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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cora Browning,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00516-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/26/2016, 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: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party 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 969 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ruben Leggett,

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-17-04085-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 8973 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 10.2.6**
                                                            AMENDMENT NO. 5                                                       NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 5, dated as of June 22, 2004, among THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association ("Citibank"), CITIGROUP INC., a Delaware corporation and the ultimateparent of Citibank ("Citigroup" and, together with Citibank, the "Parents").
WHEREAS, the Company, Citibank (successor by merger to Citibank (New York State)), and Citicorp, a Delaware corporation,have heretofore entered into a Non-Competition Agreement, dated as of December 22, 1992, the term of which was extendedpursuant to a letter agreement dated November 1, 1999, the term of which was further extended pursuant to Amendment No. 1dated as of June 22, 2000, Amendment No. 2 dated as of June 22, 2001, Amendment No. 3 dated as of May 5, 2002, andAmendment No. 4 dated as of June 22, 2003, and Citigroup was substituted as a party in lieu of Citicorp (theNon-Competition Agreement, as so extended and amended, being referred to here as the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement wish to extend the term of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt andsufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup hereby consent and agree as follows:
SECTION 1.  Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 5, all defined terms used in this Amendment No. 5 shall havethe meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.
SECTION 2.  The term of the Agreement (originally scheduled to expire on December 22, 1999, and previously extended toJune 22, 2004) shall be extended for an additional twelve (12) months to June 22, 2005.
SECTION 3.  This Amendment No. 5 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but allof which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
SECTION 4. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 5, all references in the Agreement to this "Agreement" shallrefer to the Agreement as amended hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup have each caused this Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement to be dulyexecuted by their respective officers as of the day and year first above written.
THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION
By  /s/ Yiannis Zographakis               Name:  Yiannis Zographakis          Title:  Chief Executive Officer
CITIBANK, N.A.
By  /s/ Jennifer Cupo                         Name:  Jennifer Cupo          Title:  Vice President
CITIGROUP INC.
By  /s/ Ajay Banga                             Name:  Ajay Banga          Title:  Business Head
#### B. Whaley et al *v.*M. E. Whaley et al.

Maintenance — Stipulation for in Deed — Failure to Perform Requirements— Reversion.

The failure of vendees in a deed to provide sufficient maintenance for their relations, as a condition precedent, stipulated in the deed, and their removal to another state and remaining away for several years, is held sufficient to entitle the grantors to a reversion of the title to them.

APPEAL EROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

May 23, 1868.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The judgment of the circuit court cancelling the deed from Benjamin Whaley and wife to B. L. Whaley was rendered in May, 1863, and was on the appeal of the defendants reversed by this court in October, 1864; it appears by the amended pleadings filed since the return of the cause to the circuit court, and by the evidence that shortly after said judgment of the circuit court was rendered and before the appeal was prosecuted therefrom, the defendant May E. Moffatt, late Whaley, and her husband, she having intermarried with William Moffatt, abandoned the possession of the land in controversy, leaving said Benjamin Whaley and wife in the occupancy thereof, and that Moffatt, and wife, after residing in the vicinity of the land until in July, 1865, removed to the state of Indiana. Said Benjamin Whaley appears to have removed from the land. But he held the possession of it hy a tenant until his death, which occurred in 1865 and that said Moffatt and wife did not maintain or have the care of said Whaley and wife after their removal from the land, nor does it appear that after the time said Benjamin and wife as the survivor of them would permit them to do so, although that Moffatt and wife was by an amended answer filed in May, 1860, expressed their willingness to do so.

The judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ petition and from which this appeal is prosecuted, was rendered in May, 1866, upon the execution by Moffatt and wife with surety approved by the court, *375of a covenant that they wonld. support and maintain and provide for the plaintiif Jane "Whaley pursuant to the stipulations of said deed.

*Ward, for appellants.*

We are of the opinion that by the removal of the appellees from the land and subsequently from the state, and their failure to provide for Whaley and wife and the survivor of them according to the stipulations of the deed, the title reverted to the grantors, as provided for in the deed, in the event of a failure on the part of the grantees «s his representatives to comply with the condition of the deed, and the appellants were therefore entitled to the relief sought by diem.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DANKA BUSINESS SYSTEMS PLC AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          46,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  593,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,614
<INVENTORY>                                    435,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,102,496
<PP&E>                                         755,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                 352,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,978,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          688,506
<BONDS>                                      1,073,678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,758
<OTHER-SE>                                     188,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,978,398
<SALES>                                      2,223,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,223,117
<CGS>                                        1,593,952 <F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,593,952 <F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               907,444 <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (334,146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (51,793)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (282,353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (282,353)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (4.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.96)
<FN>
<F1>Includes $73.2 million in special charges to cost
of revenue.
<F2>Includes $163.0 million in restructuring and other
special charges.
</FN>


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Beth Ridgeway","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/angela-b-ridgewaynasa-gov\/","title":"Centennial Challenges","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1nDXvGgIe0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/centennial-challenges\/\">Centennial Challenges<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/centennial-challenges\/embed\/#?secret=1nDXvGgIe0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Centennial Challenges” — NASA\" data-secret=\"1nDXvGgIe0\" 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"}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TINA CARTER.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### RITA MCNESBY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 231 *N.J.Super.*568)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7663

JEFFREY ALLAN SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-225-2)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Allan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Angelone, No. CA-96-225-2 (E.D.

Va. Sept. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
CAUSE NO. 12- 14 -00109- CR

BRANDON MEDFORD IN THE

VS. TWELFTH COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS OF APPEALS

MOTION TO

EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANTS PRO SE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SAID COURT: Now comes Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, and moves this court to grant an extension of time to file appellants pro se brief, pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellants Pr ocedure, and for good cause shows the following:

1. The case is on appeal from the 114 th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. 2. The case below was styled State v. Brandon Medford and numbers 114-1087-12. 3. Appellant was convicted of Indecency with a Child. 4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of eight years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

–

Institutional Division. 5. Notice of appeal was given on April 22, 2014. 6. The clerk ’ s record was filed on April 30, 2014; the Reporters Record was filed on August 15, 2014. 7. The Appellants Brief was filed December 15, 2014; The States Reply Brief was not filed and they waived filing one on December 17, 2014. 8. The Appellants Pro Se Brief is due on April 13, 2015. Appellant request the Court an extension of thirty (30) days, 9. Appellant requests an extension of time due to the following facts and circumstances. Appellant is pro se in this matter. The appellant has been reviewing the clerk ’ s record and reports record. Due to the length of the records made available, I need more time to prepare my pro se brief. The appellant is not currently incarcerated and is on bond. During the past three (3) months the appellant has been ill and in and out of the doctor and hospital. Pro se appellant is requesting the court grant an additional thirty (30) days to prepare the brief. 10. Appellant requests an extension of time due to the above facts and circumstances. 11. Appellant prays that this Court grant the Motion to Extend Time to File Appellants Brief for a period of thirty (30) days, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted, Brandon Medford, Pro Se ACCEPTED 121400109 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 4/13/2015 7:44:29 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK302 Paul Street Troup, Texas 75789

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on April 13, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoi ng doc ument was served to Michae l West, Smith County District Attorney ’ s Office, 100 N Broadway, Tyler, Texas 75702, by regular mail, fax, hand delivery, or el ectronic filing,

Brandon Medford
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2046

To authorize the exchange of certain land in Everglades National Park. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2004

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself and Mr. NELSON of Florida) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To authorize the exchange of certain land in Everglades 

National Park.

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

3 SECTION 1. EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK LAND EX4 CHANGE. 

5 Section 102 of the Everglades National Park Protec6 tion and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r–6) is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(h) LAND EXCHANGE.—

9 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 
2

•S 2046 IS 

1 ‘‘(A) DISTRICT.—The term ‘District’ 

2 means the South Florida Water Management 

3 District. 

4 ‘‘(B) FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘Federal 

5 land’ means the approximately 1,054 acres of 

6 land located in the Rocky Glades area of the 

7 park and identified on the map as ‘NPS Ex8 change Lands’. 

9 ‘‘(C) MAP.—The term ‘map’ means the 

10 map entitled ‘Boundary Modification for C–111 

11 Project, Everglades National Park’, numbered 

12 160/80,007, and dated April 30, 2002. 

13 ‘‘(D) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The term 

14 ‘non-Federal land’ means the approximately 

15 1,054 acres of District land located in the 

16 Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental 

17 Area and identified on the map as ‘South Flor18 ida Water Management District Exchange 

19 Lands’. 

20 ‘‘(2) EXCHANGE.—The Secretary shall convey 

21 to the District the fee title to the Federal land in 

22 exchange for the fee title to the non-Federal land. 

23 ‘‘(3) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be 

24 on file and available for public inspection in the ap25 propriate offices of the National Park Service. 
3

•S 2046 IS 

1 ‘‘(4) USE OF FEDERAL LAND.—The Federal 

2 land conveyed to the District shall be used by the 

3 District compatible with the purposes of the C-111 

4 project, including restoration of the Everglades nat5 ural system. 

6 ‘‘(5) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—On completion 

7 of the land exchange under paragraph (2), the Sec8 retary shall modify the boundary of the park to re9 flect the exchange of the Federal land and non-Fed10 eral land.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,357,509
<SECURITIES>                                 2,458,801
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,111
<INVENTORY>                                  2,528,664
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,881,693
<PP&E>                                       1,039,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                 454,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,151,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,265,784
<BONDS>                                        413,918
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,837
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,465,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,151,597
<SALES>                                      1,224,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,224,820
<CGS>                                          643,935
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,550,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               913,861
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,778,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,778,841)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,778,841)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated January 30, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and included in the amended Annual Report of Findwhat.com
and Subsidiary on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2002. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statement of Findwhat.com and Subsidiary on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-46008,
effective date September 18, 2000 and SEC File No. 333-66434, effective date
August 1, 2001) and on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 333-76144, effective date December
31, 2001, SEC File No. 333-47240, effective date May 3, 2001, SEC File No.
333-102436, effective January 9, 2003 and SEC File No. 333-110067, effective
October 29, 2003).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP




Tampa, Florida
February 26, 2004