alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We have issued our report dated April 4, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of ViewCast.com, Inc. on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
ViewCast.com, Inc. on Forms SB-2 No. 333-31947, S-8 No. 333-53159, S-8 No.
333-63799, S-3 No. 333-77923, S-3 No. 333-35662 and S-3 No. 333-40630.


Grant Thornton LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 14, 2003
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES WILLIAMS.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This document relates to: 

LINCOLN KOSA 

Civil Case No. 2:17-cv-1511-PHX-DGC 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *          *

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

 NOW INTO COURT comes Plaintiff Lincoln Kosa, through undersigned counsel, to file 

this Notice of Dismissal in the above-captioned matter. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed 

on May 18, 2017, and Defendants C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. were served 

through counsel on the same date. The Defendants have not served an answer to the complaint, 

nor has it served a motion for summary judgment on the same. The Plaintiff files this notice of 

dismissal with the intention of dismissing the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(i), without prejudice to refiling. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of January, 2018. 

 MURRAY LAW FIRM 

 /s/ Stephen B. Murray, Jr.

 Stephen B. Murray, Jr. (LA Bar No. 23877) 

 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 

 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

 (504) 525-8100 

 smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9702 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 18th day of January, 2018, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk’s office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of 

notice of electronic filing. 

 /s/Stephen B. Murray, Jr.

 Stephen B. Murray, Jr. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9702 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brenda R. Hill,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03701-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 8951 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      $4,272,946
<SECURITIES>                                        $0
<RECEIVABLES>                               $2,253,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                ($709,224)
<INVENTORY>                                         $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           $18,951,053
<PP&E>                                        $703,555
<DEPRECIATION>                              ($380,360)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $23,314,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       $4,540,234
<BONDS>                                             $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               $0
<PREFERRED>                                         $0
<COMMON>                                        $4,010
<OTHER-SE>                                 $14,499,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $23,314,358
<SALES>                                     $2,441,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            $2,441,968
<CGS>                                       $2,121,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $2,121,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              $165,204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           ($83,685)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               $238,771
<INCOME-TAX>                                  $102,771
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           $136,000
<DISCONTINUED>                              $3,091,044
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     $0
<CHANGES>                                           $0
<NET-INCOME>                                $3,227,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.80
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GEORGE LOUIS TAVERAS.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

TYDARIAN MARCUS MOORE

,

Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 2023

- 1457

August 30, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Donna Marie Padar

and Thomas Krug, Judges

.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Ann Fitz, Special Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P, Hurley,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and ATKINSON , JJ., Concur.2 __________________________

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF PREFERRED NETWORKS,
INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE 
NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      10,110,843
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,952,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                   303,147
<INVENTORY>                                  4,002,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,145,465
<PP&E>                                      32,877,275
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,255,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,886,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,461,049
<BONDS>                                      8,352,647
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       13,458,462
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    61,328,429
<OTHER-SE>                                 (28,713,663)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,886,924
<SALES>                                      9,523,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,328,696
<CGS>                                        9,839,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,771,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               425,015
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             929,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (14,733,124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (14,733,124)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (14,733,124)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.96)
        

</TABLE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

______________________________________

In Re: BARD IVC FILTERS Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2641

______________________________________

This Document Relates to:

2:15-cv-01884-DGC

______________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

To: The Clerk of Court and all parties of record:

The undersigned, Ben Martin and Thomas Wm. Arbon, have been admitted or otherwise 

authorized to practice in this Court, and appear in this case as counsel for:

Plaintiff Emily Landress.

Dated: September 23, 2015 /s/ Ben C. Martin

Ben C. Martin, Bar No. 13052400

Thomas Wm. Arbon, Bar No. 01284275

The Law Office of Ben C. Martin

3219 McKinney Avenue

Dallas, TX 75204

Telephone: (214) 761-6614

Facsimile: (214) 744-7590

bmartin@bencmartin.com

tarbon@bencmartin.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 90 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of September, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was served 

electronically and notice of the service of this document will be sent to all parties by operation of 

the Court’s electronic filing system to CM/ECF participants registered to receive service in this 

matter. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. 

/s/ Ben C. Martin

Ben C. Martin

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 90 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2465 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the seizure of 

shipments of controlled substances, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2004 

Mr. COLEMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to 

the seizure of shipments of controlled substances, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Prevention of the Ille5 gally Importation of Controlled Substances Act of 2004’’ 

6 or ‘‘Todd Rode Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPORTED SHIPMENTS. 

8 Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

9 841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 
2 

•S 2465 IS 

1 ‘‘DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPORTED SHIPMENTS

2 ‘‘SEC. 424. (a) IN GENERAL.—A shipment of con3 trolled substances that is imported or offered for import 

4 into the United States in violation of section 401 and 

5 whose value is less than $10,000 shall be seized and sum6 marily forfeited to the United States. 

7 ‘‘(b) DESTRUCTION.—Controlled substances seized 

8 under subsection (a) shall be destroyed, subject to sub9 section (d). Section 801(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

10 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(b)) does not authorize 

11 the delivery of the substances pursuant to the execution 

12 of a bond, and the substances may not be exported. 

13 ‘‘(c) NOTICE.— 

14 ‘‘(1) PROCEDURES.—The seizure and destruc15 tion of controlled substances under subsections (a) 

16 and (b) may be carried out without notice to the im17 porter, owner, or consignee of the controlled sub18 stances involved. Appraisement of such substances is 

19 required only to the extent sufficient to document 

20 that the substances are subject to subsection (a). 

21 ‘‘(2) GOALS.—Procedures promulgated under 

22 paragraph (1) shall be designed toward the goal of 

23 ensuring that, with respect to efficiently utilizing 

24 Federal resources available for carrying out this sub25 section, a substantial majority of shipments of con-
3 

•S 2465 IS 

1 trolled substances subject to subsection (a) are iden2 tified and seized under such paragraph and de3 stroyed under subsection (b). 

4 ‘‘(d) PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.—Controlled sub5 stances may not be destroyed under subsection (b) to the 

6 extent that the Attorney General of the United States de7 termines that the controlled substances should be pre8 served as evidence or potential evidence with respect to 

9 an offense against the United States.’’. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2577 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2577

To provide incentives to promote broadband telecommunications services 
               in rural America, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide incentives to promote broadband telecommunications services 
               in rural America, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Broadband Rural Research Investment 
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The availability of broadband telecommunications 
        services in rural America is critical to economic development, 
        job creation, and new services such as distance learning and 
        telemedicine.
            (2) Existing broadband technology cannot be deployed in 
        many rural areas, either because of technical limitations, or 
        the cost of deployment relative to the available market.
            (3) Research in new broadband technology that addresses 
        these barriers could increase the availability of broadband 
        telecommunications services in rural areas.

SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON ENHANCEMENT OF BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--The Director of the National Science Foundation 
(in this section, referred to as the ``Director'') shall carry out 
research on the following:
            (1) Means of enhancing or facilitating the availability of 
        broadband telecommunications services in rural areas and other 
        remote areas.
            (2) Means of facilitating or enhancing access to the 
        Internet through broadband telecommunications services.
    (b) Scope of Authority.--The Director may carry out research under 
subsection (a) within the National Science Foundation or pursuant to 
such grants, agreements, or other arrangements as the Director 
considers appropriate.
    (c) Results of Research.--The Director shall make available to the 
public, in such manner as the Director considers appropriate, the 
results of any research carried out under this section.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for the National Science Foundation for purposes of 
activities under this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.
                                 <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 17 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHINAGOROM NONYELUM GODWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 97-2300 GARY JOEL HILL, Defendant-Appellee. (D.C. No. CIV-97-903-SC) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff Chinagorom Nonyelum Godwin, appearing pro se, appeals the district1 Although the district court stated that it was reviewing the complaint under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we assume that in light of the district court’s order dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court intended to state that it reviewed the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

2 Section 1332 provides: “The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between (1) citizens of different states; [or] (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . .” 2 court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in concluding that the complaint did not meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 2 Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Painter v. Shalala , 97 F.3d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir. 1996). Applying this standard, we affirm. On July 7, 1997, Plaintiff filed a complaint in district court alleging that Defendant Gary Joel Hill, an attorney retained by Plaintiff in criminal and immigration matters, failed to perform the services agreed to and refused to refund the $7,000 retainer paid to him by Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought recovery of the $7,000 retainer. The district court, sua sponte, reviewed its subject matter jurisdiction and concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint alleged state law tort or contract claims which did not exceed $75,000. Consequently, because Plaintiff did not meet the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.3

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, pleadings, and the entire record before us. We agree with the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act

In  connection  with this annual report on Form 10-K of The  Management  Network
Group, Inc., I, Richard P. Nespola,  Chairman of the Board,  President and Chief
Executive Officer of the registrant certify that:

1. this annual 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 this annual  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant for and as of the end of such year.

Date: April 1, 2005





                           BY: /S/ RICHARD P. NESPOLA
                        CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT
                           AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In  connection  with this annual report on Form 10-K of The  Management  Network
Group,  Inc., I, Donald E. Klumb,  Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer of the
registrant certify that:

1. this annual 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 this annual  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant for and as of the end of such year.

Date: April 1, 2005





                             BY: /S/ DONALD E. KLUMB
                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER
Order entered December 18 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00594
- CR
JOSE ANGEL JASSO JR. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F09
- 72432
- P



### O RDER
The Court ORDER S court reporter Debi Harris to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit no. 5, a DVD.
The record before the Court does not contain the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal, which is required in every criminal case in which a defendant appeals. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v. State , 2013 WL 5220904 (Te x. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2013). Accordingly, we ORDER th e trial court to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a certification of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Teresa Hawthorne, Presiding Judge, 203rd Judicial District Court; Debi Harris,Auxiliary Court Reporter; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE