alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENY; and Opinion Filed February 27 , 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00229
- CV IN RE JAMES MCCOY , Relator Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 13955
- B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown Opinion by Justice Brown
Relator files this writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his mot ion to compel service of process. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8( a); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

- 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

140229F.P05 /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 259 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 259

  To expand the eligibility for membership in veterans organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2003

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To expand the eligibility for membership in veterans organizations.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR EXEMPTION FROM 
              TAX FOR VETERANS' ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 501(c)(19) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt 
organizations) is amended by striking ``or widowers'' and inserting ``, 
widowers, or ancestors or lineal descendants''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bond *v.*Brady.

*Thursday, January*4, 1844.

In debt against a constable for an escape on execution, the execution-debtor is a competent witness for the constable.

ERROR to the *Wayne*Circuit Court.

*J. S.*Neuman, for the plaintiff.

*J. B.*Julian, for the defendant.

Blackford, J.

— This was an action of debt, commenced before a justice of the peace against a constable for an escape on execution. There were five pleas, the second and fifth of which were struck out on the plaintiff’s motion. The first plea was *nil debet;*the third, that the execution-defendant, Aydelott, was discharged from custody by the license of the plaintiff; and the fourth, that said *Aydelott*was discharged by order of the plaintiff’s attorney. The justice gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, and judgment was there, also, given for the defendant.

The plaintiff makes two objections to the judgment. The first is, that a motion by the plaintiff to suppress the deposition of Aydelott, taken by the defendant, was improperly overruled. The second is, that the evidence did not support the judgment.

The plaintiff contends, that the deposition of the execution-defendant should have been suppressed, on the ground of his being interested. We think, however, that the witness was competent. This being an action of debt against the officer for an escape on execution, the plaintiff, if he succeed, will recover his whole debt, and can have no recourse after-wards against the execution-defendant. *Bonafous*v. Walker, 2 T. R. 126. It follows, that the execution-debtor can have no interest in defeating the suit.

The second objection to the judgment is unfounded. Taking the deposition objected to into consideration, as we must do, the evidence in the record is clearly in favour of the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The. judgment is affirmed with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,188
<INVENTORY>                                     71,507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,615
<PP&E>                                         140,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,500
<BONDS>                                         91,562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   309,640
<SALES>                                        539,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               539,335
<CGS>                                          415,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  520,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,435
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,307
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RODNEY LUERY.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2565 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2565

 To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to convert the dairy forward 
     pricing program into a permanent program of the Department of 
                              Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 23 (legislative day, June 22), 2004

   Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
Wyden, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; which 
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
                              and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to convert the dairy forward 
     pricing program into a permanent program of the Department of 
                              Agriculture.

    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 ``Milk Price Forward Contracting 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT DAIRY FORWARD PRICING PROGRAM.

    Section 23 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 627), 
reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
of 1937, is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by striking ``pilot'';
            (2) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 
                ``Pilot''; and
                    (B) by striking ``Not later than'' and all that 
                follows through ``temporary pilot program'' and 
                inserting ``The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct, 
                as a permanent program of the Department of 
                Agriculture, a program'';
            (3) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 
                ``pilot''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``pilot''; and
            (4) by striking subsections (d) and (e).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.01

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PLATO Learning, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Murray, the
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.

Date: September 14, 2004                       /s/ John Murray
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Chairman, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elzia Bolt,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00141-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Hollis, Wright, Clay & Vail, PC

(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 1/19/2018, 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 24, 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 9794 Filed 01/25/18 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 9794 Filed 01/25/18 Page 2 of 2
Return
      to Main Document




**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
   In
        connection with the quarterly report of Mexoro Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Robert
        Knight, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350,
        as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
  1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of
        operations.






By:
                /S/
                Robert KnightRobert
                Knight, President




October
      16,
      2006
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra L. Johnson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-l-johnsonnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-74","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6i8RdCZQ4G\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-74\/\">STS-74<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-74\/embed\/#?secret=6i8RdCZQ4G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-74” — NASA\" data-secret=\"6i8RdCZQ4G\" 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"}
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2363 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2363

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
        To revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

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

SECTION 1. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA.

    Section 401 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 13751 
note) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
            (A) by striking ``1,200'' and inserting ``1,500'';
            (B) by striking ``4,000'' and inserting ``5,000''; and
            (C) by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting 
        ``December 31, 2010'';
        (2) in subsection (c)--
            (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 
        and 2006'' and inserting ``2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010''; 
        and
            (B) in paragraph (2)--
                (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1,200'' and 
            inserting ``1,500''; and
                (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

                    (I) by striking ``4,000'' and inserting ``5,000''; 
                and
                    (II) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2010''; 
                and

        (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and inserting 
    the following:
        ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
    carry out this section--
            ``(A) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
            ``(B) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
            ``(C) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
            ``(D) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
            ``(E) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"A Revolutionary Approach to Interplanetary Space Travel: Studying Torpor in Animals for Space-health in Humans (STASH)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Krd6EERqlx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/studying-torpor-in-animals-for-space-health-in-humans\/\">A Revolutionary Approach to Interplanetary Space Travel: Studying Torpor in Animals for Space-health in Humans (STASH)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/studying-torpor-in-animals-for-space-health-in-humans\/embed\/#?secret=Krd6EERqlx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“A Revolutionary Approach to Interplanetary Space Travel: Studying Torpor in Animals for Space-health in Humans (STASH)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Krd6EERqlx\" 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\/2024\/01\/2024-ph-i-sprenger-graphic.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":309}
#### W. H. Keen et al *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Indictment—Offence of a Breach of Tavern Bond.

A surety on the bond of tavern keepers cannot be prosecuted under an indictment alleging an “offence of a breach of tavern bond.” A surety is not subject to indictment; he can only be proceeded against under a civil action.

Same.

Such proceeding, being a prosecution, not for a misdemeanor, but for a mere breach of his obligation to recover the statutory penalty, is not the subject of an indictment, which is an accusation by a grand jury charging a person with the commission of a public offence.

APPEAL EROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 17, 1868.

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Hardin :

An indictment was found by the grand jury of Ballard county against the appellants Hill and Keen as tavern keepers, and the appellant Orice as their surety in their bond as such, for the *544alleged “offense of a breach of tavern bond,” the specific charge being that said Hill and Keen, being licensed "to keep a tavern, and having with their said surety covenanted that they would not suffer or permit any person to tipple or drink more than was necessary in their said house, did suffer and permit one Hayden Roberts to do so.

*Marshall*& *White, for appellant.*

The court having overruled a demurrer of the defendants to the indictment, they pleaded “not guilty,” .and on a trial of the issue, a verdict was rendered that they were “guilty as charged in the indictment,” and thereupon the court gave judgment against them in favor of the Commonwealth for $300, and the court having refused to grant a new trial the defendants have appealed to this court.

The proceeding is not merely a prosecution against Hill and Keen for a public, offense in permitting excessive drinking in their tavern house, but so far as Crice, their surety is concerned at least, is a prosecution by indictment, not for a misdemeanor, but for the mere breach of his obligation, to recover the penalty of $300 prescribed by the 7th section of chapter 99 of the Revised Statutes. Whatever may have been his liability it was not the subject of an indictment which is an accusation by a grand jury charging a person with the commission of a “public offense” (Criminal Code, section 100. Margoley vs. Commonwealth, 3 Met., 405).

Whether it might have been proper to proceed by indictment to convict the principals, and then by a summary .civil proceeding to fix the liability of the surety as seems to have been recognized by the court in Margoley vs. The Commonwealth, 3 Metcalf *supra,*or to prosecute a penal action against the obligors in the bond, it is obvious that the prosecution of Crice by an indictment as for a misdemeanor was unauthorized by law, and the court erred in rendering the judgment against him, jointly with Hill and Keen on the verdict of the jury.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.