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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reginald Franklin,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00195-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shrader & Associates, 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 1/22/2018, 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 24, 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 9835 Filed 01/26/18 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 9835 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juanita King,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04787-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Burnett Law Firm

(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 12/29/2017, 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: January 5, 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 9593 Filed 01/11/18 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 9593 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Curtis E. Coleman,

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-17-03698-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

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

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

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

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9024 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF CAPSTONE CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,122,241
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  335,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,757,880
<PP&E>                                     302,874,866
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,275,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             356,695,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,899,467
<BONDS>                                     17,657,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,247
<OTHER-SE>                                 240,832,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               356,695,116
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,952,336
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,038,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,812,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,913,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         18,913,689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                18,913,689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68


</TABLE>
#### Whalen *v.*Layman.

In an action for a breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff may introduce evidence of seduction.

ERROR to the *Bartholomew*Circuit *Court.—Sarah Layman*brought an action of assumpsit against *Thomas*Whalen, for a breach of promise of marriage. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

*Thursday, November*13

*Sweetser,*for the plaintiff.

*Wick*and *Herod,*for the defendant.

Scott, J.

In an action for a breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff offered proof of seduction. The defendant objected; but the Court overruled the objection, and permitted the evidence to go to the jury; and there was a verdict for the plaintiff below for 100 dollars. The admission of evidence of seduction is complained of by the plaintiff in error, and this is the only point in the case. There is no error here. The evidence was proper for the consideration of the jury, and the Court acted correctly in admitting it. 2 Stark. Ev. 942, n. 1, *—Paul v. Frazier,*3 Mass. R. *73.—Boynton v. Kellogg,*id. 189. The contrary was decided in the case of *Burks*v. *Shain,*2 Bibb, 341; but that case is not supported by any other decision within our knowledge.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 5 *per cent,*damages and costs.
#### NICHOLAS TONTODONATI v. THE CITY OF PATERSON.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 229 *N.J.Super.*475).
# 1-3Q-IS

# .4haA-**id as** **sen+ -to** **me cl\oou+** **do n\\\** 

# X_**gnu?**

# toK^**X'm fttVher** **-to**

# 3***S\ms ■!** **..•: ca** **-i ;L** **:: ro** **-■■■■**
**Exhibit 10.39**

Summary of Director Compensation 

Directors who arenot employees of eLoyalty or any of its subsidiaries (“non-employee directors”) receive $750 for their attendance at each meeting of the Board of Directors, $1,000 per Audit Committee meeting attended and $250 for each CompensationCommittee meeting (each of which generally is held in tandem with a meeting of the Board of Directors). If any Compensation Committee meetings are held apart from a Board of Directors meeting, then each Compensation Committee member receives $500per meeting attended. The Company also reimburses directors for their travel-related expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors and its committees however, eLoyalty has adopted the practice of holding its Board meetings byvideo conference, thereby minimizing the need to reimburse for these expenses. 

In addition to meeting attendance fees,Non-Employee Directors are eligible to receive automatic grants of stock options under the 1999 Plan, which provides for each Non-Employee Director to receive: (i) an option to purchase 50,000 shares of Common Stock upon commencement of serviceas a director (an “Initial Grant”); and (ii) an option to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock on the day after each annual meeting of stockholders during which such service continues (an “Annual Grant”). Stock optionsgranted to Non-Employee Directors have an exercise price per share equal to the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the grant date and a maximum term of ten years. Vesting occurs ratably over a period of 48 months from the end ofthe month following the grant date with respect to each Initial Grant. Traditionally, vesting for each Annual Grant occurred over 12 months from the end of the month following the grant date with respect to each Annual Grant. For each Annual Grantmade in 2009, however, vesting occurred evenly over 48 months, commencing with a vesting of 25% of such Annual Grant on May 31, 2010 and 6.25% of such Annual Grant on each quarterly vesting date thereafter; this vesting schedule will be appliedto all future Annual Grants as well. 

In addition, at its February 2009 meeting, as ratified by Unanimous Written Consent, theBoard agreed to an additional grant of stock options under the 1999 Plan. Each Non-Employee Director received an option to purchase 50,000 shares of eLoyalty Common Stock. These stock options have an exercise price per share equal to the fair marketvalue of a share of eLoyalty Common Stock on the grant date, which was February 18, 2009, and a maximum term of ten years, pursuant to the 1999 Plan. Vesting occurs ratably over a period of 16 quarters, with the first quarterly vesting havingoccurred on February 28, 2009.
Exhibit 32.2




Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, Daniel Crandall, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Pan American GoldfieldsLtd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended August 31, 2013 (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.
 
 
 Date:  October 15, 2013
 
 /S/ Daniel Crandall
 _________________________________
 Daniel Crandall
 Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn Octane Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
      Charles C. Handly, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
      Ian
      T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
                Charles C. HandlyCharles
                C. Handly, President and Chief Executive OfficerMay
              22, 2006/s/
                Ian T. BothwellIan
                T. Bothwell, Chief Financial OfficerMay
              22, 2006
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2583 

To promote the use of anaerobic digesters by agricultural producers and 

rural small businesses to produce renewable energy and improve environmental quality. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2004

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL

To promote the use of anaerobic digesters by agricultural 

producers and rural small businesses to produce renewable energy and improve environmental quality.

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

3 SECTION 1. USE OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS TO PRODUCE 

4 RENEWABLE ENERGY. 

5 Section 9006(a) of the Farm Security and Rural In6 vestment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end; 
2

•S 2583 IS 

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) promote the use of anaerobic digesters to 

5 produce renewable energy.’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS TO IMPROVE ENVI7 RONMENTAL QUALITY. 

8 Section 1240A(6)(A) of the Food Security Act of 

9 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa–1) is amended by inserting ‘‘(in10 cluding an anaerobic digester)’’ after ‘‘site-specific animal 

11 waste management facility’’.

Æ
#### CORINNE TIERNEY v. LOUIS C. GILDE, ET AL.

September 26, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 235 *N.J.Super.*61).
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2609 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2609

 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
            and improve national dairy market loss payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 6, 2004

    Mr. Coleman (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
 Daschle, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Harkin) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
            and improve national dairy market loss payments.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL DAIRY MARKET LOSS PAYMENTS.

    Section 1502 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 7982) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence of subsection (d)(2), by striking 
        ``2,400,000'' and inserting ``4,800,000''; and
            (2) in subsections (f) and (g)(1), by striking ``2005'' 
        each place it appears and inserting ``2007''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.12





 Exhibit 10.12 

Amendment to Services Agreement 
 This
Amendment (“Amendment”), effective as of June 24, 2019 (“Amendment Effective Date”), to the Services Agreement (“Agreement”) by and between Dr. Christoph Westphal
(“Provider”) and TScan Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Company”), with an effective date of October 9, 2018, confirms the following modification to the terms of the Agreement: 

 

	 	1.	 Provider’s cash compensation under Section 1.b of the Agreement will be extended for an additional 7
month period from April 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019 at the same rate and in accordance with the same payment terms currently included in the Agreement. 



 

	 	2.	 Payment of Provider’s cash compensation for the period May 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019 will be
made in a single, lump-sum payment, in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures on or around June 28, 2019. Subsequent cash compensation payments to Provider will continue through
October 31, 2019 in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll schedule. 


  

	 	3.	 Provider acknowledges receipt of payment of the April cash compensation provided in accordance with the
Company’s payroll procedures on April 15, 2019 and April 30, 2019. 


  

	 	4.	 Provider’s services to the Company after October 31, 2019 will be provided for no cash compensation.



 Except for the terms of the Agreement expressly modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in
full force and effect. In witness whereof, intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this Amendment as an instrument under seal as of the Amendment Effective Date. 

 

			
	Provider
		
	By:	 	/s/ Christoph Westphal
	Christoph Westphal

  

			
	TScan Therapeutics, Inc.
		
	By	 	/s/ Robert Crane
	Robert Crane
	Chief Financial Officer
No. 85.

#### John F. and Robert Boyd, administrators, &c. plaintiffs in error, *vs.*William Clements, guardian, &c. defendant.

[1.] The 4th Common Law Rule of Practiceis not applicable to causes in Equity-

[2.] When a cause in Equity is pending, and the pleadings are made up and the issues joined, the complainant is not entitled to amend, as á matter of right, but amendments will be allowed, in the discretion of the Court, upon special cause shown.

[3.] *Surprise*is good special cause for the allowance of an anjendment.

In Equity, in Muscogee Superior Court. Tried before Judge Alexander, May Term, 1850.

On the trial of this cause on the appeal, after the proofs and pleadings were submitted to the Jury, the complainants’ counsel opened his case to the Jury, insisting on various errors in the returns of the intestate of Robert and John F.Boyd to the Court of *523Ordinary, on the estates for which his administrators were now called to account. Defendant’s counsel replied and insisted before the Jury, that under the pleadings, these errors could not be insisted on. Counsel for complainant then stopped counsel for defendants, and insisted on a verbal agreement dispensing with any such allegations in the bill, which being denied, counsel for complainant moved for a continuance, on the ground of surprise, in order that the bill' might be amended. The Court granted the motion, and this decision is assigned for error.

The Court then granted an order, allowing the bill to be amended on the showing by counsel of his understanding of the verbal agreement; and this decision is also assigned for error.

Gr. E. Thomas and W. Dougherty, for plaintiffs in error.

H. Holt, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Nisbet, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The 4th Common Law Rule of Practice does not apply to causes in Equity, and the complainant was not entitled to an amendment in this case as a matter of right.

[2.] Amendments to bills pending on the appeal, are not allowable but in the discretion of the Court; and when the pleadings are made up, and the issues joined, that discretion will not be exercised to grant amendments but upon special cause shown. *Berry vs. Mathews,*7 *Geo. R.*457. *Georgia R. R.*& *Banking Co. vs. Milner & Co.*8 *Geo. R.*315.

[3.] In this case, the cause shown is *surf rise,*and our judgment is, that the presiding Judge properly allowed the amendment, and also the continuance for the purpose of the amendment.

Let the judgment be affirmed.
EXHIBIT A 

(Filed Under Seal)

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9911-1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 1