alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2315 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2315

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2004

            Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend the 
           deadline for the INTELSAT initial public offering.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF IPO DEADLINE.

    Section 621(5)(A)(i) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 
(47 U.S.C. 763(5)(A)(i)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``December 31, 2003,'' and inserting ``June 
        30, 2005,''; and
            (2) by striking ``June 30, 2004;'' and inserting ``December 
        31, 2005;''.

            Passed the Senate April 27, 2004.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Garrett Shea","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/garrett-shea-1nasa-gov\/","title":"SEH Bibliography","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5DJDAETMsO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/bibliography\/\">SEH Bibliography<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/bibliography\/embed\/#?secret=5DJDAETMsO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“SEH Bibliography” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5DJDAETMsO\" 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"}
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9529-1 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 4
Page 1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 _ _ _

 :

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS :No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION :

 :

------------------------------

 - - -

 OCTOBER 11, 2016

 - - -

 DO NOT DISCLOSE - SUBJECT TO FURTHER

 CONFIDENTIALITY REVIEW

 Videotaped deposition of CHRISTOPHER 

 D. GANSER, held at HILTON SHORT HILLS,

 41 John F. Kennedy Parkway, Short Hills, New

 Jersey, commencing at 9:32 a.m., before

 Margaret M. Reihl, a Registered Professional

 Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and

 Notary Public.

 GOLKOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 877.370.3377 ph | 917.591.5672 fax

 deps@golkow.com

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9529-1 Filed 01/02/18 Page 2 of 4
Page 57

1 Q. Have you ever read it?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Do you know you're featured throughout

4 the report?

5 MS. DALY: Object to the form.

6 BY MR. LOPEZ:

7 Q. No, I mean your name is in the report.

8 Wouldn't you want to see what Dr. Kessler, a

9 plaintiff's expert said about, you know, some of the

10 documents that you may have created or weighed in on?

11 MS. DALY: Object to the form.

12 THE WITNESS: I'm sure I will be

13 presented with certain documents from that

14 report with my name on it.

15 BY MR. LOPEZ:

16 Q. Okay. And you haven't seen any part of

17 the report?

18 A. I have not seen any part of the report.

19 Q. Sir, do you agree that when a device is

20 cleared to be marketed through the 510(k) process that

21 this does not reflect a determination by the FDA that

22 the device is safe and effective?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. That a determination of substantial

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9529-1 Filed 01/02/18 Page 3 of 4
Page 58

1 equivalence is not equivalent to an approval by the FDA

2 of the device's safety and effectiveness; you agree

3 with that?

4 A. Could you repeat the question.

5 Q. Do you agree that a determination of

6 substantial equivalence is not equivalent to an

7 approval by the FDA of the device's safety and

8 effectiveness?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And would you also agree that

11 substantial equivalence determination does not in any

12 way denote official approval of the device and that any

13 representation conveying an impression of official

14 approval is misleading and constitutes misbranding?

15 MS. DALY: Object to the form, lack of

16 foundation.

17 THE WITNESS: I would agree.

18 BY MR. LOPEZ:

19 Q. Okay. The next document, we talked

20 about guidance documents and how part of your job was

21 to be familiar with certain guidance documents as they

22 related to devices.

23 Do you recall that?

24 A. Yes.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9529-1 Filed 01/02/18 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jessica C. Clark,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04392-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 1/4/2018, 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: January 12, 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 9682 Filed 01/16/18 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 9682 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-32","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DXhfeC2LiU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-32\/\">STS-32<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-32\/embed\/#?secret=DXhfeC2LiU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-32” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DXhfeC2LiU\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S89-44076\/S89-44076~large.jpg?w=600&h=1862&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1862}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                       313
<INVENTORY>                                     27,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,757
<PP&E>                                         100,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (43,958)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,694
<BONDS>                                        178,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      9,161
<COMMON>                                        34,322
<OTHER-SE>                                     (68,805)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,178
<SALES>                                         88,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,686
<CGS>                                           60,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,613
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,062)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,062)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,062)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.74)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darnell Macon, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 103]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J., at hearing; Robert H. Straus, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 12, 2002, convicting defendant of assault in the first degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 18 years on the assault convictions concurrent with a term of 2 to 6 years on the reckless endangerment conviction, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the reckless endangerment conviction and dismissing that count of the indictment, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant’s arguments improperly rely on trial testimony *(People v Abrew,*95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]) and are unavailing in any event. The hearing record establishes that defendant voluntarily appeared at the police station on two occasions, that he was never subjected to custodial interrogation *(see Thompson v Keohane,*516 US 99, 112 [1995]; *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585 [1969], *cert denied*400 US 851 [1970]), and that he was not arrested or otherwise seized until after his ultimate, inculpatory statement. Moreover, even though the police were not required to administer *Miranda*warnings, they did so at the first interview and reminded defendant of these warnings at the second interview.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, who injured two bystanders while engaging in a gunfight at a crowded theater, was properly convicted of assault under a depraved indifference theory *(see*Penal Law § 120.10 [3]; *People v Russell,*91 NY2d 280 [1998]). Defendant’s acquit*414tal of another charge does not warrant a different conclusion *(see People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557 [2000]). However, the court should have dismissed the reckless endangerment count as a lesser included offense of the first-degree assault convictions *(see People v Cotton,*214 AD2d 994 [1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 733 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.
|   | 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. |

| Dated:      March  25, 2009 | By:      /s/ Louis      Fox            |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Louis      Fox                                                                                |
|                             | Chief      Financial Officer                                                                  |
#### JANET BLANCHET v. CLAUDE BLANCHET.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### The Second National Bank of Mauch Chunk v. William M. Dwight et al.

[See *ante,*189.]

*Creditors’ bill.*

This case is ruled by the opinion in *First National Bank of Mauch Chunk v. Dwight, ante,*189.

Appeal from Wayne. (Reilly, J.)

Argued October 24, 1890.

Decided November 14, 1890.

Judgment creditors5 bill. Defendants Wilson, Luther, and Wilson appeal from decree overruling demurrer.

*193Reversed, and bill dismissed.

The facts are stated in *First National Bank v. Dwight, ante,*189.

*Wisner, Speed & Harvey (John J. Speed,*of counsel), for complainant.

*William O. Webster,*for appellants.

Grant, J.

The facts in this case are the same as in *First National Bank of Mauch Chunk v. Dwight, ante,*189, and the proceedings there had were the same.

Decree reversed, with the costs of both courts, and bill dismissed.

Champlin, O. J., Morse and Cahill, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not Bit.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FREDERICK STREATER.

September 26, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 233 *N.J.Super.*537).
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61873-61874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24444]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0078]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet'' 
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adfdffecfed9cccbcbedcbc9cc83c5c5de83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8888a998bacb9bebe98bebcb9f6b0b0abf6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 2014, the Agency submitted a 
proposed collection of information entitled ``Animal Drug User Fee 
Cover Sheet'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44

[[Page 61874]]

U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0539. 
The approval expires on August 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 9, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24444 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alejandro L. Martinez,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04413-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 9967 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 9967 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 2