alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2617 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2617

Making a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Education for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 7, 2004

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
Making a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Education for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, 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 ``No Child Left Behind Appropriations 
Support Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION.

    (a) Appropriation.--To carry out this Act, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated 
$237,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the Department of 
Education for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.
    (b) Payments.--In addition to amounts otherwise provided to a local 
educational agency under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) 
for fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Education shall make a payment 
in an amount determined under subsection (c) to each local educational 
agency that receives a lesser amount of funds for fiscal year 2004 
under such subpart than the agency received for fiscal year 2003.
    (c) Determination of Amount.--The amount of a payment to a local 
educational agency under this Act shall be equal to the amount of the 
difference between--
            (1) the amount the agency would otherwise receive for 
        fiscal year 2004 under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the 
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 
        et seq.); and
            (2) the amount the agency received for fiscal year 2003 
        under such subpart.
    (d) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``local educational agency'' 
has the meaning given to that term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ron Hadani, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A 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.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in the report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(a)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)              Designed suchdisclosure 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)             Evaluated theeffectiveness 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)              Disclosed inthis 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.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)              All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)             Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
|                  |   |       | /s/ Ron Hadani          |   |
|-----------------------|--------|------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Dated: March 18, 2005 |   | Ron Hadani |
|                  |   |       | Chief Executive Officer |

 

28

----
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00041

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1550999D
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Dana Womack 

### A MANDA 

### J OY 

### W

ALKER 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 27, 2018, the State charged appellant Amanda J o y Walker with the possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in the amount of four gr ams or more but less than 200 grams. On December 18, 2018, as part of a plea

- bargain agreement, Walker pleaded guilty to the possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in the amount of one gram or more but less than four grams

— a lesser

- include d offense of the State’s original charge. The trial court placed Walker on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. The trial court also filed a certification that this is a plea

- bargain case, that Walker has no right of appeal, and

t hat Walker ha s waived her right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Walker filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the judgment.
W e notified Walker that the trial court had certified that she had no right to appeal based on the plea

- bargain agree ment and that we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response showing grounds to continue it. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. We have received no response. Additionally, Walker’s court

- appointed
attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as Wa lker’s counsel. Rule 25.2 limits the right of appeal in a plea

- bargain case to matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled upon before trial or to cases in which the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Here, the trial court’s certification does not show that the trial court granted Walker permission to appeal, and the record includes no indication that Walker intends to3

challenge a pretrial ruling on a written motion filed and ruled on befo re trial. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez v.
State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We take no action on Walker’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Rogers v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 00077

- CR , 2019 W L 983732, at * 2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2019 , no pet. h. ) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ( taking no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw after determining that trial court had certified that appellant had no right to appeal).

/s/ Dan a Womack Dana Womack Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: March 14, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allan Randall,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00044-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Murray Law Firm

(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 1/5/2018, 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: January 12, 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 9623 Filed 01/12/18 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 9623 Filed 01/12/18 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN KITCHEN.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following listed registration statementsof RF Monolithics, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated November 17, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RF Monolithics, Inc. for the year ended August 31, 2003: 33-83492, 333-000366, 333-01420, 333-23669, 333-59643, 333-83667,333-83689, 333-34912, 333-58530, 333-84612, 333-10421. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

November 17 , 2003
#### THOMAS BRACKIN, INC., ETC. v. DORA G. COOK.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### W. W. Haynes *v.*A. L. Simons, Assignee, et al.

Laches — Revival of Action.

An appellant filed an answer to a cause of action setting out a good defense thereto, at the October term of court, 1860, and March, 1861, was transferred to the equity docket after a survey was made as set out in the answer. The case was continued till October term, 1863, when one of the defendants died, and the case was continued without effort to revive the action. Appellee (complainant) at the April term, 1865, took a rule against appellant to prepare for trial at the July term, but case lingered on the docket until October, 1866, when judgment was rendered against appellant. *Held,*that appellant was guilty of gross negligence, and not entitled to relief.

APPEAL PROM BRECKINRIDGE CIRCUIT COURT,

June 12, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

Some of the facts stated in appellant’s answer and cross-petition certainly presented a good defense to the action and would have entitled him to the relief he sought if the facts alleged had been sustained by the evidence and his cross-action had been properly prepared and prosecuted, but the title bond, which he alleged he held on Asberry, was not filed and properly made an exhibit in the cause. J. K. Underwood, in whom he alleged that legal title to the land for which the notes were given was, he did not make a defendant to his cross-action.

The answer, made a cross-petition, was filed at the October term, 1860, of the Circuit Court, and an order of survey entered, and the cause transferred to the equity docket; at the March term, 1861, the surveyor filed his report and the cause was continued, and it was then continued at each successive term of the court without any other order, except the appointment of attorneys to defend for the nonresidents, until the October term, 1863, when the death of the defendant, Joseph Asberry, was suggested, and it was then continued without any effort to revive the action or to prepare it, or any order made in the case until the April term, 1865, when appellee took a rule against appellant to prepare the case for trial at the next term of the court, and although that rule *593was actually served in July, 1865, not a step was taken to prepare the case for trial, although it lingered on the docket until the October term, 1866, of the court, when the judgment now complained of was rendered.

*Haswell & Rodman,*for Appellant.

*Allen,*for Appellees.

A want of attention and care, such as is disclosed in this record on the part of appellant, amounting to reckless negligence, should not be indulged, and if loss and injury follow, they must be accepted as the natural consequence of the love of ease, or an indifference to that which interests most men — their own interest.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert S. Arrighi","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robertsarrighi\/","title":"Renowned Woman Scientist Got Start at NACA in Cleveland in the 1950s","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UloIFTogu9\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/renowned-woman-scientist-got-start-at-naca-in-cleveland-in-the-1950s-2\/\">Renowned Woman Scientist Got Start at NACA in Cleveland in the 1950s<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/renowned-woman-scientist-got-start-at-naca-in-cleveland-in-the-1950s-2\/embed\/#?secret=UloIFTogu9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Renowned Woman Scientist Got Start at NACA in Cleveland in the 1950s” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UloIFTogu9\" 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\/dorothy-simon-thumbail-e1694983368161.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":243}
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 32 Filed 12/11/15 Page 13 of 13
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility National Campaign Adds New Partners","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fp9fCbqtOQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-advanced-air-mobility-national-campaign-adds-new-partners\/\">NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility National Campaign Adds New Partners<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-advanced-air-mobility-national-campaign-adds-new-partners\/embed\/#?secret=fp9fCbqtOQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility National Campaign Adds New Partners” — NASA\" data-secret=\"fp9fCbqtOQ\" 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\/2021\/05\/aam-design4-new-image-2-24-2021-3.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on:


        Form            Registration Statement Numbers


         S-3      333-72283; 333-38799; 333-24571; 333-23771;
                  333-05287;333-93139; 333-71594; 333-62264


         S-8      333-73047; 333-68871; 333-58753; 333-57893; 333-56823;
                  333-08025; 333-89378; 333-87315; 333-82489; 333-45680;
                  333-56798; 333-90136


of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated February 3, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated statements of financial condition of BankAtlantic Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and 2001 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report
on Form 10-K of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.

Our report refers to a change in method of accounting for goodwill and
intangible assets and for gains and losses on the extinguishment of debt in 2002
and for derivative instruments and hedging activities in 2001.



                                                           /s/KPMG LLP

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
March  28, 2003
#### WILLIAM VAN AKELIJEN v. NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY.

May 2, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 10.36

[PDS
LETTERHEAD]

February 10,
2003

Johan
P. Finley
Chief Executive Officer
PDS Gaming Corporation
6171 McLeod Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120

Dear
Johan:

As
you know, the Employment Agreement, dated February 1, 1998, between PDS Gaming Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company"), and yourself (the "Agreement"), had a
five-year term that ended on January 31, 2003. The Board of Directors of the Company, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board, has approved a resolution
(i) authorizing an extension of the term of your employment thereunder, with the modifications set forth below, for an additional two-year period ending January 31, 2005, and
(ii) authorizing the undersigned to execute, on behalf of the Company, this letter agreement to so provide. Accordingly, upon your countersignature in the space provided below, the Agreement
shall be amended, effective as of January 31, 2003, as follows:



All
other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

|                                            |  | Very truly yours,                                                      
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                            |  | /s/PETER D. CLEARYPeter D. Cleary
President and Chief Operating Officer
|ACCEPTED AND AGREED
AS OF JANUARY 31, 2003: |  |                                                                        
|/s/JOHAN P. FINLEYJohan P. Finley           |  |                                                                        

---