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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeannie Wills, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03431-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 8711 Filed 11/08/17 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 8711 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


         I, Richard G. Rose, Treasurer of Exchange National Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (a)      The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
                  period ended June 30, 2002, which this certification
                  accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

         (b)      The information contained in the Company's Quarterly Report on
                  Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, which
                  this certification accompanies, fairly presents, in all
                  material aspects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


Dated:  August 9, 2002.

                                                     /s/ Richard G. Rose
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Richard G. Rose
                                                     Treasurer
t 

E? 

I 

STATQN 

P 

H 

21>-892 0-66-23
#### Pollard *v.*Rowland, in *Error.*

*Thursday, November*9.

POLLARD',

the holder of two promissory notes against *Fullenw*ider, put them in the hands of Rowland, an attornejr at law,, to he collected from the maker. The following .receipt was-given for the notes: “Received of *E. Pollard*one note on if. *Fullenwider*for 100 dollars in land-office money, dated 21st *Aug.*182Ó, and due the first of *May*then next; also one note on said *Fullenwider*for 100 dollars and 37 cents, payable in leather to be delivered four miles from Bloomington, on or before *the.*15th *Nov. 1820, to collect. I*am *to*receive the customary fees when the money is collected, and if it is never collected then a reasonable fee for my *trouble.-J.*Rowland.” *Fullenwider’s*residence was forty miles from *Rowland’s,*and in a county in which *Rowland*did not practise law. 'Rowland, without *Pollard’s*knowledge, sent the notes for collection to *,Stephen,*an .attorney at law, and resident in the same county with *Fullenwider. Stephen,*without delay, obtained judgment against *Fullenwider*on the notes; and issued a fieri facias thereon, which was returned nulla bona. A few months afterwards, *Stephen,*as attorney of *Pollard,*received from *Fullenwider*the amount of the judgment—part in cash and part in property— which he converted to his own use.

*Held,*that *Rowland*was accountable to *Pollard for the acts, of Stephen*in the business, to the same extent that *Stephen*himself was; and that he could make no defence to the suit of *Pollard*on the premises, which *Stephen*could not make wepe he sued- by *Pollard. '*

*23Held, also, that though *Rowland,*could not, under the circumstances of the case, be made liable to *Pollard*for negligence or a v/ant of skill in the management of the-business; yet that he was liable to the suit of Pollard, in consequence of *Stephen's*collection of the money due from *Fullenwider*to *Pol*lard, and of the non-payment of the same by *Stephen*f o *Pollard*(1).

(1)

 There was another point decided in this case, but which, having been since overruled, is not here noticed.

A suit cannot be maintained against an agent for money collected for his principal, nor against an attorney at law for money collected for his client, until after the mdney has been demanded. *Armstrong*v. *Smith, May*term, 1833. *Judah*v. *Dyott, Nov.*term, 1833. Post.

An attorney is not liable for a mistake in a point of law on which reasonable doubt may be entertained. *King*v. Burt, 1 Nev. & Man. 263.
#### H. C. Howard *v*M. Murphy.

Pleadings — Answer—Offset—Counter Claim — Issue in Bar.

The answer of the defendant was not an offset or counter-claim, but presented an issue in bar, which by the provisions of the Civil Code, stood denied except as conferred by the statements of the petition.

Contradictory Evidence — Peremptory Instruction.

Where .there is a contrariety of evidence the jury should be permitted to find on it without a peremptory instruction.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

July 1, 1867.

Holt, *for appellant.*

Tenney, *for appellee.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

The answer of defendant below was not an offset or counterclaim, but presented an issue in bar which by the provisions of the Civil Code stood denied except so far as confessed by the statements of the petition; therefore, it was not only unnecessary to reply, but no such pleading is known to the Code.

There was some contrariety of evidence; therefore, the jury should have been permitted to find on it without a peremptory instruction from the court to find for plaintiff.

It was erroneous to give the peremptory instruction as couched in the language of the first instruction, which was not cured by the following instruction, though they seem to be inconsistent.

As the judgment must be reversed for this error, it is unnecessary to say anything as to the discovery of the evidence after the trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, with directions for a nevr trial.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert E. Lewis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robert-e-lewisnasa-gov\/","title":"Astronaut Strength, Conditioning and Rehabilitation","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vScyiJENV7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/astronaut-strength-conditioning-and-rehabilitation\/\">Astronaut Strength, Conditioning and Rehabilitation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/astronaut-strength-conditioning-and-rehabilitation\/embed\/#?secret=vScyiJENV7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Astronaut Strength, Conditioning and Rehabilitation” — NASA\" data-secret=\"vScyiJENV7\" 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\/2023\/03\/iss-44-kjell-lindgren-exercises-using-the-advanced-resistive-exercise-device-1.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":901}
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 879-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 879-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 2
#### MUQTAIR SHABAZZ v. WILLIAM H. FAUVER.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Nancy Brady *v.*The Steamer Armada Burns et al.

Jurisdiction — Action for Trespass by Master of a Steamer.

An action of trepass nlay be maintained against the master of a steamer, for wrongs committed, though no action therefor could be maintained against the boat except in the Admirality Courts of the United States.

APPEAX EROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT.

September 15, 1868.

*Huston, for appellant.*

*Spalding, McBlroy, Bush, for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Court

Judge Wixxiams:

The petition is against the steamer Armada Ann Burns and J. V. Throop as master, and as to the boat and her owners it is a proceeding in rem for a massive tort. "Who the owners, or what their names, are not designated in the caption nor the petition, nor is there any process against them as individuals.

As to the boat and her owners the case comes clearly within the principles announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Hines vs. Treno, 4 Wallace, 355, and as decided by this court in Stuart vs. Hany, 3 Bush. And belongs exclusively to admiralty jurisdiction, and the demurrer was properly sustained.

But as to Throop the petition sets out a case of trespass clearly remedial by the common law and therefore is not a mere marine tort to be remedied by a proceeding in rem in the admiralty courts of the United States, but is one for which he may be held personally responsible by suit in any court having common law jurisdiction.

It is true that slavery was not recognized by the common law, yet slaves being personal property by the positive law of Kentucky any violation of the owners’ legal rights thereto, within her jurisdiction may be redressed by common law remedies as has often been held in the courts of this and other states.

Wherefore, the judgment sustaining the demurrer as to the “Armada Aim Burns” is affirmed. But as to J. Y. Throop it is reversed with directions to over-rule it is to him and for further proceedings as herein indicated.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

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

                   ($ in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Quarter Ended       Nine Months Ended
                                                                September 30,          September 30,
                                                                    1996                   1996
                                                                -------------       -----------------
         <S>                                                      <C>                    <C>
         Net income                                               $ 6,181                $ 16,908
                                                                  =======                ========

         Net income per share (1)                                 $  0.33                $   0.94
         
         Primary and fully diluted earnings per share (2)         $  0.32                $   0.92
</TABLE> 



1)       Net income per share was calculated based on the weighted average
shares outstanding of 18,015,315 and 15,476,855 for the nine months and quarter
ended September 30, 1996, respectively.

2)       Primary and fully diluted earnings per share for the nine months ended
September 30, 1996 were calculated based on weighted average shares outstanding
of 18,475,285, which assumes the exercise of options covering 858,391 shares
and computes incremental shares using the treasury stock method.

         Primary and fully diluted earnings per share for the quarter ended
September 30, 1996 were calculated based on weighted average shares outstanding
of 19,394,804 and 19,420,412, respectively, which assumes the exercise of
options covering 858,391 shares and computes incremental shares using the
treasury stock method.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Ian T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Penn Octane Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrantand have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 21, 2007              /s/  Ian T. Bothwell   Ian T. Bothwell   Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert S. Arrighi","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robertsarrighi\/","title":"Peggy Yohner: NASA Lewis\u2019 First Woman Division Chief","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rOTMvWYIqU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/peggy-yohner-nasa-lewis-first-woman-division-chief\/\">Peggy Yohner: NASA Lewis\u2019 First Woman Division Chief<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/peggy-yohner-nasa-lewis-first-woman-division-chief\/embed\/#?secret=rOTMvWYIqU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Peggy Yohner: NASA Lewis\u2019 First Woman Division Chief” — NASA\" data-secret=\"rOTMvWYIqU\" 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\/2023\/03\/grc-1981-c-02569-e1678204822924.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":651}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL PARKER.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUMUMBA RAHMAN MUHAMMAD, A/K/A DENNIS ELTON HUGHES.

May 8, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Greg Effertz, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-K of Retek Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 controlover financial reporting.     Date: March 12, 2004 **By:** **By: /s/ Gregory A. Effertz**   Gregory A. Effertz   Senior Vice President,Finance and AdministrationChief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial andAccounting Officer)