alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

FLIGHT LOG

ENDORSEMENT 

CODE

GTPDX359

X-59 3D PRINT ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS

www.nasa.gov

Pre-Assembly Check List

If printed with a brim, make sure 

all edges are clean/undisturbed. 

Pieces are designed to press fit 

together but glue is recommended 

for a permanent solution. Superglue or hobby glue work well. 

To make sure clearances are correct: fit together without glue first, 

then make any adjustments before 

gluing together. 

Fit Wings to Body Parts. 

Left Wing  Body

Left Wing will fit into the open area 

on the left side of the body. 

1

Right Wing  Body

Right Body has an opening that 

allows a longer section of the 

Right Wing to extend through both 

the Right and Left Body halves. 

Push the Right Wing into place 

on the Right Body section, making 

sure the wing piece extends 

through the body section. 
Joining Bodies

Push 2 halves together. The Right 

Wing section should also fit into 

part of the Left Body section, 

helping to better stabilize the 

model.

2
Attach Nose Pieces

Glue, sand, and finish your model. 

Finished model

You now have a completed model!

3

4
Adding Decals

A-H shows placement of the 

decals on the aircraft for both 

sides of the vehicle.

5

A. Flag placement

E. X-59 Type placement

G. Skunk Works

logo placement

C. Number placement D. NASA logo placement

H. Quesst mark placement

B. Vehicle number 

placement F. Lockheed Martin 

logo placement

A. Flag placement

E. X-59 Type placement

C. Number placement D. NASA logo placement

B. Vehicle number 

placement

G. Skunk Works

logo placement

F. Lockheed Martin 

logo placement

H. Quesst mark placement

X-59

X-59
Model Stand

3-D Printed Model Stand

6
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Headquarters

300 E. Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

EP-2022-09-551-HQ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gregory Weivoda,

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-17-03737-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: November 27, 2017 /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 9072 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 1
#### WALLACE CLEMONS v. JOHN J. RAFFERTY, ET AL.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR OSCAR SWAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-365) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Oscar Swan, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Swan , No. CR-95-365 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 1997).Our decision intimates nothing about the retroactivity of the oneyear limitations period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1997), since Appellant filed this action over one year after the effective date of the statute. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 41319 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RODRIGO PERDOMO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 310

- 1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodrigo Perdomo 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). Perdomo h a s not filed a response. 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 August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-41319 Document: 00512750968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014No. 13

- 41319

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r 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.

2 Case: 13-41319 Document: 00512750968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6617
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN ALEXANDER WALTERS, a/k/a Rohan Williams, a/k/a Dave, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (2:97-cr-00157-2; 2:04-cv-00758) Submitted: December 8, 2006 Decided: January 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan Alexander Walters, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rohan Alexander Walters appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Walters’ motion for a certificate of appealability and affirm the denial of Walters’ § 3582 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Walters , No. 2:04-cv-00758 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 14, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23

KPMG LOGO

|4200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402 |  | Telephone  612-305-5000
Fax  612-305-5100
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------

Consent of Independent Public Accountants

The
Board of Directors
HMN Financial, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference of our report dated January 29, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of HMN Financial, Inc. as of December 31,
2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity, 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 HMN Financial, Inc., in the following Registration Statements of HMN Financial, Inc.:
Nos. 33-88228, 33-94388, 33-94386 and 333-64232 on Form S-8.

KPMG SIG

Minneapolis,
Minnesota
March 27, 2002

---

QuickLinks
#### George Ferguson Admr. *v.*Thomas Johnson et al.

Appeal and Error — Appearance in Appellate Court — Waiver of Errors.

■ The appearance before the appellate court by brief, of an administrator, and as to whom no appeal had been taken nor bond executed, will cure any defects in errors or irregularities, against which he cannot complain.

APPEAL EROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

September 11, 1868.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams:

In the bill in equity filed in Virginia by Willis Roberts and Thomas Johnson, it is averred that George Ferguson paid over to said Roberts in January, 1861, as profits on the partnership drove of horses $356. It was therefore clearly right in the commissioner, in stating the accounts between the several partners in this suit, to charge Roberts’ administrator with this $356, and erroneous in the court to strike it out, Ferguson should be credited .by and Roberts charged with this payment.

Roberts’ administrator excepted to this item because it was the same as the one for $325, charged by Ferguson to Johnson as shown by James Johnson’s deposition, on examination of the deposition it is not perceived that this identity is established, but if it was it would tend rather to prove the error in charging Johnson instead of Roberts, but Johnson does not complain of the item of $325 charged against him.

It is said in argument that parol evidence was heard upon the trial of the exceptions. There is no evidence of this in the record, and being an unusual practice we cannot presume it from the mere order giving appellant time to present his bill of exceptions; and we can hardly presume that evidence contradicting Roberts’ own allegations was received, or if so, that these were disproved.

Had Roberts’ administrator not appeared to this appeal and had not the parties treated him as an appellee, we could not say on this record that the appeal was against him, as the appeal bond and writ are alone as to Johnson. But he has appeared by brief and the only error assigned by appellant is as to Roberts’ admin*550istrator, hence we conclude that he was the real and substantial party and his appearance has- waived all errors or irregularities as to him.

*Brock, Turner, for appellant.*

*Reid*& *Reid, for appellee.*

The judgment is reversed for the correction of the error pointed out, but with discretion in the court below to hear additional proof by depositions or to refer it to a commkjioner to hear and report the evidence, &c.
Exhibit 99.02



                            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 Annual Report of eSAFETYWORLD, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Bret Jenkins, Chief
Financial Officer 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, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ R. Bret Jenkins

R. Bret Jenkins
Chief Financial Officer
October 11, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

denied

NO. 15-0379

NADER DARYAPAYMA AND

FARIBA DARYAPAYMA

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK

MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF

NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR

THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF

THE CWABS, INC., ASSET-BACK

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-15

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

September 11, 2015

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

October 30, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, NADER DARYAPAYMA AND FARIBA

DARYAPAYMA, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

FILE COPY
WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 30th day of October, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ABDUL JONES.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Know  all Men by These  Presents,  that  each  individual  whose  signature
appears below  constitutes  and appoints  Thomas D. Ferguson and J.C.  Lowenberg
III, and each of them, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with power
of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all  capacities,  to sign an annual  report on Form 10-K for the  fiscal
year  ended  December  31,  1996  (the  "Form  10-K")  and to  sign  any and all
amendments to the Form 10-K,  and to file the same,  with all exhibits and other
documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  and each of them, full power
and  authority  to do and  perform  each and every act and thing  requisite  and
necessary  to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully to all  intents  and
purposes as he might or could do in person,  hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or any of them, or their,  his or her
substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Date:  March 31, 1997


     Signature                                 Title
     ---------                                 -----


/s/ William R. Cooper                 Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
---------------------                   the Board
William R. Cooper

/s/ Lewis A. Levey                    Vice Chairman and Director
------------------
Lewis A. Levey

/s/ Robert H. Gidel                   Chief Operating Officer, President and
-------------------                      Director
Robert H. Gidel

/s/ Thomas R. Delatour, Jr.           Director
---------------------------
Thomas R. Delatour, Jr.

/s/ Richard J. Haayen                 Director
---------------------
Richard J. Haayen

/s/ Douglas D. Hawthorne              Director
------------------------
Douglas D. Hawthorne

                                      Director
----------------
William S. Janes

                                      Director
--------------
John H. Massey

                                      Director
------------------
Joseph R. Musolino

/s/ Don M. Shine                      Director
----------------
Don M. Shine
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2435 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2435

 To permit Inspectors General to authorize staff to provide assistance 
  to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 18, 2004

Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit Inspectors General to authorize staff to provide assistance 
  to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 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 ``Missing Child Cold Case Review Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

    Title XXXVII of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5779 et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 3701 the following:

``SEC. 3701A. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

    ``(a) In General.--An Inspector General appointed under section 3 
or 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) may 
authorize staff to assist the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children--
            ``(1) by conducting reviews of inactive case files to 
        develop recommendations for further investigations; and
            ``(2) by engaging in similar activities.
    ``(b) Limitations.--
            ``(1) Priority.--An Inspector General may not permit staff 
        to engage in activities described in subsection (a) if such 
        activities will interfere with the duties of the Inspector 
        General under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
        App.).
            ``(2) Funding.--No additional funds are authorized to be 
        appropriated to carry out this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rent-Way, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such
officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2003, (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2003

|                          
|--------------------------
|/S/ WILLIAM E. MORGENSTERN
|Signature                 
|                          
|CHAIRMAN and CEO          
|Title                     
|                          

Dated: August 14, 2003

|                        
|------------------------
|/S/ WILLIAM A. MCDONNELL
|Signature               
|                        
|VICE PRESIDENT and CFO  
|Title                   
|                        

This certification is being furnished solely to accompany this
Form 10-Q pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company unless such incorporation
is expressly referenced therein.
Exhibit
23





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-07589, No. 333-31105, No. 333-83235, and No. 333-126876 each on Form S-8, of
our report dated March 31, 2010 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Heritage Oaks Bancorp and Subsidiaries appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.





/s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co.,
      LLPRancho
      Cucamonga, CaliforniaMarch
      31, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Farlow,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03620-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 8353 Filed 10/23/17 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 8353 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 2