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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Eungard,

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-17-03580-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 8235 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 1
#### CLAUDE WRIGHT, JR. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification granted. (See 194 *N.J.Super.*181)
#### Paul Anthony BYFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT; John W. Ziglar; Christine G. Davis; Edward McElroy; Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-30813.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 9, 2003.

Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Thomas Burton Thompson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Byfield appeals *pro se*the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, in which he challenges as unconstitutional his confinement pursuant to INA § 236(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which mandates detention of deportable aliens before a final order of removal.1 While this ap*412peal was pending, however, the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirmed Byfield’s order of removal. His detention is now governed by INA § 241, 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Therefore, the only issue raised by Byfield in this appeal, the constitutionality of his treatment under INA § 236(c), is no longer one on which this court can grant him meaningful relief. *See De La Teja v. United States,*321 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir.2003). Because there is no longer a ease or controversy, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

*

 Pursuant 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.

1

. Tide 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1) provides in relevant part:

> The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who SS

> *412(B) is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1227-(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B),(C), or (D) of this title,

> when the alien is released, without regard to whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Santa FeEnergy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely asthe trustee of the Trust, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Trust.
|                   | /s/ Mike  Ulrich                 |
|------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                   | Mike Ulrich,                     |
| Date: May 6, 2004 | Vice President and Trust Officer |

 

----
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

J. 

Douglas 

J. 

Pickering 

The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Elizabeth Angela Bool's resignation. 

SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

14-44.t. c-eat , C.J. 

Hardesty 

Paryaguirre 

I t 

„01,24A7.41=c,0015144040seaugeemei , J. 

Gibbons 

cc: Elizabeth Angela Bool 

C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court 

2 

(0) 1947A
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 10

- 00585

- CR
Damian ESCALANTE , Jr., Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009CR8181 Honorable Mary D. Rom á n , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 14, 2011
AFFIRMED A grand jury indicted appellant, Damian Escalante, Jr., for sexual assault. At trial, appellant appeared pro se with stand

- by counsel. The jury convicted appellant of second degree sexual assault (repeater) and assessed punishment at confinement for fo rty

- five years. We
affirm.04

- 10

- 00585

- CR

- 2

- CONDUCT OF TRIAL JUDGE In his first issue, appellant argues the trial judge committed judicial misconduct. He lists several pleadings he filed, but he does not articulate his complaint with regard to those pleadings,
some of which are not in the record. “It is incumbent upon appellant to cite specific legal authority and to provide legal arguments based upon that authority.” Bell v. State , 90 S.W.3d 301, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Merely citing general legal doctrine is i nsufficient. Id. Accordingly, appellant’s first issue is overruled.
CONDUCT OF PROSECUTOR In his second issue, appellant argues the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by (1) defaming appellant in the media, (2) suborning perjured testimony at trial, and (3) authorizing a wire tap. However, appellant fails to identify any evidence in the record in support of his claims. “It is a long standing principle that [appellate courts] cannot review contentions which depend upon factual assertions outside of the record.” Janecka v. State , 937 S.W.2d 456, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). According ly, appellant’s second issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Do not publish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marianne Nissen,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03622-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(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 10/13/2017, 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 8316 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 8316 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         213
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       780
<OTHER-SE>                                     183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   963
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1149)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.001)



</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES WATLINGTON.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Elizabeth Thornton et al *v.*Thos. Peacock et al.

Descent and Distribution — Life Estate — Remainder.

A remainder interest in a life estate,' is subject to sale under an execution, and an absolute deed therefor may be made.

Same — Remainder.

The father of the remaindermen, having purchased their interest at execution sale his nóte, given therefor is subject to be paid out of the deceased estate. But this will not affect the life estate of the wife in the land and she cannot be estopped from asserting her tenancy to the tract.

APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUT COURT.

December 18, 1868.

*Anderson, for appellants.*

McKee, *for appellees.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

By the will of her deceased father, Elizabeth Thornton had a life estate in the 90 acres of land remainder to her children..

This remainder interest was subject to sale under execution, therefore, by virtue of the execution sales of the interest of Jno. M. Thornton and Wm. Thornton, two of her sons, their interest, by deeds, &c., passed to their father, John Thornton, who executed the note sued on for such interest, and this being a part of his estate, when he died was subject to be sold to pay said note.

But it was erroneous to sell it absolutely as a present, possessed, fee simple estate, disregarding Elizabeth Thornton’s life interest. She is not estopped by anything in the suit with Lowe from now asserting her tenancy for life to the entire 90 acres of land.

Eor this error alone, the judgment is reversed, with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Betty Holland, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03440-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 8611 Filed 11/06/17 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 8611 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43114, 333-89082, 333-121437, 333-137351, and 333-149653) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-65716, 333-70562, 333-86892, 333-102273, 333-102995, 333-103980, 333-121438, 333-121475, 333-135096, 333-137350 and333-141193) of Monogram Biosciences, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 2009 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose, California

February 12, 2009
Stennis Space Center (SSC) 

Center Assets: The John C. Stennis Space Center, located in south Mississippi, employs over 

250 civil servants, and has served as NASA’s rocket propulsion testing ground. Today, the center 

provides propulsion test services for NASA and for the Department of Defense, as well as the 

private sector. Stennis is also home to more than 30 federal, state, academic and private 

organizations and numerous technology-based companies that share the cost of owning and 

operating the facility, making it more cost-effective for each agency to accomplish its 

independent mission. The Center capabilities that will be tapped in the President’s new program 

include testing of large-scale rocket engines, subsystems and components. 

Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology: SSC’s unique capabilities and rocket component, 

engine and stage test facilities for first stage and upper stage engine testing as well as integrated 

full stage technology testing will be used extensively as part of this $3.1 billion program, and as 

such will begin facility modifications in FY11 to support engine component testing, with major 

facility modifications to follow a couple of years later to ensure they are ready to support fullscale engine and integrated stage testing. Additionally, operational funding begins early in the 

program timeline to conduct testing operations. 

Commercial Crew Development: SSC will increase partnerships with commercial market 

customers as part of this program, building upon current engine testing planned for commercial 

vehicles as part of NASA's CRS and COTS program. 

Highlights:

 Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology:  SSC’s unique capabilities and rocket engine test

facilities for first stage and upper stage engine testing will be used extensively as part of this

$3.1 billion program.  

 Commercial Crew Development:  SSC will increase partnerships with commercial market

customers as part of this program, building upon current engine testing planned for

commercial vehicles as part of NASA's CRS and COTS program.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas D. Wilson Sr.,

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-17-03546-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 8344 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PAUL DONALD WHISNER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 655 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, James M. Matthew, Chief Financial Officer of Empire Financial
Holding Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Empire Financial Holding
Company;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and
have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls
   and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
   information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
   controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
   the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
   the period covered by this report and based on such evaluation;

   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
   internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
   business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is
   reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting.

Date: January 24, 2007

/s/ James M. Matthew
--------------------
James M. Matthew,
Chief Financial Officer