alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Meagan Chappell","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mchappe3\/","title":"Building a Community of Practice\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"owiKhcloEh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nesc\/building-a-community-of-practice\/\">Building a Community of Practice\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nesc\/building-a-community-of-practice\/embed\/#?secret=owiKhcloEh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Building a Community of Practice\u00a0” — NASA\" data-secret=\"owiKhcloEh\" 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\/2024\/03\/techup2023-pg49-art1-1.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS )

LIABILITY LITIGATION, ) 

 )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: )

 )

Donald Epps, ) MDL Docket No. 15-2641

C.A. No. CV-15-1881-PHX-DGC )

 ) 

 )

Donald Epps, ) NOTICE

 ) 

 Plaintiff(s), ) 

 ) 

v. )

 )

C R Bard, Inc., et al., )

 )

 Defendant(s) )

 IN THE ABOVE MATTER, you are advised that the case listed 

above (formerly District of Nevada 2:15-cv-1210) is now 

consolidated with and part of MDL No. 2641 pursuant to the Transfer

Order filed September 14, 2015. Therefore, future pleadings 

pertaining to the above case will be filed in MDL-No. 2641, The 

title page of these documents should be prepared as shown 

above. 

 

September 21, 2015 BRIAN D. KARTH 

 Date DCE/Clerk of Court

 s/M. Pruneau 

 Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 83 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Parker and Another *v.*Miller, Administrator.—In error.

*Wednesday, June*5.

IP two partners be indebted for goods sold and delivered, and one die in the lifetime of the other, the administrator of the deceased partner may, by statute, be sued at law for the debt. Ransom v. Pomeroy, 5 Blackf. 383.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Cody S. Lydon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/codyslydon\/","title":"NASA Maps Minerals and Ecosystem Function in Southwest U.S. Regions","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"I4yz590hGh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-maps-minerals-and-ecosystem-function-in-southwest-u-s-regions\/\">NASA Maps Minerals and Ecosystem Function in Southwest U.S. Regions<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-maps-minerals-and-ecosystem-function-in-southwest-u-s-regions\/embed\/#?secret=I4yz590hGh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Maps Minerals and Ecosystem Function in Southwest U.S. Regions” — NASA\" data-secret=\"I4yz590hGh\" 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\/ARC-1987-AC87-0912-6\/ARC-1987-AC87-0912-6~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
#### Thomas E. Miller *v.*Aaron James et al.

Demurrer — Defense to Action on Note — Pleading.

Where the facts, in an answer to a suit on a note, show it to have been given in consideration of a half interest in a business, and that the plaintiff had made no settlement of the partnership affairs, which was in liquidation, it is sufficient to constitute a good defense, and a demurrer thereto should be overruled.

APPEAL EROM MEEOEE OIRCUIT OOUET.

September 16, 1868.

Opinion oe the Oouet by

Judge Petees :

Whilst the first paragraph of appellant’s answer is obscured by frequent repetitions, and redundant matter, and thereby vexatiously extended, still, the statements therein, that in the execution of the note sued on, there was a mistake of two hundred, or two hundred and fifty dollars, and a prayer for a correction of the mistake, are visible amidst the great confusion that prevails in the paragraph and it is moreover stated that at the time the note was executed the appellant, and appellee Aaron James entered into a'co-partnership for the manufacture, and vending carriages, and buggies, and repairing such vehicles, and that said note was executed in part for stock in trade put into the business by said James, and that he had received considerable amounts of money belonging to the firm after its commencement for sales of carriages, repairs, etc., over and above his part sufficient to satisfy and discharge said note, and that there were partnership debts outstanding against the firm which the partners would be compelled to settle; and sought a settlement of the firm business, which it is alleged was unsettled, although the partnership was dissolved, and no settlement had ever been made, and moved to have the case transferred to the equity docket for that purpose.

These are material facts constituting a good defense to the action, and if true as admitted by the demurrer entitled appellant to relief against the note; consequently the demurrer was improperly sustained.

*563
      *J. D.*Hardin, *for appellant.*

*J. B.*Thompson, *for appellee.*

As to tbe second paragraph of the answer, the whole seems to contain but one defense to the action, and as such could not have been divided into more than one paragraph, and retained its meaning and sense, consequently, it was improperly suppressed for the failure of appellant to divide' said second paragraph into more paragraphs and number them.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the first paragraph of the answer, to set aside the order suppressing and striking out the second paragraph. That the irrelevant redundant matter in the answer be stricken out at the cost of appellant, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                    RESOURCE BANCSHARES MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.
                      STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY
                      and FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

                   ($ in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Quarter Ended               Nine Months Ended
                                                       September 30, 1997            September 30, 1997
                                                       -------------------         ---------------------

      <S>                                              <C>                         <C>     
      Net income                                                  $ 2,567                      $ 14,408

      Primary earnings per share (1)                              $  0.12                      $   0.69

      Fully diluted earnings per share (1)                        $  0.12                      $   0.69
</TABLE>

1)The number of common shares outstanding used to compute net income per share
was 20,573,847 and 20,281,774 for the quarter and nine months ended September
30,1997, respectively. The provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No.
15, "Earnings per Share" required that the Company, effective for the first
quarter of 1997, prospectively commence to report net income per common share on
a primary earnings per share basis. Accordingly, the weighted average shares
outstanding for the third quarter of 1997 and the nine months ended September
30, 1997, includes common stock equivalents. Primary and fully diluted earnings
per share for the quarter ended September 30, 1997, were both calculated based
on weighted average shares outstanding of 21,227,999. Primary and fully diluted
earnings per share for the nine months ended September 30, 1997, were both
calculated based on weighted average shares outstanding of 20,872,932, which
assumes the exercise of options covering 1,332,587 shares, excludes 270,702
contingent shares and computes incremental shares using the treasury stock
method. The weighted average shares for both the nine months and the third
quarter of 1997 have been retroactively adjusted for the 5% stock dividend
declared on October 31, 1997.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roosevelt Burt,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03710-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 9191 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          41,705
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  683,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,044,078
<PP&E>                                       1,546,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,564,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,685,975
<BONDS>                                      1,711,948
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,850
<COMMON>                                         9,742
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,150,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,564,062
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               559,121
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,023,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (508,111)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (508,111)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (98,420)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (606,531)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dede Dinius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/darin-l-diniusnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Armstrong Builds Model Wing to Help Advance Unique Design","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zpbCs0jHb3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-armstrong-builds-model-wing-to-help-advance-unique-design\/\">NASA Armstrong Builds Model Wing to Help Advance Unique Design<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-armstrong-builds-model-wing-to-help-advance-unique-design\/embed\/#?secret=zpbCs0jHb3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Armstrong Builds Model Wing to Help Advance Unique Design” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zpbCs0jHb3\" 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\/AFRC2023-0157-003\/AFRC2023-0157-003~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 25, 2013

h0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146377 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146377

COA: 308116

Calhoun CC: 2007-002377-FC

JEFFREY GUY RINGLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of 

establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### In the Matter of Mildred Jeraldine C. Geraldine C.F., Respondent. Elaine C., Nonparty Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 180]

In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, Elaine C. appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated June 10, 2003, as, after a nonjury trial, appointed James B. and Joanne B. coguardians of the person and property of the incapacitated person.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

By the close of the nonjury trial on the petition, the parties were in agreement that a guardian should be appointed for the incapacitated person, but the appellant objected to the appointment of James B. and Joanne B. on the ground that the incapacitated person expressed a desire for the appellant to manage her personal and property affairs. James B. is the incapacitated person’s nephew and Joanne B. is James B.’s wife.

Although the Supreme Court made the appropriate findings of fact pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 concerning, inter alia, the necessity for the appointment of a guardian, it failed to make findings on the record with respect to its choice of James B. and Joanne B. as coguardians.

*561The trial court, after a nonjury trial, is required to make appropriate findings and set forth its reasoning so that this Court may intelligently review its decision *(see Matter of Pasner,*215 AD2d 763 [1995]; CPLR 4213 [b]). However, when the record on appeal permits the reviewing court to make the findings which the trial court neglected to make, it may do so *(see Katzenstein v Katzenstein,*90 AD2d 533 [1982]; *Mellon v Street,*23 AD2d 210 [1965]). In the instant case, the record is sufficient for this Court to make the requisite findings of fact.

The evidence in the record established that there was a breakdown in communication between the appellant and the petitioner, who were the incapacitated person’s daughters, which caused the petitioner to commence the instant guardianship proceeding. Additionally, James B. had a close relationship with the incapacitated person, his aunt, and lived in close proximity to her in Queens for “the last 27 years.” The petitioner, on the other hand, lived in California and the appellant lived in New Jersey.

James B. and Joanne B. were willing to serve as guardians. The petitioner did not object to their appointment. Joanne B. was uniquely qualified to serve since she held a degree in health administration and was experienced in elder care.

It is apparent from the record that the court favored James B. and Joanne B. over the appellant on the ground that there was a breakdown in communication between the appellant and her sister, James B. and Joanne B. had a close relationship with the incapacitated person and lived in close proximity to her, and they were willing and qualified to assume the responsibility.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court appropriately appointed James B. and Joanne B. as coguardians of the person and property of the incapacitated person. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report dated May 10, 2000, included in this Form 10-K into
Consolidated Graphics, Inc. previously filed Registration Statement Files
No. 333-82835 on Form S-3, No. 333-62317 on Form S-4, No. 33-87192 on Form S-8,
No. 333-13737 on Form S-8, No. 333-18435 on Form S-8 and No. 333-66019 on
Form S-8.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
June 26, 2000