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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karen DeVries,

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-17-04255-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 9344 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 1
II 

Calendar No. 538 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2451 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to restore the application 

date for country of origin labeling. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2004 

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. 

GRAHAM of Florida, and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read the first time 

MAY 21, 2004 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to restore 

the application date for country of origin labeling. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING. 

4 Section 285 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

5 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638d) is amended by striking ‘‘2006’’ 

6 and all that follows through ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2004’’. 
Calendar No. 538 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2451 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 

gin labeling. to restore the application date for country of oriMAY 21, 2004 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wallene Kingston-O'Reilly,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04423-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 9957 Filed 02/05/18 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 9957 Filed 02/05/18 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2


                                   BLYTH, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION


    I, the undersigned Secretary of BLYTH, INC., a Delaware corporation, certify
that the attached is a true copy of resolutions adopted by the Board of
Directors of Blyth, Inc. on March 28, 2001, at a meeting throughout which a
quorum was present, and that the same is still in full force and effect.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
Blyth, Inc. this 1st day of May, 2001.


                                       /s/ BRUCE D. KREIGER
                                       --------------------
                                       Name:  Bruce D. Kreiger
                                       Title: Secretary


                                   BLYTH, INC.

                          Board of Directors Resolution

                                 March 28, 2001

                                      * * *

                                    FORM 10-K

RESOLVED, that the form, terms, and provisions of the Annual Report on Form 10-K
(the "Form 10-K") in substantially the draft form presented to and reviewed by
this Board, are approved and that Robert B. Goergen and Robert H Barghaus be,
and each of them with full power to act without the other hereby is, authorized
(i) to sign the Form 10-K on behalf of the Corporation and any amendments
thereto as either of them may approve on behalf of the Corporation, in such form
as the officer executing the Form 10-K or any such amendment may approve, with
any changes from the form presented to this meeting as he may approve, such
execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval, and (ii) to file the Form
10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"); and be it
further

RESOLVED, that each of the directors, the Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and the Vice
President and General Counsel, of the Corporation, are each hereby authorized to
execute in their respective capacities, a power of attorney in favor of Robert
B. Goergen, Robert H. Barghaus and Bruce D. Kreiger designating each of them as
the true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents of the signatory with full
power and authority to execute and to cause to be filed with the Commission the
Form 10-K for fiscal year 2001 with all exhibits and other documents in
connection therewith as such attorneys-in-fact, or any one of them, may deem
necessary or desirable; and to do and perform each and every act and thing
necessary or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all
intents and purposes as such officers and directors could do themselves.
#### Hays *v.*Walker.

*Thursday, December*4.

*Held,*that if a promissory note for 350 dollars, made by *A.*to *B.*without consideration, and indorsed by the latter, for the purpose of procuring money on it, was purchased of them by C., with notice of the facts, for 300 dollars, the transaction was usurious.

*Held,*also, that *C.,*in such case, though the purchase were made before the act of 1843 respecting interest, might, since that act, recover from the indorser the 300 dollars paid for the note.

ERROR to the *Dearborn*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— Assumpsit by .Hays against *Walker.*The declaration contains ten counts. The first nine are upon the indorsements of several promissory notes by *Walker*to *Hays;*the tenth is a count for money lent and advanced. The special counts show, that one *Baldwin*and another made and delivered to *Walker*the promissory notes mentioned in the counts; that *Walker*assigned them to *Hays,*and that *Hays*although he used due diligence by suit, <fcc., failed to recover from the makers. Plea, non assumpsit. The defence set up was usury. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

The only error complained of arises upon the instructions to the jury. The instruction alleged to be erroneous is as follows, viz.: That if the makers of the notes made and delivered them to *Walker*without any consideration, that they might be indorsed by *Walker*to give them credit, and *Walker*did indorse them to enable the makers to raise money on them, and *Hays*purchased them afterwards from the makers *541and indorser, knowing that they were so gotten up and for the purpose aforesaid, for the sum of 300 dollars, (the notes being for the sum of 350 dollars,) the transaction is colourable and usurious; • and the plaintiff cannot recover even the amount which he paid for the notes.

*J. Ryman,*for the plaintiff.

*E. Dumont,*for the defendant.

The Court was correct in instructing the jury that if the facts were as above stated, the transaction would be usurious. But the Court erred in instructing the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover even the amount which he paid for the notes. The obvious meaning of the latter instruction is, that the plaintiff could not recover the principal sum loaned by him; for the amount that.he paid for the notes was a loan of so much money. The instruction was given under the supposition that the 29th sect, of the act of 1843, (R. S. 1843, p. 581,) did not apply to contracts previously entered into; but this Court has heretofore decided otherwise. At the last term it was decided, in the case of *Andrews*v. *Russell et al.,*that the statute had a retrospective operation, and that it was constitutional. The instruction, according to that decision, was erroneous.

*Per .Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
<PAGE>



Independent Mining Consultants, Inc.
2700 E. Executive Drive, Suite 140
Tucson, AZ  85706




                  CONSENT AGREEMENT - INDEPENDENT MINING CONSULTANTS

We hereby consent to the use of our name and the reference to our reserve audit
report in the Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission to which this consent is an Exhibit.





                             INDEPENDENT MINING CONSULTANTS

                             Name:     /s/ Herbert E. Welhener
                                  -----------------------------------

                             Title:    Vice President
                                   ----------------------------------

                             Date:     March 17, 1997
                                  -----------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  615,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,023
<INVENTORY>                                    540,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,205,448
<PP&E>                                         741,262
<DEPRECIATION>                                 329,661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,235,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          780,577
<BONDS>                                        944,474
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,746
<OTHER-SE>                                     466,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,235,174
<SALES>                                      1,499,243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,499,243
<CGS>                                          988,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  998,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               479,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,288)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,944)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,344)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,344)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23


<PAGE>



                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 Related to the Bedford Bancshares,  Inc. 1994 Stock Option
Plan  of our  report  dated  October  28,  1999,  relating  to the  consolidated
financial  statements  of Bedford  Bancshares,  Inc.  appearing in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 1999.



                                                      /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                                      --------------------
                                                      BDO Seidman, LLP



Richmond, Virginia
December 21, 1999
Exhibit 11.1





RF MONOLITHICS, INC.





Computation of Net
Loss per Share


Years Ended August 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000


(In thousands, except per-share data)





2002


2001


2000Average common shares outstanding


7,095



6,712



6,046Net effect of dilutive stock options  based on the treasury stock method










Total common and common equivalent shares


7,095



6,712



6,046Net loss

$
(442
)

$
(13,241
)

$
(7,608
)Net loss per share  Basic and Diluted

$
(0.06
)

$
(1.97
)

$
(1.26
)
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2587 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust the amount 

of payment under the physician fee schedule for drug administration 

services furnished to medicare beneficiaries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2004 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust 

the amount of payment under the physician fee schedule 

for drug administration services furnished to medicare 

beneficiaries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Quality and 

5 Access to Cancer Care Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•S 2587 IS 

1 SEC. 2. TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENT TO PHYSICIAN FEE 

2 SCHEDULE FOR DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

3 SERVICES FURNISHED TO MEDICARE BENE4 FICIARIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 303(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the 

6 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Mod7 ernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173; 117 Stat. 

8 2237) is amended by striking ‘‘3 percent’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘32 percent’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact12 ment of section 303(a)(4) of the Medicare Prescription 

13 Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub14 lic Law 108–173; 117 Stat. 2237). 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Smothers,

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-17-04683-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 9446 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 1
1 

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

Byron White United States Courthouse 

1823 Stout Street 

Denver, Colorado 80257 

(303) 844-3157

January 12, 2015 

Chris Wolpert

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Ms. Patti Palmer Ghezzi 

Mr. Randy A. Bauman 

Office of the Federal Public Defender 

Capital Habeas Unit 

215 Dean A. McGee Avenue 

Suite 707 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

Mr. Dale A. Baich 

Ms. Robin C. Konrad 

Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Arizona 

850 West Adams Street 

Suite 201 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Ms. Lanita Henricksen 

Mr. Mark Henricksen 

Henricksen & Henricksen, Lawyers, Inc. 

600 North Walker, Suite 201 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

RE: 14-6244, Warner, et al v. Gross, et al 

Dist/Ag docket: 5:14-CV-00665-F 

Dear Counsel: 

Enclosed is a copy of the opinion of the court issued today in this matter. The court has 

entered judgment on the docket pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 36. 

Please contact this office if you have questions. 

Appellate Case: 14-6244 Document: 01019368085 Date Filed: 01/12/2015 Page: 1 
2 

 Sincerely, 

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of the Court 

cc: 

 

David B. Autry 

Mark Barrett 

John David Hadden 

Jeb Emmet Joseph 

Fred L. Staggs 

Aaron J Stewart 

 

EAS/as 

Appellate Case: 14-6244 Document: 01019368085 Date Filed: 01/12/2015 Page: 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terrance Levo Carrington,

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-17-04550-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 9508 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 1
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Robert Brice Daugherty, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00039

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 25958 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice

Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Robert Brice Daugherty, has adequately indicated his inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED September 3 , 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL DATA  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S  UNAUDITED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE  QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000894096
<NAME> TRANSCOR WASTE SERVICES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          3,941,724
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,167,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,010,957
<PP&E>                                            706,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,964,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,094,392
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            4,010
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,272,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,964,921
<SALES>                                         1,868,409
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,868,409
<CGS>                                           1,430,977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,631,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (88,109)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   325,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                       91,878
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               233,450
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (12,324)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      221,126
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.06


</TABLE>