alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachel Hoover","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rlhoove1\/","title":"Mira c\u00f3mo la NASA construye su primer veh\u00edculo lunar rob\u00f3tico","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MinpOEU7WM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/es\/mira-como-la-nasa-construye-su-primer-vehiculo-lunar-robotico\/\">Mira c\u00f3mo la NASA construye su primer veh\u00edculo lunar rob\u00f3tico<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/es\/mira-como-la-nasa-construye-su-primer-vehiculo-lunar-robotico\/embed\/#?secret=MinpOEU7WM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mira c\u00f3mo la NASA construye su primer veh\u00edculo lunar rob\u00f3tico” — NASA\" data-secret=\"MinpOEU7WM\" 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\/10\/jsc2023e039644.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
305 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (plurality op.). 1

 Id. at 553-54, 557, 560-61. 2

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0338-09

CORBETT K. WEINN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

LUBBOCK COUNTY

KEASLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, J.,

joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

The majority incorrectly distinguishes the facts of this case from those in our recent

decision in Guerrero v. State. But the facts of Guerrero are identical. In Guerrero, a 1

plurality of us held that Guerrero’s convictions for manufacturing and possessing with intent

to deliver the same cache of methamphetamine did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.2
 Id. at 554. 

3

Though Guerrero’s manufacture and possession with intent to deliver were close in time, they

“were discrete acts with different impulses”—“one impulse to manufacture and another

impulse to possess for the purpose of delivering what has been manufactured.” The same 3

can and should be said here. I would therefore hold that there is no jeopardy violation and

reverse the court of appeals’s judgment. 

DATE FILED: June 30, 2010

PUBLISH
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; CNS Effects of HIV.                    

*Date:*                         November 20, 2014.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         JoAnn McConnell, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-5324,                         *mcconnej@ninds.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: October 14, 2014.

Carolyn Baum,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-24784 Filed 10-17-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

William E. Rudy, Jr., 

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-17-03000-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 8826 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Net Lease Income &
Growth Fund XX Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-
Q  for  the  period  ended  March 31, 2009,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XX, Inc., the Managing General  Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XX, Inc., each certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.
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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 12, 2009



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 12, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Jones,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03638-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

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

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

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

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

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

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

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

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

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

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

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

a summons or of service. 

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

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

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9236 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
#### M.B., A MINOR BY HIS PARENTS M.B., SR., AND D.B. v. TEANECK BOARD OF EDUCATION.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rodrick Harris,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00145-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Cory Watson Attorneys

(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 1/25/2018, 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 9920 Filed 02/02/18 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 9920 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 2
No. 4.

#### Moses Curry and others, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Robert S. Piles, defendant in error.

[1.] The decrees or judgments of a Court of Equity are embraced within the Dormant Judgment Act of 1823.

Motion, in Glynn Superior Court. Decided by Judge Fleming, April Term, 1849.

This was a motion to sue out a *fi.fa.*under the 13th Equity Rule of the Superior Courts, *nunc pro tunc,*on a decree rendered 4th December, 1838. The motion was resisted on the ground, *33that the decree was for a specific sum of money, and was *dormant*under the Act of 1823. The Court refused the motion, and error is assigned thereon.

W. & W. F. Law, for plaintiffs in error.

Bartow & DeLyon, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Warner, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The only question presented by the record in this case is, Whether a decree of a Court of Equity for a specific sum of money is embraced within the Dormant Judgment Act of 1823,

The argument-for the plaintiffs in error is, that only Common Law judgments, founded on the verdict of a Jury, as specified in the Judiciary Act of 1799, are embraced within the true intent and meaning of the Act of 1823.

The Act of 1823 is an Act to amend the 3d section of an Act, passed 19th December, 1822, entitled an Act to amend the 26th section of the Judiciary Act, passed the 16th day of December, 1799; and, *also, to prevent a fraudulent enforcement of dormant judgments.*A decree is the judgment or sentence of a Court of Equity. *Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,*428. 2 *Maddock’s Ch. Pr.*464.

The Act of 1823 declares, that *“*All judgments that have been obtained since the 19th day of December, 1822, and *all judgments*that may be hereafter rendered, in *any of the Courts in this State,*on which no execution shall be sued out, &c. within seven years from the date of the judgment, shall be void and of no effect.” *Prince,*458. The Act not only purports to be an Act to amend the 26th section of tho Judiciary Act of 1799, hut also to prevent *a fraudulent enforcement of dormant judgments.*Besides, the words of the Act are very broad and comprehensive, embracing *all judgments*rendered in any of the Courts of this State. According to our practice, the decree is rendered by the verdict of a Jury, and is nothing but the judgment or sentence of the Court, and we are not aware of any Statute that gives to tho decree or judgment of a Court of Equity, in this State, a *lien*on the property of the defendant, but the Act of 1799. Judgments rendered by Justices’ Courts, are not generally founded on the ver*34diet of a Jury, yet such judgments have always been held to be embraced within the Dormant Judgment Act.

*We*think the decree mentioned in the record, being for a specific sum of money, is, in contemplation of the Act of 1823, a judgment, and is not only embraced within the *words*of that Act, but is also within the *mischief*which that Act intended to remedy.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jai Jackson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00552-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, 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 3/1/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

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

Date: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

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

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

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

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

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

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

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

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 942 Filed 03/04/16 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 942 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,351
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                       555
<INVENTORY>                                     13,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,939
<PP&E>                                           5,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,052
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,405
<SALES>                                         72,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,379
<CGS>                                           60,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,267
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (610)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    680
<INCOME-TAX>                                       116
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                564
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       564
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
<FN>
<F1>NET INTEREST INCOME
</FN>
        

</TABLE>