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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lori Fisher,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03604-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 9151 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"\u2018Hidden Figures\u2019 Honored at U.S. Capitol for Congressional Gold Medal","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"yUbyrz6DA7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/hidden-figures-honored-at-u-s-capitol-for-congressional-gold-medal\/\">\u2018Hidden Figures\u2019 Honored at U.S. Capitol for Congressional Gold Medal<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/hidden-figures-honored-at-u-s-capitol-for-congressional-gold-medal\/embed\/#?secret=yUbyrz6DA7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“\u2018Hidden Figures\u2019 Honored at U.S. Capitol for Congressional Gold Medal” — NASA\" data-secret=\"yUbyrz6DA7\" 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\/2019\/12\/img_3763.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
Order entered June 11, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01634-CV

SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP, Appellant

V.

ALBERT G. HILL, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-14714-H

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s June 9, 2014 third motion for an extension of time to file a brief. 

Appellant shall file its brief on or before July 16, 2014. We caution appellant that no further 

extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Beth Ridgeway","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/angela-b-ridgewaynasa-gov\/","title":"Cube Quest Concludes: Wins, Lessons Learned from Centennial Challenge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CqH0NNtY8n\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/prizes-challenges-crowdsourcing-program\/centennial-challenges\/cube-quest-concludes-wins-lessons-learned-from-centennial-challenge\/\">Cube Quest Concludes: Wins, Lessons Learned from Centennial Challenge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/prizes-challenges-crowdsourcing-program\/centennial-challenges\/cube-quest-concludes-wins-lessons-learned-from-centennial-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=CqH0NNtY8n\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Cube Quest Concludes: Wins, Lessons Learned from Centennial Challenge” — NASA\" data-secret=\"CqH0NNtY8n\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/KSC-20210805-PH-CSH01_0009\/KSC-20210805-PH-CSH01_0009~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Florence M. Crow,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03207-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 8903 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Tomo Razmilovic et al., Respondents, v Thomas Dowd et al., Appellants.

[789 NYS2d 191]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated December 8, 2003, as granted their motion to strike the complaint only to the extent of precluding the plaintiffs from testifying at trial “or presenting any other evidence,” and (2) from an order of the same court dated February 3, 2004, which amended the order dated December 8, 2003 by deleting the words “or presenting any other evidence.”

Ordered that the order dated December 8, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 3, 2004 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CELR 3126 for failure to comply with discovery is within the trial court’s discretion *(see Mendez v City of New York,*7 AD3d 766, 767 [2004]; *Morano v Westchester Paving & Sealing Corp.,*7 AD3d 495, 496 [2004]). However, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to strike a pleading where the failure to comply with discovery is not the result of willful and contumacious conduct *(see Mendez v City of New York, supra*at 767; *Morano v Westchester Paving & Sealing Corp., supra*at 496).

Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ mo*547tion to strike the complaint only to the extent of precluding the plaintiffs from testifying at trial. While the plaintiffs relocated to England and failed to return for their scheduled depositions as required by the preliminary conference order, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs repeatedly violated discovery orders, or moved out of the country to avoid depositions. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci, Smith and Fisher, JJ., concur.
NO. 12-10-00078-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

'

IN RE: ROBERT C. MORRIS ,

RELATOR ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

'

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Robert C. Morris seeks a writ of mandamus requiring 

Janice Staples, District Clerk of Anderson County, Texas, to give him notice of the 

rulings on certain motions he filed in the trial court. In particular, Morris avers that he 

has been informed that the trial court has ruled on his motions, but that he has not been 

informed of how the court ruled or received any orders memorializing the rulings. 

A court of appeals has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of 

a district or county in the court of appeals district and all writs necessary to enforce its 

jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). In order for a district 

clerk to fall within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the 

writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; In re Coronado, 980 

S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Morris has not 

demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the district clerk is 

appropriate to enforce our jurisdiction. Consequently, we have no authority to issue a 

writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want 

of jurisdiction.

 BRIAN HOYLE__ 

 Justice

Opinion delivered March 30, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
#### JOHN STEINEL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification granted. (See 193 *N.J.Super.*629)
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 Power-Save Energy Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Forster, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.

















/s/ Michael Forster


By: Michael Forster


Principal Executive Officer





Dated: April 13, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur DeCato,

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-17-03738-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 27, 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 8930 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2014-F-1509]

DSM Nutritional Products; Filing of Food Additive Petition 
(Animal Use)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing 
that we have filed a petition, submitted by DSM Nutritional Products, 
proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for 
the safe use of Schizochytrium sp. dried algae as a source of 
docosahexaenoic acid for use in standard pelleted foods for adult dogs.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's 
request for categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement by November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, 
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Isabel W. Pocurull, Center for 
Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 240-453-6853.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), we are giving notice 
that a food additive petition (FAP 2288) has been submitted by DSM 
Nutritional Products, 45 Waterview Blvd., Parsippany, NJ 07054. The 
petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water 
of Animals (21 CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use of 
Schizochytrium sp. dried algae as a source of docosahexaenoic acid for 
use in standard pelleted foods for adult dogs. The petitioner has 
requested a categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement under 21 CFR 25.32(r).
    Interested persons may submit either electronic or written comments 
regarding this request for categorical exclusion to the Division of 
Dockets Management (see DATES and ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to 
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number 
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments 
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 10, 2014.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2014-24593 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
```
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00109-CR

SUZANNE EDITHA JOHNSTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17971

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record in this case indicates that they 

contain “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, 

passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government-issued 

personal identification number.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). Volume four of the reporter’s record 

includes a social security number and the clerk’s record includes a driver’s license number. Rule 

9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, 

including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX.R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volume 

four of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk of this 

Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed volume 

four of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: October 31, 2019
II 

Calendar No. 579 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2442 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

475 Kell Farm Drive in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ‘‘Richard 

G. Wilson Processing and Distribution Facility’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2004 

Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. TALENT) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 7, 2004 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 475 Kell Farm Drive in Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri, as the ‘‘Richard G. Wilson Processing and 

Distribution Facility’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•S 2442 RS 

1 SECTION 1. RICHARD G. WILSON PROCESSING AND DIS2 TRIBUTION FACILITY. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 475 Kell Farm Drive in Cape 

5 Girardeau, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Richard G. Wilson Processing and Distribution Facility’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the Richard G. Wilson 

11 Processing and Distribution Facility. 

Calendar No. 579 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2442 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWilson Processing and Distribution Facility’’. Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ‘‘Richard G. al Service located at 475 Kell Farm Drive in 

JUNE 7, 2004 

Reported without amendment