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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sabrina Dixon,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04569-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners 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 12/12/2017, 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: December 20, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

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

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

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

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

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

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9515 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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

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

a summons or of service. 

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

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

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9515 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 2
Order entered July 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00850-CV

IN RE HEATHER DEANNA, Relator

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-51083-07

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion for emergency stay. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this 

original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS CASE NO. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL 2641

_______________________________________ 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff,

Nicole Waters

Case No. 2:17-cv-01243-DGC

_______________________________________ 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW attorney, Brian S. Katz, of the Flint Law Firm, LLC, and enters his 

appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff(s) in the above referenced action. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FLINT LAW FIRM LLC 

/s/ Brian S. Katz

Brian S. Katz, KY Bar No. 86633 

FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 

2226 Broadway, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 2903 

Paducah, Kentucky 42002-2903 

Phone: (270) 575-3939 

Fax: (270) 575-3936 

bkatz@flintfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8361 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00852-CV

Jerry L. HAMBLIN and Ricochet Energy, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Thomas A. LAMONT, 

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CVF-000665-D2

The Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that Appellants Jerry L. Hamblin and Ricochet Energy, 

Inc. have no obligation to indemnify Thomas A. Lamont for any liability arising out of the lawsuit 

filed in trial court cause number 2008-CVF-000353-D1, styled Vaquillas Energy, Ltd., et al. v. 

Thomas A. Lamont, et al.

SIGNED December 11, 2013.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Exhibit 21.1

PDS Gaming Corporation and Consolidated Subsidiaries  Parent and Subsidiaries

|Name of Company                              |  | Organized Under
Laws of |  | Percentage of
Voting Securities
Beneficially Owned
By Registrant (1)
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Registrant:                                  |  |                         |  |                                                                     
|PDS Gaming Corporation                       |  | Minnesota               |  |                                                                     
|Consolidated Subsidiaries of the Registrant: |  |                         |  |                                                                     
|PDS Gaming CorporationNevada                |  | Nevada                  |  | 100                                                                 
|PDS Casinos Reno, Inc.                       |  | Nevada                  |  | 100                                                                 
|PDS Gaming CorporationMississippi           |  | Mississippi             |  | 100                                                                 
|PDS Casinos Greenville, Inc.                 |  | Mississippi             |  | 100                                                                 
|PDS Gaming CorporationColorado              |  | Colorado                |  | 100                                                                 
|PDS Resorts LLC                              |  | Nevada                  |  | 100                                                                 
|PDS FR LLC                                   |  | Nevada                  |  | 100                                                                 

---

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                          181
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                     12
<INVENTORY>                                   2,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              7,026
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                7,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            72
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       1
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    7,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  7,340
<SALES>                                      10,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             10,304
<CGS>                                         6,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 6,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (980)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (980)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.73)
        


</TABLE>
**SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NI**  **A COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE** 

**FINA L REPORT**  **1 Revision of Comment to Pa.R.E. 902**  On June 12, 2017 , effective November 1, 2017 , upon recommendation of the Committee on Rules of Evidence, the Court ordered the revision of the Comment to Pa.R.E. 902. T he purpose of this revision is to alert readers that certain self
authenticating records may also require proof of identification. Under the Rules of Evidence, certificates evidencing a prior criminal record are s elf
-authenticating under Pa.R.E. 902(4). See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5328, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103, and 75 Pa.C.S. § 6501. However, self
-authenticating certificates fulfill only part of the requirement for proving a prior criminal conviction. U nder case law, the proponent has the burden of proving: 1) a prior conviction is authentic (i.e. , with a self
-authenticating certificate); and 2) the person against whom it is sought to be admitted is the same person reflected on the certificate. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 344 A.2d 864 (Pa. 1975).

1 The Committee’s Final Report should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee’s Comments or the contents of the Committee’s explanatory Final Reports.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"Michoud Images","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"EUaQVng3wP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/michoud-images\/\">Michoud Images<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/michoud-images\/embed\/#?secret=EUaQVng3wP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Michoud Images” — NASA\" data-secret=\"EUaQVng3wP\" 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\/11\/maf-20231116-cs2-astronautvisit01.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
No. 87-6343.

#### Henslee *v.*Sykes, Director, Department of Administrative Services.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of peti*975tioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 18, 1988, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition for writ of certiorari in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan,

Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens, dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in *Brown*v. *Herald Co.,*464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petition for writ of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed *in forma pauperis.*
#### Harrison Thompson et al. *v*Henry Bell.

Bills of Exchange — Failure to Present for Payment or Pretext — Excuse—• Liability ot Endorsers.

Commercial intercourse having been entirely suspended between Kentucky and the city of New Orleans, at which place the bill was payable, at the time of maturity, the failure of the holder to present it for payment '-r protest at that time, did not operate to release the endorser.

APPEAL PROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 16, 1867.

Opinion of the Court ry

Judge Hardin :

It sufficiently appears that the appellee was the owner and holder of the hill of exchange in controversy before and on the 15th day of December, 1861, when the same matured, and was payable in the city of New Orleans, and that by the Civil War then being waged between various Southern States, including Louisiana, and the Government of the Hnited States, and the States adhering thereto, including Kentucky, within which the appellee was, and resided, commercial intercourse between the State of Kentucky *78an dthe city of New Orleans was.entirely suspended, and so continud to be from the maturity of said bill, within the month of July, 1862.

The holder of the bill being thus inadvertently prevented from causing it to be presented for payment, or protested, the failure to do so did not, in our opinion, operate to release the appellants from this liability as indorsers.

This conclusion, which renders the consideration of other questions unnecessary, seems to us to be in accordance with the decisions of this court in the cases of Gravis against Tilford, 2 Duvall, 108, and Bell, Berkley & Co. *v.*Hall’s Exrs., etc, in same volume, 292.

Wherefore, perceiving no available error in the judgment, the same is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Fresh America Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-35019 and 333-3714) on Forms S-8 of Fresh America Corp. of our report dated
March 11, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Fresh America and
subsidiaries as of January 1, 1999 and January 2, 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended January 1, 1999, which report
appears in the January 1, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Fresh America
Corp.


                                      KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 24, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24605]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access 
Committee.
    Date: October 29, 2014.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ken Nakamura, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 
9306, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-402-0838.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 10, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24605 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Malcolm Freeney,

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-17-04595-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 20, 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 9459 Filed 12/28/17 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE AUTO PROP. AND CAS. INS. CO. v. SOUTHARD

No. 408P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 438

Petition by defendant (Southard) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                      TRO LEARNING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      AND EQUIVALENT SHARE OF COMMON STOCK

                (Unaudited, in thousands, except per share data)

                                                                Three Months
                                                              Ended January 31,
                                                             -------------------
                                                               1997       1996
                                                             --------   --------

 AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING:
 1.   Weighted average number of shares of common
         stock outstanding during the period . . . . .       6,182        6,081

 2.   Net additional shares assuming stock options
         exercised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         ---          ---
                                                        ----------   ----------
 3.   Weighted average number of shares and
         equivalent shares of common stock outstanding
         during the period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       6,182        6,081
                                                        ----------   ----------
                                                        ----------   ----------
 INCOME (LOSS):


 4.   Net loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     $(2,314)     $(1,049)
                                                        ----------   ----------
                                                        ----------   ----------

 PER SHARE AMOUNTS:

 Net loss (line 4/line 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      $(0.37)      $(0.17)
                                                        ----------   ----------
                                                        ----------   ----------


                                       12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kirk Douglas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03471-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 days from 10/26/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

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

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

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

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

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

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

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

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

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

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8738 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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

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

a summons or of service. 

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

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

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8738 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2