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

I ADMINISTRATOR I 

DEPUTY I ADMINISTRATOR 

ASSOCIATE I . DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

I EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

I 

OFFICE OF 

ORGANIZATIQN 

MANAGEMENT 

I I I 

COUNS€l 

GWLRbL COUNSl 

DVISORY COYCTROLLIR 

PANEL NASA LOMnKOUtl 

OFFICE OF' 

ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR 

OmCl 

I 

M 

INIRGY 

APPLICATIONS 

I 

INDUSTRY UNIVIRSITY 

AWAIRS k TICH 

UT111ZA1ION 

bSSI ADMWlSllAlM 

AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE 

OFFICE OF 

ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR 

m8 

I 

CENTR ocB*IK)wS 

INSTITUTIOWAL 

YANAGIYINT 

PASADENA 

OFflCE 

I I I 

NATIONAL 

SCACI r-l lECnNOlOGY 

LAMRA~ORlIS 

JOHN f. KENNEDY SPACE CEWlER 

waaumu
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Bonita K. Maravich, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03494-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 10/30/2017, 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 8615 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 8615 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Steven Truglio et al., Petitioners, v Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[786 NYS2d 917]

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated August 8, 2003, which found that petitioners wrongfully caused injury to a civilian, that petitioner Truglio used excessive force against the civilian and that petitioner Lopez wrongfully issued a summons to the civilian for disorderly conduct after improperly searching the individual without requisite authority, and which imposed a penalty of forfeiture of 20 vacation days against each petitioner, unanimously confirmed, the petitions denied and this proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered January 15, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent Commissioner’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176 [1978]). There is no basis in the record to disturb the agency’s findings regarding witness credibility *(Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436 [1987]). The penalties imposed are not shocking to our sense of fairness *(Matter of Rodriguez-Rivera v Kelly,*2 NY3d 776 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2285 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel 

of real property to Beaver County, Utah. 

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

S 2285 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the 

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

4 shall, without consideration and subject to valid existing 

5 rights, convey to Beaver County, Utah (referred to in this 

6 Act as the ‘‘County’’), all right, title, and interest of the 

7 United States in and to the approximately 200 acres de8 picted as ‘‘Minersville State Park’’ on the map entitled 

9 ‘‘S. 2285, Minersville State Park’’ and dated April 30, 

10 2004, for use for public recreation. 

11 (b) RECONVEYANCE BY BEAVER COUNTY.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection 

13 (a), Beaver County may sell, for not less than fair 

14 market value, a portion of the property conveyed to 

15 the County under this section, if the proceeds of 

16 such sale are used by the County solely for mainte17 nance of public recreation facilities located on the re18 mainder of the property conveyed to the County 

19 under this section. 

20 (2) LIMITATION.—If the County does not com21 ply with the requirements of paragraph (1) in the 

22 conveyance of the property under that paragraph— 

23 (A) the County shall pay to the United 

24 States the proceeds of the conveyance; and 

25 (B) the Secretary of the Interior may re26 quire that all property conveyed under sub-
3 

S 2285 RFH 

1 section (a) (other than the property sold by the 

2 County under paragraph (1)) revert to the 

3 United States. 

Passed the Senate September 15, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=2080
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Williams, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 400]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered June 24, 2002, convicting him of criminal facilitation in the second degree and hindering prosecution in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*520Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (s*ee People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111, 1112 [1985]; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime of hindering prosecution in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (*see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or do not require reversal. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 17, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130988 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130988 COA: 268031 Genesee CC: 05-015648-FH BERNARD GEORGE HARPER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 24, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1 ) whether the intermediate sanction described in MCL 769.31(b) and MCL 769.34(4), which re quire the trial court to impose a sentence that does not include pr ison, constitutes a statutory maximum sentence under Blakely v Washington , 524 US 296 (2004), for which the depa rture reasons must be decided by a jury or admitted by the defenda nt; (2) whether, in general, a defendant’s failure to challenge the accuracy of facts contained in a presentence investigation report constitutes
an admission of those facts for purposes of an analysis under Blakely

, supra at 303, 310; (3) whether in this case an admission occurred where the se ntencing judge informed the defendant that it is important that any mistake in such a report be caught and specifically asked the defendant if he saw any such mi stake, and where both the defendant and his
counsel stated that th ey were not contesting anything in the report; and (4) whether, by affirmatively stating that he did not contes t the facts in the pres entence investigation report, the defendant waived his right to argue that the facts were not admitted for purposes of sentencing. People v Carter , 462 Mich 206, 215 (2000).

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are inv ited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups
interested in the determinati on of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

l1114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 17, 2006

Clerk
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. VINCENT TOMCZAK.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE v. ALLEN

No. 398P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 386

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 November 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
#### ROYAL v. HARTLE

No. 470P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 181

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 October 2001.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MILTON D. GRAYSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY McCOLLUM, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-7086

(D.C. No. 6:13-CV-0422-RAW-KEW) 

(E.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

This appeal involves the timeliness of a habeas petition. The petitioner is

Mr. Milton Grayson, who was convicted in state court of first degree rape by force

or fear, first degree burglary, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. 

Under federal law, a federal habeas petition must ordinarily be filed within one

year of the date that the conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).1

 Mr.

Grayson waited more than a year to file the habeas petition, and the district court

ordered dismissal based on timeliness. Mr. Grayson seeks to appeal, arguing that

the statute of limitations does not apply because he is actually innocent. To

appeal, Mr. Grayson needs a certificate of appealability. See Clark v. Oklahoma,

1 Exceptions exist, but none apply here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D).

Appellate Case: 14-7086 Document: 01019390270 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 1 
468 F.3d 711, 713 (10th Cir. 2006). We decline to issue the certificate and

dismiss the appeal.

For a certificate of appealability, Mr. Grayson must show that reasonable

jurists could debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling on timeliness. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Mr. Grayson fails to make this

showing. He does not deny that he waited more than a year to file the habeas

petition. Instead, he argues that he is actually innocent of the charges. 

Petitioners can avoid the statute of limitations based on presentation of new

evidence showing that it is more likely that no reasonable juror would have found

guilt. McQuiggin v. Perkins, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1935 (2013). But,

Mr. Grayson did not present the district court with any new evidence of innocence. 

As a result, the district court concluded that Mr. Grayson had failed to satisfy his

burden of proving actual innocence. This conclusion is not reasonably debatable

in the absence of new evidence of innocence. As a result, we decline to issue a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-7086 Document: 01019390270 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Betty Johnson,

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-17-04143-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 8938 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of Antex Biologics Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jeffrey V. Pirone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jeffrey V. Pirone                                     
|                                                          
|Jeffrey V. Pirone
Chief Financial Officer
November 7, 2002
RS-25 Final Certification Test Series

by the Numbers

500 seconds

Teams employed a “test like you fly” approach throughout the RS-25 

certification series with all hot fires running for at least 500 seconds – 

the same amount of time the engines must fire during an actual launch.

6,465 seconds

In total, the NASA Stennis test team fired developmental engine 

E0525 12 times for 6,465 seconds – more than 107 minutes of testing 

and equivalent to at least 12 SLS launches.

10 minutes

Three of the 12 certification tests ran at least 10 minutes (600 seconds) 

– longer than the amount of time needed to help launch the SLS rocket and send astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft into orbit.

113%

Operators fired the engine at power levels varying between 80% and 

113% to test performance in multiple scenarios. New RS-25 engines 

will power up to the 111% level to provide SLS launches. Testing up to 

the 113% power level provides a margin of operational safety.

650 seconds

The longest test of the certification series occurred on Nov. 29, 2023, 

when the test team fired the engine for 650 seconds. During the hot 

fire, crews also conducted a gimbal test of the engine to ensure it could 

safely pivot as needed to help the SLS rocket maintain stability and 

trajectory during flight.

2nd

A Feb. 29 hot fire marked only the second Leap Day engine test ever 

conducted at NASA Stennis. Forty-four years earlier, on Feb. 29, 1980, 

teams conducted a space shuttle main engine test, also on the historic 

Fred Haise Test Stand, then known as the A-1 Test Stand.
**Exhibit
        32**
  **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 Quarterly Report of Penn Octane Corporation (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
        Charles C. Handly, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
        and Ian
        T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
                  Charles C. HandlyCharles
                  C. Handly, President andChief
                  Executive OfficerAugust
                  14, 2006/s/
                  Ian T. BothwellIan
                  T. Bothwell, Chief Financial OfficerAugust
                  14, 2006
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL JAMES.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"Quiet Supersonic Flight Over Land \u2013 Lowering the Boom","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"IOYGJTMUZJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/quiet-supersonic-flight-over-land-lowering-the-boom\/\">Quiet Supersonic Flight Over Land \u2013 Lowering the Boom<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/quiet-supersonic-flight-over-land-lowering-the-boom\/embed\/#?secret=IOYGJTMUZJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Quiet Supersonic Flight Over Land \u2013 Lowering the Boom” — NASA\" data-secret=\"IOYGJTMUZJ\" 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\/2018\/04\/lbfd_palmdale_groundshot_lockheed-sm.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":456}
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS
                                                          ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                          -------------------
                                         
                                                      1996                      1997
                                                      ----                      ----
<S>                                               <C>                       <C>
Net loss                                          $ (157,551)               $  (120,872)
                                                    =========                  =========
                                                                 
Weighted average shares of common stock                          
  outstanding                                     20,059,503                 22,479,679
                                                                 
Escrowed shares                                     (291,663)                  (291,663)
                                                    ---------                  ---------
                                                                 
Net shares of common stock used in net                           
  loss per share calculations                     19,767,840                 22,188,016
                                                  ==========                 ==========
                                                                 
Net loss per share                                    $ (.01)                    $ (.01)
                                                      =======                    =======
</TABLE>





                                       22
WP 

XE 

W 

sg 

-0 

$2 

i 

pi 13 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

n 

I! f 

I