alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"Aeron\u00e1utica: Cuando vuelas, \u00a1la NASA est\u00e1 contigo!","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NU2cqUpMrq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/es\/aeron%c3%a1utica-cuando-vuelas-la-nasa-est%c3%a1-contigo\/\">Aeron\u00e1utica: Cuando vuelas, \u00a1la NASA est\u00e1 contigo!<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/es\/aeron%c3%a1utica-cuando-vuelas-la-nasa-est%c3%a1-contigo\/embed\/#?secret=NU2cqUpMrq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Aeron\u00e1utica: Cuando vuelas, \u00a1la NASA est\u00e1 contigo!” — NASA\" data-secret=\"NU2cqUpMrq\" 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\/02\/2016_Aero_Campaign_letter_sized_crop.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":464}
#### STATE v. MILLER

No. 506P01

Case below: 146 N.C. App. 308

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed 4 October 2001.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephanie Winnegan,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03544-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 9205 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. DA 24-0108

PROTECT THE GALLATIN RIVER,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

GALLATIN COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, GALLATIN COUNTY COMMISSION, 

AND JEFF AND JIRINA PFEIL,

Defendants/Appellees.

On Appeal from Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County

District Court Cause No. DV-16-2021-0001335-DK,

Honorable Peter B. Ohman, Presiding

GRANT OF PFEIL APPELLEES UNOPPOSED

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to the authority granted under Rule 26, M.R.App.P., Appellee Jeff 

and Jirina Pfeils’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Appellee 

Pfeils may file and serve their answer brief in this matter on or before July 8, 2024.

Dated this day June, 2024.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 7 2024

06/07/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0108
Exhibit 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM














We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-92557, No. 333-93237, No. 333-91144, and No. 333-117547 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 13, 2009 (April 9, 2010 as to the effects of the immaterial restatement described in Note 1, and the effects of the adoption of new accounting guidance for the presentation and disclosure of noncontrolling interests discussed in Note 1) relating to the January 31, 2009 consolidated statements of loss, stockholders' equity and cash flows and financial statement schedule of Blyth, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blyth, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended January 31, 2011.











/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Stamford, CT


April 8, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
balance sheet of CNL Income Fund XIII, Ltd, at March 31, 2000, and its statement
of income for the three  months then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference  to the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund XIII,  Ltd.  for the three months
ended March 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         964,790
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  84,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                   26,232
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         24,546,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,487,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,186,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,866,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,186,437
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               868,634
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  238,337
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,584
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                685,941
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            685,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   685,941
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its  industry,  CNL Income Fund XIII,  Ltd. has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### Riley and Another *v.*Harkness, in Error.

*Saturday,*Novem*ber*11.

A SPECIAL plea of non , est factum, alleging a material alteration of the bond without the obligor’s consent, may, if not sworn to, be rejected on motion; but it cannot be treated as a nullity (1).

Two pleas in bar to the whole cause of action. An issue in law on one and of fact on the other. Verdict for the plaintiff. *Held,*that final judgment could not be rendered on the verdict,, until the issue in law was disposed of (2).

The plaintiff cannot demur and reply to the same plea (3).

(1)

 The statute requires pleas of non est factum to be sworn to. R. C. 1824, p. 292.—R. C. 1831, p. 40-3.

(2)

 Formation. Several pleas in bar. Replication to the eighth plea, and demurrer to the replication. On the other pleas issues were joined. Judgment on the demurrer for the demandant. The demaudant, afterwards, proceeded to trial on the other issues, and obtained a verdict. The entry ou the record was as-follows:— 44And hereupon all and singular the premises whereof the said parties have put themselves upon the judgment of the Couit, being seen and by the justices here fully understood, and mature deliberation thereupon had, it appears to the said justices here that the replication of the said *Francis*Cholmeley, the demandant, .to the said plea of the said *Charles Cockerell*and *Henry Trail,*the said tenants, by them eighthly above pleaded, aud the matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same aie above pleaded and sel foith, is sufficient in law for the said demandant to have and maintain his aforesaid action against them; *but because it is unknown to the justices*here, *whether or not the said Charles Cockerell and Henry Trail, the said*tenants, *will be convicted on the trial of the said issues above joined between the parties aforesaid, to be tried by the country; therefore, let the giving of the judgment in this behalf be stayeduniil the trial of the said last-mentioned issues*

(Then, after stating the venire facias, &c., and that, on the trial of the issues, the jury found the several issues joined in favour of the demandant, soveial continuances were entered, and lastly to the moirow of the Holy Trinity.)

aAt which day come here the parties last aforesaid by their respective attorneys afoiesaid, and hereupon all and singular the premises being seen, and by the said justices here fully understood, and mature deliberation being thereupon had, it is considemd by the said justices that the said *Francis Cholméley*do recover his seism against the said *Charles Cockerell*and *Henry Trail,*of the manor and tenements aforesaid, with the appurtenances above demanded. And the said *Charles Cockerell*and *Henry Trail*in mercy, &c.” *Cockerell et al.*v. *Cholmeley,*10 Barn. *&*Cress. 564.

Vide, also, *Meylin*v. *Woodford,*Vol. 1. of these Rep. *286.—Fischli*v. *Cowan,*Ibid. *350.—Swan*v. *Rary, Nov.*term, 1833, post,

(3)

 Vide *Hair*v. *Weaver,*Vol. 1. of these Rep. 77.— Steph, on Pl. 296.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James E. Pugh,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00255-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss, PLLC - Jackson, MS

(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 2/11/2016, 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: February 19, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, 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 859 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 1
|   | 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 30, 2007 | By: /s/ Michael Forster            |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Michael Forster                                                                           |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer                                                                   |
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

) ANTHO NY JER DI

NE, et al. , ) ) Plaintiffs, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-01840 ( PL F) ) FED ERAL

DEPOSI T I

NSURANCE ) CORPOR ATI ON, et al. , ) ) Def endants. )

)

DI SMI SSAL ORDER For the re asons stated in the a ccompa nying O pinion, it i s here by ORDERED that def

endants’ motions to dismis s [Dkt. # 16, 21] are GRANTED; it is FURTHE R ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for summary judgme nt [ Dkt. #23] and to issue a c ertifica

te of pe ndency

[Dkt. # 33] are DENI ED; it is FURTHE R ORDERED that defe ndant FD I C’s motion t o strike [Dkt. #29] is GRANTED, a

nd that plaintiff’s Notice [Dkt. #28] is STR I CKEN; and it is FURTHE R ORDERED that this civil action is DI SMI SSED W I TH PREJ UDI CE. This is a final appe alable O rder

. SeeFe d. R. App. P. 4(a). SO ORDERED. /s/_______________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: August 13, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1520

TIMOTHY OMAR HANKINS, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MARY JEAN GURGANUS; CHAD 

AXFORD; JENNIFER SMITH ECHOLS; KATHLEEN MURPHY; JOHN M. 

OLIVER; SARDIA MARIE HANKINS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00037-D)

Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Omar Hankins, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Omar Hankins, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion 

to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying his request for mandamus 

relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Hankins v. North Carolina, No. 7:18-cv00037-D (E.D.N.C. May 8, 2019). We deny Hankins’ motion to recuse any judge who 

has been admitted to the North Carolina bar. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### NIKI TRADING CORPORATION v. MICHAEL M. CANTOR.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          65,852
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             238
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                94,424
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         57,347<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,866
<DEPOSITS>                                     132,524
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             18,638
<LONG-TERM>                                     28,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               50
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 227,866
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,333
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  397
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,730
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,507
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,540
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,190
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,087
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 55,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,563
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      29,563
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.26
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,083
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,242
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,464
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,211
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,438
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,438
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>$1,902 of loan loss allowance transferred to loans held for sale which are
included in loans net of this amount.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### JOHN FERRANTE, ET AL. v. ROBERT B. BLACKMAN, ET AL. JOHN FERRANTE, ET AL. v. GROVELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lizzie Minniefield,

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-17-04269-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: December 8, 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 9353 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 1