alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 10, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 01 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 22 18 3- CV-J AL DARRIC K ADAWAY, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W al te r A. McNei l, Se cret ary, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF TH E STATE OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S tate s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 1 0, 2 00 9) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BLACK an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: App el lantDarri ckAdawa y , a Flo rid a st at e p ris on er p ro ceed in g pr o s e , ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 fed eral habe as pe ti ti on .W e g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity as t o wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt v io la te d Cl is byv. Jo nes , 96 0 F .2d92 5, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) ( en ba nc ), whe n i t fa il edto ad dr es s h is cla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l fo r fai lu re t o app eal a m ot io n to supp res s h is co nf

es si on .
“ [W] e rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w andm ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact de no vo , an d fi nd in gs of f

actforcle ar erro r.” St ewa rt v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 47 6 F .3d 11 93 , 12 08 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). In Cl is by , we hel d tha t wh ena di st ric t co urt fa il s t o ad dr es s al l cl ai m s i n ahabe as pe ti ti on , we wil l v acat e wit ho utpre jud ic e an d rem an d the cas e fo r co ns id erat io n o f al l re m ai ni ng cla im s. 9 60 F.2dat 9 38 . Und er Cl is by , a cla im

“ is an y all eg at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Id
. at 9 36 . In effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l co ns ti tu te s a v io la ti on of ade fen da nt ’s Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts , andthus is a cl ai m of aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Stri cklan d v
. W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 4– 86 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 3- 64 , 80 L. Ed. 2d67 4 (1 98 4) . Afte r a car efu l re vi ew of

th e rec or d o n app eal an d the bri efs of t he pa rti es , we co nc lu de th e d is tri ctco urt v io la te d Cl is byby fail in g t o a ddres s Ad away’ s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l fo r fai lu re t o app eal th e d en ia l o f th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s h is co nf es si on . Accor di ng ly, we va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s

2jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d re m an d fo r co ns id erat io n o f th e rem ai ni ng cla im

by the di st ric t co urt. VACATED AND REMANDED.

3
<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
     Numbers                                Registration Statement
     -------                                ----------------------

       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


of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 2002, (except for
Note 24, as to which the date is March 22, 2002) relating to the Consolidated
Statements of Financial Condition of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2001, and 2000 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, 2001, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc.

Our report refers to a change in method of accounting for derivative instruments
and hedging activities in 2001.

                                       /s/ KPMG LLP


Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
March  27, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24108]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-16-000]


Binghamton BOP LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Binghamton BOP LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application 
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is October 22, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a0c0f180905242623242f193f3a3a25383e0a2c2f3829642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87c1c2d5c4c8e9ebeee9e2d4f2f7f7e8f5f3c7e1e2f5e4a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 2, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24108 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350

(Adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008 (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|            |  |                         
|----------- |  | ------------------------
|May 8, 2008
|            | 
|By:         |  | /s/ Roger J. Medel, M.D.
|            |  | Roger J. Medel, M.D.    
|            |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|            | 
|By:         |  | /s/ Karl B. Wagner      
|            |  | Karl B. Wagner          
|            |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lynn Rund,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03597-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners 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 10/13/2017, 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: October 18, 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 8308 Filed 10/20/17 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 8308 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 2
#### Susan Herndon *v.*Huston & Williams.

Contracts — Rent—Failure to Take Premises — Criterion of Damages — Burden of Proof.

The price for which property was rented, under a contract, is prima facie the value of the use of the property, and the! burden of proof is on defendants to show that they could only get for it the amount reported as received by them.

APPEAL PROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT.

February 5, 1868.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

If the contract for the renting was complete, and nothing further remained to be done, it is not a little strange that appellant should retain the note for the purpose of getting surety on it, as is alleged in the petition. It was not then ever delivered to appellees as her note, according to their own showing, and the strong probability is, that is was not to be delivered as her note, until the surety signed it, which appellee required to be done in order to perfect the contract.

Moreover, they allege that after appellant declined to take the. house, and they were authorized to sub-let it, they could only get $46.50 for it. The price at which they allege they rented the property to her, exceeded the price they report to have received for it, more than $100. No reason is assigned for this wonderful difference; and after alleging that they rented to her at $160 per annum and being authorized by her to sub-let it, the court should not have taken their mere allegation of what they received without proof as the criterion for the credit. The price for which they *330allege they rented to her and which she admits she was willing to give if she could make a satisfactory note, is *prima facie*the value of the use of the property for one year. And the *onus*was •on appellees to showHliat they could only get for it, the amount reported by them.

*Gissel, Vance*& *Adair, for appellant.*

*Huston, for appellee.*

Tii either view of the case, therefore, the judgment was unauthorized. Wherefore, said judgment is *reversed,*and the cause remanded with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                              BIG CITY RADIO, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED            NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                 SEPTEMBER 30,                SEPTEMBER 30,
                                           -------------------------   ---------------------------
                                              1999          1998           1999           1998
                                           -----------   -----------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                        <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>
Net loss.................................  $(5,697,000)  $(4,192,000)  $(18,452,000)  $(12,937,000)
                                           ===========   ===========   ============   ============
Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding--basic:
  Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding...................   14,069,275    14,069,275     14,069,275     14,011,580
Dilutive effect of stock options after
  application of treasury stock method...           --            --             --             --
                                           -----------   -----------   ------------   ------------
Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding............................   14,069,275    14,069,275     14,069,275     14,011,580
                                           ===========   ===========   ============   ============
Net loss per share:
Basic and dilutive (a)...................  $     (0.40)  $     (0.30)  $      (1.31)  $      (0.92)
                                           ===========   ===========   ============   ============
</TABLE>

------------------------

(a) In calculating diluted earnings per share, no potential shares of common
    stock are to be included in the computation of diluted earnings per share
    when a loss from continuing operations available to common stockholders
    exists. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 1999 and 1998, the
    Company had a loss from continuing operations.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41548 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS RIVERA

- NAVA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 396

- 1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Rivera

- Nava has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera

- Nava h a s not filed a respon se. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 20 , 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41548 Document: 00514039924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017No. 16

- 41548

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41548 Document: 00514039924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Megan Person","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/megan-personnasa-gov\/","title":"Global Hawk High-Altitude Long-Endurance Aircraft","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UBSEXFVeAy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/global-hawk-uas\/\">Global Hawk High-Altitude Long-Endurance Aircraft<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/global-hawk-uas\/embed\/#?secret=UBSEXFVeAy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Global Hawk High-Altitude Long-Endurance Aircraft” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UBSEXFVeAy\" 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\/2015\/04\/ed10-0266-08.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### STATE v. BURWELL

No. 365P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 716

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 16 August 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 August 2001.
#### Ivan Jarvis et al., Respondents, v Crotona Associates, LLC, et al., Appellants. Argus Realty, Ltd., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Zachary Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 111]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered June 25, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, *424denied so much of defendants’ motion for summary judgment as sought dismissal of the seventh cause of action in the complaint, and so much of that motion by third-party plaintiffs (the Argus/ Adler defendants) for a conditional order of contractual indemnification, and the cross motion by third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion granted to the extent of dismissing the first and second causes of action in the third-party complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied the motions insofar as they sought dismissal of the complaint. There are triable issues as to whether the injured plaintiff had been hired by third-party defendant prior to the accident, which occurred during sheetrock installation. The court also properly declined to dismiss the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 in light of remaining issues as to the extent of supervision, direction and control exercised by Argus at the work site *(see Gawel v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.,*237 AD2d 138 [1997]). Moreover, in light of these issues, the Argus/Adler motion for summary judgment on the third-party claim for a conditional order of contractual indemnification was properly denied *(see Sheehan v Fordham Univ.,*259 AD2d 328 [1999]). However, the third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution should be dismissed because the injury sustained—loss of vision in one eye—is not a “grave injury” under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 *(Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr.,*3 AD3d 459 [2004], *lv granted*3 NY3d 605 [2004]; *Ibarra v Equipment Control,*268 AD2d 13, 18 [2000]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.