowed 4 October 2001. Notice of appeal by defendant pursuant to G. S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) dismissed ex mero motu 4 October 2001. Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 October 2001.
** **

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERUNDER 18 U.S.C. 1350PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the periodic report of CredenceSystems Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 2,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Kevin C. Eichler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as ofthe date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

This Certification hasnot been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

 
| Date: March 13,  2008 |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |
| /s/ Kevin C.  Eichler      |   |
| Kevin C. Eichler           |   |
| Chief Financial Officer    |   |

 

 

----
Order entered February 3, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00637 - CV ROBERT M. MOORE AND REBECCA MOORE, Appellant s V. THE BRIDGES ON TRAVIS, Appellee On Ap peal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020 - 2 - 072CV

ORDER Before the Court is appellant s’ February 2, 2021 third motion for extension of time to file their corrected brief

. We GRANT the requested ten

- day exte nsion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than February 8, 2021. We caution appellants that failure to file the brief may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1).

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Milo Hall,

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-17-04639-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: December 20, 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 9467 Filed 12/28/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brent A. Querry,

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-17-03673-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: October 18, 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 8211 Filed 10/18/17 Page 1 of 1