alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as 2015 Ark. 138

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-14-1057

TERRY JOE POUNDER

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered April 2, 2015

PRO SE MOTION FOR COPY OF

APPEAL RECORD 

[SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT,

NOS. 66CR-04-997, 66CR-04-998, 66CR04-999, 66CR-04-1000, 66CR-04-1160]

HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,

JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION

MOOT.

PER CURIAM

In 2005, appellant Terry Joe Pounder entered a plea of guilty in the Sebastian County

Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, to four counts of aggravated robbery, first-degree criminal

mischief, theft by receiving, and robbery. An aggregate sentence of 396 months’ imprisonment

was imposed. On October 9, 2014, appellant filed a petition in the trial court seeking to proceed

in forma pauperis with a “motion for belated appeal, habeas corpus.” The trial court denied the

petition, and appellant timely lodged an appeal from that order. Now before us is appellant’s

pro se motion for copy of appeal record.

We dismiss the appeal, and the motion is moot inasmuch as it is clear from the record

that appellant could not prevail on appeal. An appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will

not be permitted to go forward when it is clear from the record that the appeal is without merit. 

Hinkston v. State, 2014 Ark. 504 (per curiam); Chambliss v. State, 2014 Ark. 188 (per curiam).
Cite as 2015 Ark. 138

The petition to proceed in forma pauperis provides no articulated basis for proceeding

with a motion for belated appeal of the denial of habeas relief. The petition includes only the

statement that appellant desires to file a “motion for belated appeal, habeas corpus.” Even

though the petition to proceed in forma pauperis refers to “habeas,” there is nothing in the

petition to indicate the nature of a habeas petition or the grounds on which petitioner intends

to rely to support his petition to proceed as an indigent. Under such circumstances, we cannot

find any ground to reverse the trial court’s order. 

Appeal dismissed; motion moot.

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jessica Lawson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03667-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Flint Law Firm LLC

(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 10/12/2017, 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: October 18, 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 8280 Filed 10/19/17 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 8280 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 No. 333-107246, dated July 22, 2003; No.333-102209, dated December 26, 2002; No. 333-010179, dated November 7, 2002; No. 333-65188, dated July 16, 2001; No. 333-60702, dated May 11, 2001; No. 333-49436, dated November 7, 2000; No. 333-88645, dated October 8, 1999; No. 333-79463, dated May27, 1999; No. 333-79457, dated May 27, 1999; No. 333-74555, dated March 17, 1999; No. 333-56473, dated June 10, 1998; and No. 333-15069, dated October 30, 1996 pertaining to various employee benefit plans of Main Street Banks, Inc. of our reportdated January 16, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Main Street Banks, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 12, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Babcock,

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-17-03651-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 9196 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.02








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 Amended Annual Report of Power-Save Energy Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-KA for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Louis Fox, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.

















/s/ Louis Fox


By: Louis Fox


Chief Financial Officer





Dated: February 13, 2012





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Juan L. Barrientez, 

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-17-03499-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 6, 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 8731 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HENRY MARROW.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE IN THE INTEREST OF M.J., A JUVENILE.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           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 Big City Radio, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul R.
Thomson, 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:

    (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.

<Table>
<S>                                            <C>
/s/ PAUL R. THOMSON

Paul R. Thomson
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
</Table>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID LOBEL.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### A. McKenzie & Wife vs. E. B. Stratton, &c.,

Deed of Gift — Mortgage—Infant’s 'Contracts Void — Fraudulent Conveyance.

On the 16th day of May, 1865, Mary Price made a voluntary deed of gift to her infant daughter, Florida Price, of various articles of household furniture and the deed was duly recorded. Afterwards, the mother and daughter executed thir joint note with a mortgage on the furniture to secure its payment: Held, that as the record discloses no evidence of actual fraud in the execution of the deed of gift, and as it was made before the debt of appelle existed, it therefore operated to vest the title to the property in the infant and she had a right to avoid the note and mortgage on the grounds of her infancy.

APPEAL RROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY "COURT.

December 4, 1868.

Opinion or tiib Court by

Judge Hardin :

■ On tlie 16th day of May, 1865, Mary L. Price made a voluntary deed of gift to her infant daughter Florida Price, then residing with her in the city of Louisville, of various articles of household furniture, and the deed was duly recorded.

Afterwrards, on the 8th day of December, 1866, while said mother and daughter continued to live together, and were using the furniture at their home, they executed their joint note with a mortgage on the furniture to secure its payment, to Henry 0. Sherrill for the sum of $225, payable March 1st, 1867.

The note and mortgage were assigned by Sherrill to Stratton & Snodgrass, who brought this suit for a foreclosure of the m.ortgage.

Said Florida Price having intermarried with Augustus McKenzie, they filed their answer, claiming that the property was vested in said Florida by the deed of the 16th of May, 1865, and that she was not bound by the note and mortgage afterwards made to Sherrill, because she was at the time an infant.

It appears that the money realized on the note and mortgage was used to pay a debt of Mrs .Price for rent, for which a distress warrant was levied on part of the property in controversy.

The court dismissed the action as to McKenzie and wife so far *316as it sought to enforce the note and mortgage against them, but held the deed of gift did not operate to convey the furniture to Mrs. McKenzie to the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ debt, and adjudged a sale of the property for its payment, and from that judgment McKenzie and wife have appealed.

*Buchner & Wing, for appellants.*

*Stratton, for appellees.*

The record discloses no evidence of actual fraud in the execution of the deed of gift, and as it was made before the debt of appellees existed, and when Mrs. Price was not indebted so far as appears in this case, it cannot be regarded as constructively fraudulent. It therefore operated to vest the property in Mrs. McKenzie, and as she had a right to avoid the note and mortgage subsequently made on the ground of her infancy, it seems to us the court erred in adjudging a sale of the property.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to render a judgment conformable to thL opinion.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Feasibility Study of a Magnetic Suspension System for Testing the Dynamic Stability of Blunt Bodies in NASA GRC’s 225 square centimeter Supersonic Wind Tunnel","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PolZjQylBD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/feasibility-study-of-a-magnetic-suspension-system-for-testing-the-dynamic-stability-of-blunt-bodies-in-nasa-grcs-225-square-centimeter-supersonic-wind-tunnel\/\">Feasibility Study of a Magnetic Suspension System for Testing the Dynamic Stability of Blunt Bodies in NASA GRC’s 225 square centimeter Supersonic Wind Tunnel<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/feasibility-study-of-a-magnetic-suspension-system-for-testing-the-dynamic-stability-of-blunt-bodies-in-nasa-grcs-225-square-centimeter-supersonic-wind-tunnel\/embed\/#?secret=PolZjQylBD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Feasibility Study of a Magnetic Suspension System for Testing the Dynamic Stability of Blunt Bodies in NASA GRC’s 225 square centimeter Supersonic Wind Tunnel” — NASA\" data-secret=\"PolZjQylBD\" 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\/2016\/07\/sevier_abigail.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":462}
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Ignite Solicitation 

 

PHASE II OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs) — TRAVEL

Other Direct Costs (ODCs) - Travel (if applicable) 

 

• Provide the requested information below for your Travel ODC. 

• Complete this form for each Travel ODC proposed for your R/R&D effort. If you need to include additional Travel 

 ODCs, please start another version of this form and append the document title with the form number.

Year

Description

Location From Location To

Number of People Number of Days

Total Airfare Total Car Rental

Total Per Diem Total Other

Total Cost

Purpose of Trip

Source of Estimates
Explanation/Justification
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Denise Payton-Thomas,

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-17-04188-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 9042 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donna M. Day,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00440-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: March 2, 2016 /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 935 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 1
#### ALAN PEIA, ET AL. v. BOROUGH OF OGDENSBURG, ETC., ET AL.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                FOR THE YEARS ENDED
                                                ----------------------------------------------------
                                                  2003       2002       2001       2000       1999
                                                --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                             <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
(IN THOUSANDS)
Earnings from continuing operations
  before income taxes                           $ 62,021     28,201   $ 40,490   $ 32,160   $ 41,883
Fixed interest charges                           123,059    157,229    192,765    212,269    171,159
                                                --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Earnings (loss):
  Including fixed interest charges               185,080    185,430    233,255    244,429    213,042
  Excluding interest expense on deposits         148,891    122,653    147,587    152,706    135,691
Fixed interest charges excluding interest
  expense on deposits                             86,870     94,452    107,097    120,546     93,808
Ratios:
Earnings including fixed interest charges
  to fixed interest charges                         1.50       1.18       1.21       1.15       1.24
Earnings to fixed interest excluding
  interest on deposits                              1.71       1.30       1.38       1.27       1.45
Dollar deficiency of earnings to fixed
  interest charges                              $      -          -   $      -   $      -   $      -
                                                ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                       RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                               --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2000              1999               1998              1997             1996
                                               --------          --------          --------          --------          --------
<S>                                            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
(IN THOUSANDS)
Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
  before income taxes and extraordinary
  items ....................................   $ 27,704          $ 46,898          $ 16,712          $ 38,906          $ 29,019
Fixed interest charges .....................    212,524           170,863           153,930           117,048            77,637
                                               --------          --------          --------          --------          --------
Earnings (loss):
  Including fixed interest charges .........    240,228           217,761           170,642           155,954           106,656
  Excluding interest expense on deposits ...    148,505           140,886           103,928            87,723            52,010
Fixed interest charges excluding interest
  expense on deposits ......................    120,801            93,988            87,216            48,817            22,991
Ratios:
Earnings including fixed interest charges
  to fixed interest charges ................       1.13              1.27              1.11              1.33              1.37
Earnings to fixed interest excluding
  interest on deposits .....................       1.23              1.50              1.19              1.80              2.26
Dollar deficiency of earnings to fixed
  interest charges .........................   $   0.00          $   0.00          $   0.00          $   0.00          $   0.00
                                               ========          ========          ========          ========          ========
</TABLE>