alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"About Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0OSVkWHqJW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/about-aeronautics-research-mission-directorate\/\">About Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/about-aeronautics-research-mission-directorate\/embed\/#?secret=0OSVkWHqJW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“About Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0OSVkWHqJW\" 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\/02\/2016_Aero_Campaign_letter_sized_crop.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":464}
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Ignite Solicitation 

 

PHASE II OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs) — EQUIPMENT

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

 

• Provide the requested information below for your Equipment ODC. 

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

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

Year

Description Vendor

Quantity Total Cost

Exclusive for this contract?

Yes No

Competitively Sourced?

Yes No

Does this ODC require the purchase of items from a foreign vendor?

Yes No

If yes, include the "Request to Use a Foreign Vendor/Purchase of Items from a Foreign Vendor" form 

as a PDF or Word document along with your submission files. The form can be found in Chapter 8 of 

the Ignite solicitation at https://sbir.nasa.gov/solicit/80089/detail?data=ch8.

Do you have additional supporting documents for this ODC?

Yes No

If yes, include the supporting documents along with your submission files. 

If no, provide supporting comments for this ODC.
#### Thomas B. McElrath et al *v.*Joseph McElrath et al.

Gratuitous Services — Compensation.

One is not entitled to charge another for gratuitous services performed without expectation of pecuniary compensation.

APPEAL EROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT.

January 18, 1868.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Bobertson :

If Joseph McElrath had, without objection, and in good faith, hired Polly out, he might have been responsible for only what he got. But he had no right to keep her in his own service and charge for the maintainance of herself and her infant children under eight years of age, for 12 years, $1,375 or any other sum. Even as thus encumbered the inherent probability is that some other person would have paid something for her services, or would, at least, have kept her and her children for her services.

Without any proof of an effort thus to dispose of them in good faith the executor not only had no right to keep her and charge as he did, but he might be held responsible, if any loss’resulted to the devisees from his voluntary assumption and apparent ^orversion of fiducial authority.

Nor do the facts exhibited in the record entitle him to $1,375 or any other sum for attending to his motherfor whom, after making generous provision for her by his will, the testator also provided that she should never want for anything needful for her comfort. This implied power in her to take or call for more than the use of the property devised to her, could not be executed by the executor without her express authority. And there is no evidence of any such need of authority. Joseph’s occasional attentions to her and supervision of her affairs do not appear to have been more onerous or beneficial than filial affection and duty prompted and required. And consequently, there being no proof of any express contract, the law would not only imply any right or even intention to charge for those apparently gratuitous services and thereby tax *166the testator’s estate with such extraneous charge. And that he did not perform those services with an expectation of pecuniary compensation or with a mercenary object, may also be inferred from the significant fact that, in four successive settlements with the county court, he had never charged anything for them or for keeping Polly and her children.

*Palmer, for appellant.*

*Gilbert, for appellee.*

We feel constrained therefore to adjudge that the circuit court erred in allowing to the appellee Joseph McElrath, as it did, for keeping Polly and for services to his mother.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### Geraldine Pauling, Appellant, v Orentreich Medical Group et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[787 NYS2d 311]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered May 18, 2004, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof at the *Frye*hearing *(Frye v United States,*293 F 1013 [1923]) that her theory of causation is generally accepted in the medical community *(see Lara v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*305 AD2d 106 [2003], citing, inter alia, *People v Wesley,*83 NY2d 417, 422-423 [1994]). The theory is that facial injections of liquid silicone over a long period of time, administered to plaintiff as an acne *358treatment, can cause a systemic disease that plaintiffs expert calls “silicone toxicity.” Plaintiff’s expert conceded that such disease is novel and is not recognized in standard textbooks, and indeed, except for his own unpersuasive observational studies *(see In re Breast Implant Litig.,*11 F Supp 2d 1217, 1230-1231 [D Colo 1998]), no supporting medical literature whatsoever was entered into evidence. Plaintiff’s expert further admitted that no scientific organization or national board has recognized a causal relationship between silicone and systemic disease, and that reputable scientific institutions, including the Mayo Clinic, the American College of Rheumatology and the American Medical Association have issued statements that there is no evidence of such relationship. Accordingly, the trial court properly precluded plaintiffs expert from testifying *(see Lara*at 106). Plaintiffs unpreserved claim that the trial court should have applied the more flexible standard for admitting expert testimony articulated in *Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.*(509 US 579 [1993]) is without merit *(see Wesley,*83 NY2d at 423 n 2; *see also People v Lee,*96 NY2d 157, 162 [2001]; *People v Wernick,*89 NY2d 111, 115-116 [1996]); in any event, the *Daubert*standard would not yield a different result *(see In re Breast Implant Litig.,*11 F Supp 2d 1217 [1998], *supra; Meister v Medical Eng'g Corp.,*267 F3d 1123 [DC Cir 2001]). Nor does plaintiff have a claim for local, i.e., topical, injuries, where she failed to provide CPLR 3101 (d) notice of expert testimony as to the acceptable standards of dermatological care, or to show that her rheumatologist, originally offered as a causation expert with respect to her systemic injuries, had the requisite knowledge of dermatology *(compare Erbstein v Savasatit,*274 AD2d 445, 445 [2000], *with Weinstein v Daman,*132 AD2d 547, 550 [1987], *lv dismissed*70 NY2d 951 [1988]). Without expert testimony, plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice in this case *(see*Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-302, at 459-460 [Farrell 11th ed]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dexter T. Law,

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-18-00272-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: February 1, 2018 /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 9995 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert G. Larson,

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-17-04354-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: February 1, 2018 /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 9917 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DWAYNE CADE.

May 2, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Irma T. Lazo, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03475-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 10/26/2017, 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 6, 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 8692 Filed 11/08/17 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 8692 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned, in connection with this Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A
of Danka Business Systems PLC (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), 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 his knowledge:



| | (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/ A.D. Frazier                    
|A.D. Frazier Chief Executive Officer

February 13, 2007



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|                                         
|/s/ Edward K. Quibell                    
|Edward K. Quibell Chief Financial Officer

February 13, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, James A. Tracy, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vision-Sciences, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in the report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
|                                 | /s/ James A. Tracy      |   |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Dated:   November 14, 2005 | James A Tracy           |
|                                 | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, Randy Buchamer, Chief Executive Officer of Voice Mobility International, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Voice Mobility International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 (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 Voice Mobility International, Inc.

 
| Dated: March 23, 2007 |   |                                                                     |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   | /s/ Randy Buchamer                                                       |   |
|                  |   | Randy BuchamerChief Executive Officer,Voice Mobility International, Inc. |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   |                                                                     |   |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                  |   |                                                                     |
|                       |        |                                                                          |  |  |

 

 

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Voice Mobility International, Inc. and will be retained by Voice Mobility International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

 

CW1126926.1
1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability 

Litigation, 

SHERR-UNA BOOKER, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey 

corporation and BARD PERIPHERAL 

VASCULAR, INC., an Arizona 

corporation, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc.’s and Bard Peripheral Vascular, 

Inc.’s (collectively, “Bard”) Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Memorandum of Law in Support, 

the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) and to avoid 

prejudice, the trial of this case will be conducted in two phases: determining liability, 

compensatory damages, and whether punitive damages should be awarded in the first phase 

of trial and, if necessary, determining the amount of punitive damages in the second phase 

following the procedure set out in Georgia’s state statute on punitive damages O.C.G.A. § 51-

12-5.1(d). 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9825-1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 1