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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tamiko N. Woodland,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03417-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 10/23/2017, 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 26, 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 8578 Filed 11/03/17 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 8578 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 2
#### SHARON SINTON v. ARTHUR H. STOCK.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert A. Carr,

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-17-03714-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 9174 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    168,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               351,800
<PP&E>                                         947,400
<DEPRECIATION>                               (156,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,893,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          420,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     181,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,893,700
<SALES>                                        383,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               383,000
<CGS>                                          321,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (8,300)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIANHUA YAO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-74363

Agency No. A200-575-472

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2016**

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jianhua Yao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 31 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 13-74363 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the omissions from Yao’s asylum application that he was handcuffed and 

beaten unconscious, and that his wife was taken away for a sterilization surgery. 

See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility 

determination was supported by omission in asylum application of facts that were 

crucial to establishing petitioners were persecuted); see also Shrestha at 

1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of 

circumstances”). Yao’s explanation for the omissions does not compel a contrary 

conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in 

the absence of credible testimony, Yao’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to
his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Thomas A. CarrThomas A. CarrChief Executive OfficerNovember 1, 2005/s/ Stephen E. RiffeeStephen E. RiffeeChief Financial OfficerNovember 1, 2005
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Exploring Earth: Student Airborne Researchers fly on NASA\u2019s DC-8","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iMXACX8h7l\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/exploring-earth-student-airborne-researchers-fly-on-nasas-dc-8\/\">Exploring Earth: Student Airborne Researchers fly on NASA\u2019s DC-8<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/exploring-earth-student-airborne-researchers-fly-on-nasas-dc-8\/embed\/#?secret=iMXACX8h7l\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Exploring Earth: Student Airborne Researchers fly on NASA\u2019s DC-8” — NASA\" data-secret=\"iMXACX8h7l\" 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"}
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1997 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1997

To reinstate the safeguard measures imposed on imports of certain steel 
              products, as in effect on December 4, 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2003

 Mr. Byrd (for himself, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Rockefeller) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate the safeguard measures imposed on imports of certain steel 
              products, as in effect on December 4, 2003.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL 
              PRODUCTS.

    Notwithstanding the proclamation of the President of the United 
States of December 4, 2003--
            (1) those safeguard measures implemented under Proclamation 
        7529 of March 5, 2002, with respect to certain steel products, 
        including the modifications made by Proclamation 7529 to 
        subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
        of the United States, shall remain in effect during the period 
        beginning on December 5, 2003, and ending on the applicable 
        date provided in subchapter III of chapter 99 of such Schedule, 
        as in effect on December 4, 2003; and
            (2) the proclamation of the President of December 4, 2003, 
        and the modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule made by 
        that proclamation, shall have no effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MIGUEL MARTINEZ.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### WOOD v. GUILFORD CTY.

No. 318PA01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 507

Petition by defendant (Guilford County) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 22 August 2001.
NO. 07-12-00008-CR THROUGH 07-12-00017-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D APRIL 5, 2012

ALEX RAY FOX, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY; NO. 8646 THROUGH 8655; HONORABLE PHIL N. VANDERPOOL, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND Appellant Alex Ray Fox a ppeals his convictions for possession with intent to promote child pornography 1 and the resulting concurrent sentences of ten years of imprisonment. The reporter’s record was fil ed on February 2, 2012. The clerk’s record was filed on April 3, 2012. Incl uded in the clerk’s record is t he trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal. However, this cert ification is not signed by appellant or his attorney. As such, this certification does not comply with Texa s Rule of Appellate

1 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.26 (West 2011).2 Procedure 25.2(d), which require s that the certification be signed by appe llant and that a copy be provided him.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal, and rem and the cause to the trial court to

amend its certification of def endant’s right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(f). On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatev er means it finds necessary to obtain appellant's signature on an amended trial court's certification and to provide him a copy

of the certification. The cour t further is directed to cause the amended certification and any orders signed by the court on remand to be collected into a supplemental clerk’s record, which shall be filed with the cl erk of this Court by April 27, 2012.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### William H. Tennison *v.*Edmond Pointer.

Pleading — Cross Petition.

Where a cross petition and counter-claim depend on the facts stated in the answer to original petition, held that those facts showing imposture and entire want of title either legal or equitable, are admitted by the failure to respond to the allegations specifically, as required by the Code.

*Scott, for appellants.*

*Lindsey, for appellees.*

APPEAL EROM HART CIRCUIT COURT.

December 15, 1868.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Kobertson :

*665
      *J. G.*Bush, *Barnett*& *Edwards,^ for appellant.*

Daioson, *H. G.*Martin, *for appellee.*

The appellant held the affirmative and the burden of proving his allegations, so far as denied, devolved on him.

The most material of the allegations show a total want of consideration and an ungenerous advantage taken of inexperience, ignorance and misplaced confidence.

The cross-petition and counter claim depend on the facts stated in answer to the original petition. And those facts, showing imposture and entire want of title, either legal or equitable, are admitted by the appellee’s failure to respond to the allegations specifically, as required by the Code.

There being then no consideration for the compromise, it is not enforcable, and there is an implied obligation to refund the $55 paid by the appellant.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition and render judgment on the cross-petition, as sought by it on the counter claim.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA\u2019s X-59 Arrives Back in California Following Critical Ground Tests","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9Zp3vNovTc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-x-59-arrives-back-in-california-following-critical-ground-tests\/\">NASA\u2019s X-59 Arrives Back in California Following Critical Ground Tests<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-x-59-arrives-back-in-california-following-critical-ground-tests\/embed\/#?secret=9Zp3vNovTc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s X-59 Arrives Back in California Following Critical Ground Tests” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9Zp3vNovTc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/4.18-3.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Bird,

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-17-04153-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 9138 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, James M. McNeill, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. ; 

 

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 tomake 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation ; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and;

 

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

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 5, 2004