alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NCCIPS","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oLe5pvVuBy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nssc\/nccips\/\">NCCIPS<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nssc\/nccips\/embed\/#?secret=oLe5pvVuBy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NCCIPS” — NASA\" data-secret=\"oLe5pvVuBy\" 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"}
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 MEDNAX, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2009 (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 MEDNAX, Inc.

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

August 5, 2009



|    |  |                         
|--- |  | ------------------------
|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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"35 Years Ago: STS-41D \u2013 First Flight of Space Shuttle Discovery","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5MDbQHT8GM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/35-years-ago-sts-41d-first-flight-of-space-shuttle-discovery\/\">35 Years Ago: STS-41D \u2013 First Flight of Space Shuttle Discovery<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/35-years-ago-sts-41d-first-flight-of-space-shuttle-discovery\/embed\/#?secret=5MDbQHT8GM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“35 Years Ago: STS-41D \u2013 First Flight of Space Shuttle Discovery” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5MDbQHT8GM\" 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\/sts060-s-0105.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":392}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darryl L. Walker,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03513-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(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 12/7/2017, 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: December 20, 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 9426 Filed 12/21/17 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 9426 Filed 12/21/17 Page 2 of 2
* 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 October 13, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60807 Summary Calendar

REYES IVAN ESPINOZA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A77 757 257

-------------------- Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Reyes Ivan Espinoza petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming, without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Espinoza challenges as “arbitrary and irrational” the IJ’s determination that he had failed to establish either the statutory requirement of 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States or that his four children would sufferNo. 03-60807 -2- “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if the family were removed to Mexico. Because this case involves the granting of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) is implicated. See Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft , 351 F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir. 2003). The jurisdictionstripping provision eliminates jurisdiction over those decisions that involve the exercise of discretion. Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft , 349 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 2003). The IJ’s determination that Espinoza’s children would not suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if Espinoza were deported to Mexico involved the exercise of discretion. Rueda v. Ashcroft , F.3d (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2004, No. 03-60730), 2004 WL 1747388 at *1. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination on hardship, and Espinoza’s petition is DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

This certification is given by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cowlitz Bancorporation (the Registrant) pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, with respect to the Registrants quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), that:

(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.



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard J. Fitzpatrick                                           
|Richard J. Fitzpatrick Chief Executive
Officer Cowlitz Bancorporation
|                                                                     
|/s/ Gerald L. Brickey                                                
|Gerald L. Brickey                                                    
|Chief Financial Officer Cowlitz
Bancorporation                       

August 14, 2007
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Servicer's Certificate  Fingerhut Master Trust

The
undersigned, a duly authorized representative of FMT Services, Inc. as servicer (the "Servicer"), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
March 18, 1998, (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), and amended to date by and among Fingerhut Receivables, Inc., (the "Transferor"), FMT Services, Inc., as Servicer, and the
Bank of New York, a New York banking corporation, (the "Trustee"), does hereby certify that:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th day of May 2003.

| |  | FMT Services, Inc.Servicer
| |  | --------------------------
| |  | By:                       

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

George R. Allen, 

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-17-03484-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 6, 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 8675 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JAMES J. FITZGERALD, 

 Petitioner - Appellee / 

 Cross-Appellant,

v.

ANITA TRAMMELL, Warden, 

Oklahoma State Penitentiary,

 Respondent - Appellant / 

 Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 13-5131 & 13-5133

(D.C. No. 4:03-CV-00531-GKF-TLW)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and MCHUGH Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

These cross appeals are before the Court for consideration of Petitioner’s 

Suggestion of Death and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Cross-Appeal or in 

the Alternative to Allow Substitution of Parties (“Motion”), and Respondent’s response 

thereto. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows. 

As the result of petitioner’s death, these appeals became moot due to 

circumstances unattributable to any of the parties. “A party who seeks review of the 

merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, ought not in 

fairness to be forced to acquiesce in the judgment.” U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner 

Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S. Ct. 386, 391-92 (1994) (mootness by happenstance 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 11, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 13-5131 Document: 01019384089 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 1 
2

provides sufficient reason to vacate the unreviewable district court judgment). In this 

instance, both parties seek review of merits of a partially-adverse district court judgment, 

which has been rendered unreviewable by happenstance. 

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss these appeals as moot, vacate the judgment of 

the district court, and remand with instructions to dismiss the underlying case as moot. 

See Claiborne v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2245 (2007) (vacating criminal judgment as 

moot due to defendant’s death during pendency of appeal); United States v. 

Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40 (1950) (outlining general procedure to be 

followed when federal case becomes moot during pendency of appeal); Portalatin v. 

Graham, 624 F.3d 69, 78 n.3 (2d Cir. 2010) (reversing district court’s judgment and 

remanding case with instructions to dismiss as moot due to federal habeas petitioner’s 

death during pendency of appeal). All pending motions are denied as moot. 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the Court.

The oral argument set for March 19, 2015 is vacated, and all counsel are excused 

from attendance in Denver, Colorado.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Chris Wolpert

 Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 13-5131 Document: 01019384089 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sharon Dixon,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04498-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(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 1/4/2018, 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 9749 Filed 01/19/18 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 9749 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2452

To require labeling of raw agricultural forms of ginseng, including the country 

of harvest, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2004

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL

To require labeling of raw agricultural forms of ginseng, 

including the country of harvest, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ginseng Harvest La5 beling Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF COUNTRY OF HARVEST. 

7 The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 

8 1621 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 
2

•S 2452 IS 

1 ‘‘Subtitle E—Ginseng 

2 ‘‘SEC. 291. DISCLOSURE OF COUNTRY OF HARVEST. 

3 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF GINSENG.—In this section, the 

4 term ‘ginseng’ means an herb or herbal ingredient that— 

5 ‘‘(1) is derived from a plant classified within 

6 the genus Panax; and 

7 ‘‘(2) is offered for sale as a raw agricultural 

8 commodity in any form intended to be used in or as 

9 a food or dietary supplement under the name of 

10 ‘ginseng’. 

11 ‘‘(b) DISCLOSURE.— 

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A person that offers gin13 seng for sale as a raw agricultural commodity shall 

14 disclose to potential purchasers the country of har15 vest of the ginseng. 

16 ‘‘(2) IMPORTATION.—A person that imports 

17 ginseng into the United States shall disclose the 

18 country of harvest of the ginseng at the point of 

19 entry of the United States, in accordance with sec20 tion 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

21 1304). 

22 ‘‘(c) MANNER OF DISCLOSURE.— 

23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The disclosure required by 

24 subsection (b) shall be provided to potential pur25 chasers by means of a label, stamp, mark, placard, 
3

•S 2452 IS 

1 or other clear and visible sign on the ginseng or on 

2 the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing 

3 the ginseng. 

4 ‘‘(2) RETAILERS.—A retailer of ginseng shall— 

5 ‘‘(A) retain disclosure provided under sub6 section (b); and 

7 ‘‘(B) provide disclosure to a retail pur8 chaser of the raw agricultural commodity. 

9 ‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Agri10 culture shall by regulation prescribe with specificity 

11 the manner in which disclosure shall be made in 

12 transactions at wholesale or retail (including trans13 actions by mail, telephone, or Internet or in retail 

14 stores). 

15 ‘‘(d) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE.—The Secretary of Agri16 culture may impose on a person that fails to comply with 

17 subsection (b) a civil penalty of not more than— 

18 ‘‘(1) $1,000 for the first day on which the fail19 ure to disclose occurs; and 

20 ‘‘(2) $250 for each day on which the failure to 

21 disclose continues.’’. 
4

•S 2452 IS 

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 This Act and the amendment made by this Act take 

3 effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of enact4 ment of this Act.

Æ