alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of S.L., Jr. * From the 118th District

and C.I.L., children, Court of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 49,015

.

No. 11

- 14

- 00056

- CV * August 21, 2014

* Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

judgment of the tr ial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID STUCKEY, a/k/a Shortstop,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:11-cr-00417-TLW-11; 4:14-cv-01536-TLW)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Stuckey, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Stuckey seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Stuckey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Stuckey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD WILLIAM CRANDALL, JR.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification granted. (See 231 *N.J.Super.*124)
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9878-1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Roberts,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03644-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9091 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2
  Heritage
Oaks Bancorp
 Annual
Report on Form 10-K
 For the
Year Ended December 31, 2008
  Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 The
undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350,  that
(i) the Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed
by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Annual
Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the
applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii)
the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Dated:  March
      6, 2009
                  /s/
      Margaret A. TorresMargaret
      A. TorresExecutive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial andPrincipal
      Accounting Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

William A. Jackson, 

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-17-03473-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 6, 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 8821 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



Section 906 Certification



Each of the undersigned, in connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Danka Business Systems PLC (the Company) for the quarterly period ending
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), 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 his
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/    P. LANG
LOWREY   
|------------------------
|P. Lang Lowrey          
|Chief Executive Officer 
|August 14, 2003         
|                        
|/S/    F. MARK
WOLFINGER
|F. Mark Wolfinger       
|Chief Financial Officer 
|August 14, 2003         



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.28
 PLATO LEARNING, INC.
 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(As Amended by the Second Amendment)
 Purpose
 Eligibility




---



##### 



Effective Date of Plan; Purchase Periods
  Basis of Participation




---



##### 








---



##### 



Purchase Price
 Issuance of Shares




---



##### 



Termination of Participation




---



##### 



Termination or Amendment of the Plan
  provided however




---



##### 



Non-Transferability
 Stockholders Rights
 Administration of the Plan




---



##### 



Maximum Number of Shares
 Miscellaneous




---



#####
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert McGowan,

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-17-03640-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 9184 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DWAYNE KIRBY.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
|  | 1.  | I      have reviewed this first amendment to annual report on Form 10-K of      Heritage Oaks Bancorp; |
|--|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 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 to make 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.  | (Omitted      per Compliance Disclosure Interpretation161.01) |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 4.  | (Omitted      per Compliance Disclosure Interpretation161.01) |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 5.  | (Omitted      per Compliance Disclosure Interpretation161.01) |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                         |   |                               |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  April      14, 2010     |   | /s/      Lawrence P. Ward          |   |
|                                                         |   | Lawrence      P. Ward              |   |
|                                                         |   | Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
|                                                         |   | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas C. Lasher, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 914]

Carpinello, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), rendered August 25, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree.

After pleading guilty to the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree and waiving his right to appeal, defendant moved to withdraw his plea alleging that his plea was involuntary and the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. County Court denied the motion and thereafter sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon prison term of eight years, followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Initially, we note that defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v MacCue,*8 AD3d 910, 911 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 708 [2004]; *People v Kelly,*3 AD3d 789, 789 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 801 [2004]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, his factual recitation during the plea colloquy did *944not negate an essential element of the crime or cast doubt upon his guüt and, therefore, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable *(see People v Hermance,*12 AD3d 851, 852 [2004]; *People v Kelly, supra*at 789). Although defendant now claims that his intoxication at the time of the incident negated the element of intent, at no time during the plea allocution or at sentencing did defendant claim that his intoxication prevented him from remembering his participation in the crime *(see People v Mahar,*12 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]).

Furthermore, we are fully satisfied that defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. The transcript of the plea colloquy reveals that County Court fully advised defendant of the rights that he was relinquishing as a result of his plea and ascertained that defendant understood those rights and was pleading guilty of his own volition. Defendant admitted that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, he had sufficient time to discuss the plea with his attorney and he was satisfied with the services of his attorney. Defendant thereafter allocated to facts establishing the elements of the crime for which he was convicted *(see People v Watson,*8 AD3d 911, 911 [2004]; *People v Burdo,*1 AD3d 793, 794 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 761 [2004]). Likewise, we find no merit to defendant’s claim that his attorney’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense resulted in his guilty plea and deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Jaworski,*296 AD2d 597, 598 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA-Sponsored Advanced Composites Consortium Strengthens","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rAZEpmgTKs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aavp\/armd-aavp-hicam\/nasa-sponsored-advanced-composites-consortium-strengthens\/\">NASA-Sponsored Advanced Composites Consortium Strengthens<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aavp\/armd-aavp-hicam\/nasa-sponsored-advanced-composites-consortium-strengthens\/embed\/#?secret=rAZEpmgTKs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA-Sponsored Advanced Composites Consortium Strengthens” — NASA\" data-secret=\"rAZEpmgTKs\" 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\/07\/toray_cetex_tape_roll.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clarence I. Lindo, Sr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04430-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 1/23/2018, 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: February 1, 2018 /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 9985 Filed 02/06/18 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 9985 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 929 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 1