alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert E. Lewis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robert-e-lewisnasa-gov\/","title":"Space Radiation","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5D9hiRBvZD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/space-radiation\/\">Space Radiation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/space-radiation\/embed\/#?secret=5D9hiRBvZD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Radiation” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5D9hiRBvZD\" 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\/03\/m7.3-flare.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Robert D. McDermott, Chief Financial Officer of Main Street Banks, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |     |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBERT D. MCDERMOTT                     
|                     |  |     |  | Robert D. McDermott, Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOANNE E. RILEY.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tymese Williams,

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-17-04783-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: January 5, 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 9600 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 1
## NO. 12

- 1 2

- 00 274

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CHARLES LEE FAULK

, § APPEAL FROM THE 349 TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant’s

counsel and includes an affidavit signed by Appellant in which he requests that his motion to

dismiss this appeal be granted. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly,

Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted , and the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered February 28 , 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 28 , 2013

NO. 12

- 12

- 00274

- CR

CHARLES LEE FAULK

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

Appeal from the 349th Judicial District Court

of Houston County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 09

- CR

- 278 )

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss the

appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion be granted and the appeal be dismissed , and that this

decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

P anel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT The following is a list of the subsidiaries of Hudson City Bancorp, Inc.: Name
    
    State of IncorporationHudson City Savings Bank
    
    New JerseyThe following is a list of the subsidiaries of Hudson City Savings Bank:Name
    
    State of IncorporationHudCiti Service Corporation
    
    New JerseyName
    
    State of IncorporationHC Value Broker Services, Inc
    
    New JerseyThe following is a list of the subsidiaries of HudCiti Service Corporation:Name
    
    State of IncorporationHudson City Preferred Funding Corp.
    
    Delaware
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

     The registrant is IOS Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation, whose parent
is IKON Office Solutions, Inc. The following sets forth information with respect
to IOS Capital, Inc.'s subsidiaries as of December 28, 1999.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                STATE OR OTHER
                                                               JURISDICTION OF
                                         % VOTING SECURITIES   INCORPORATION OR
SUBSIDIARY                                  OWNED (BY WHOM)      ORGANIZATION
----------                                 -----------------   ----------------
<S>                                      <C>                   <C>
IKON Funding, Inc.......................    100% IOS Capital      Delaware
IKON Funding, LLC.......................    100% IOS Capital      Delaware
IKON Funding-1, LLC.....................    100% IOS Capital      Delaware
IKON Receivables-1, LLC.................    100% IOS Capital      Delaware
IKON Receivables Funding, Inc...........    100% IOS Capital      Delaware
</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 590

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2322

[Report No. 108–283] 

To amend chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code, to include employees 

of the District of Columbia courts as participants in long term care 

insurance for Federal employees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2004

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 21, 2004

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL

To amend chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code, to 

include employees of the District of Columbia courts 

as participants in long term care insurance for Federal 

employees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•S 2322 RS 

1 SECTION 1. LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR 

2 EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

3 COURTS. 

4 Section 9001(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

7 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period 

8 and inserting a semicolon and ‘‘and’’; and 

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

10 ‘‘(E) an employee of the District of Colum11 bia courts.’’. 

Calendar No. 590

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2322

[Report No. 108–283] 

A BILL

To amend chapter 90 of title 5, United States 

insurance for Federal employees. lumbia courts as participants in long term care Code, to include employees of the District of CoJUNE 21, 2004

Reported without amendment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Harold Perritt,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00521-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 2/26/2016, 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 950 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 950 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR 

DEWY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL 

COUNSEL (PLANNING) 

I ADMINISTRATOR 1 

' 1 OFFICE OF *OLICV 4 

uuivtisnv AFFAIRS 

65'1 *OMINISIRAlOR 

I 

O€OI)Of C MAISU4LL 

WAC4 WQM PNlM 

""",,",lie, AI. 

ORGANIZATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

3 

MANNfD 

SIACKIAFl PMIfI 

Ihnlrn. le.. 

ADMIHSR*W 

t 

QODDAID 

WAC4 WUl PNIII 

G-&l,. AW 

OFFICE OF lllDUIT." 11111.5 

l€CW UIlLlZAIlON 

ASS'l ALMINISlUlMI 

i - Jfl tIOlULSION 

LABOIAIOIV 

(Conmrtc. QImW 

Id-. c.131 

ASSOCIATE 

DEPUTY 

ADMINISTRATOR 

TRACKING AND 

DATA ACQUISITION 

/ / July 15, 1971 IF I I C," V I
EXHIBIT 11


                            IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Year Ended November 30,
                                                               -----------------------
                                                             1998       1997       1996
                                                             ----       ----       ----
<S>                                                         <C>        <C>        <C>   
Net Income                                                  $2,032     $1,719     $1,533

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding         4,734      4,734      4,734

Shares used in computation of basic earnings per common
   stock                                                     4,734      4,734      4,734
                                                            ======     ======     ======

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and stock
   warrants after application of treasury stock method          11          0          0

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding-
   diluted                                                   4,745      4,734      4,734
                                                            ======     ======     ======

Basic and diluted earnings per common share                 $  .43     $  .36     $  .32
                                                            ======     ======     ======
</TABLE>


                                       26
<PAGE>                                                            EXHIBIT 3.1




                                CERTIFICATE OF MERGER OF
                              EASTSIDE HOLDING CORPORATION
                                a Georgia corporation,
                                     WITH AND INTO
                             WESTSIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                 a Georgia corporation



    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14-2-1105(b) of the Georgia Business
Corporation Code, the undersigned corporation files this Certificate of Merger.

    1. The names of the corporations merging and the name of the surviving
corporation are as follows:

        (a) The merging corporations are EASTSIDE HOLDING CORPORATION, INC., a
    Georgia corporation, ("Eastside") and WESTSIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INC.,
    a Georgia corporation ("Westside"); and

        (b) Westside shall be the surviving corporation (the "Surviving
    Corporation").

    2. Effective as of the effective date of the Merger, Article I of the
Articles of Incorporation of the Surviving Corporation shall be amended to read
as follows:

    "The name of the corporation is First Sterling Banks, Inc." All other
provisions of the Articles of Incorporation of the Surviving Corporation shall
remain in full force and effect.

    3. An executed Merger Agreement which sets forth the plan of merger is on
file at the principal place of business of the Surviving Corporation, which is
1200 Barrett Parkway, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144.

    4. A copy of the Merger Agreement will be furnished by the Surviving
Corporation upon request and without cost to any shareholder of any corporation
that is a party to the merger or whose shares are involved in the merger.

    5. The shareholders of Eastside, upon recommendation of the Board of
Directors of Eastside, duly approved the Merger at a special shareholders'
meeting on July 16, 1996.

    6. Approval by the shareholders of Westside was not required.

    7. The Merger shall be effective on the 31st day of July, 1996.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Surviving Corporation causes this Certificate of
Merger to be executed in its name by its President and attested to by its
Secretary this 17th day of July, 1996.



                                  WESTSIDE FINANCLKL CORPORATION

     [CORPORATE SEAL]


                                     By: /s/ Edward C. Milligan
                                        ------------------------
                                        Edward C. Milligan, President

ATTEST:


/s/ Barbara J. Bond
--------------------
Barbara J. Bond, Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUL-3-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                             587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                       760
<INVENTORY>                                     11,069
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,177
<PP&E>                                          24,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,237
<BONDS>                                         29,264
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            48
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,321
<SALES>                                         35,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,535
<CGS>                                           26,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (138)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 654
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                       788
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,285
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11


                            IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended November 30,
                                                                     -----------------------
                                                                    1999      1998      1997
                                                                   ------    ------    ------
<S>                                                                <C>       <C>       <C>
Net Income                                                         $1,782    $2,032    $1,719

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding                4,734     4,734     4,734

Shares used in computation of basic earnings per common
    stock                                                           4,734     4,734     4,734
                                                                   ======    ======    ======

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and stock warrants
    after application of treasury stock method                          0        11         0

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding-diluted             4,745     4,745     4,734
                                                                   ======    ======    ======

Basic and diluted earnings per common share                        $  .38    $  .43    $  .36
                                                                   ======    ======    ======
</TABLE>


                                       26
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7321

CALVIN JERMAINE VINES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00054-LMB) Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 11, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Jermaine Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Calvin Jermaine Vines seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vines has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED