alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan Hamm,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04076-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Curtis Law Group

(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 11/27/2017, 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 8, 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 9341 Filed 12/15/17 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 9341 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theaccompanying report on Form 10-K of Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. forthe year ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, inthe capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”); and

 

2.             The information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofFerrellgas Partners Finance Corp. at the dates and for the periods indicatedwithin the Report.

 

The foregoing certificationis made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is subject to the “knowledge” and “willfulness”qualifications contained in 18 U.S.C. 1350(c).

 

Thiscertification is being furnished to the SEC and is not to be deemed “filed”with the SEC for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwisesubject to the liability of Section 18. In addition, this certification isnot to be incorporated by reference into any registration statement ofFerrellgas Partners Finance Corp. or other filing of Ferrellgas PartnersFinance Corp. made pursuant to the Exchange Act or Securities Act of 1933, asamended, unless specifically identified as being incorporated therein byreference.

 

 

Dated:  September 28, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Stephen L. Wambold                     |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Stephen L. Wambold                         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and  President     |
|   |                                       |
|   |                                       |
|   | /s/ J. Ryan VanWinkle                      |
|   | J. Ryan VanWinkle                          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and  Sole Director |

 

***As required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, asigned original of this written statement has been provided to Ferrellgas PartnersFinance Corp.**

 

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                   AS ADDED BY
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002

        In connection with the Annual Report of Royal Bancshares ("Royal") on
form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph P.
Campbell, Chief Executive Officer, 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 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 Royal as of the dates and for the periods
                expressed in the Report.


                                                    /s/ Joseph P. Campbell
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Joseph P. Campbell
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    March 14, 2005.

        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"NGC 4254 (Webb Image)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LLp7ypyxxt\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/53495965723-5c5c821f78-o\/\">NGC 4254 (Webb Image)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/53495965723-5c5c821f78-o\/embed\/#?secret=LLp7ypyxxt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NGC 4254 (Webb Image)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"LLp7ypyxxt\" 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\/02\/53495965723-5c5c821f78-o.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":335}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Desert RATS","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZOgD4eLgYl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/desert-rats\/\">Desert RATS<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/desert-rats\/embed\/#?secret=ZOgD4eLgYl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Desert RATS” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ZOgD4eLgYl\" 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"}
Document

Exhibit 10.1


Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Metrics for 2021


On February 10, 2021, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the specific performance goals and business criteria to be used for purposes of determining any future cash awards for 2021 participants, including executive officers, under the Company's Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2020).  The Corporate performance criteria and weightings to be used for 2021 under the plan include attaining specified levels of:


•Company Adjusted Free Cash Flow (50%)


•Company Adjusted EBIT (20%)


•Company Revenue (10%)


•Quality (20%)


Based on business performance results for 2021 against the targeted levels established for each metric, the Compensation Committee will determine the percentage of the target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and 200% depending on actual performance achieved relative to the target levels.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **7706**

BRIAN E. ASHCRAFT , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
v.
D AVID BALLARD, Warden , Respondent

– Appell ee . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis trict of West Virginia , at Elkins
. John Preston Bailey , Chief District Judge. ( 2 : 1 0

- c v - 0 0 0 11

- J P B

- DJJ)

Submitted : May 2 6 , 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING , SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam opinion
.

Br ian E. Ashcraft , Appellant Pro Se
. Silas B. Taylor , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston , West Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian E. Ashcraft seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (A) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). Wh en the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 4 84

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Ashcraft has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and the motion for appeal counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSE D
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HENRY MARTIN WALLACE.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62132-62133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24565]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-54-000]


Lost Hills Solar, 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 Lost Hills Solar, 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 28, 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

[[Page 62133]]

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#4b0d0e190804252722252e183e3b3b24393f0b2d2e3928652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd8b889f8e82a3a1a4a3a89eb8bdbda2bfb98daba8bfaee3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24565 Filed 10-15-14; 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>
#### Raleigh E. GUYNES; Raleigh E. Guynes IRA, Plaintiffs—Appellants v. STANFORD GROUP COMPANY; et al., Defendants Stanford Group Company, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-30430.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 2005.

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Prior to reaching the merits of an appeal, we must determine, *sua sponte,*whether we have appellate jurisdiction.2 The parties have drawn our attention to the fact that no final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 has been entered dismissing defendant Steven Boatner.3

*614When there are multiple parties to an action, an order of judgment dismissing claims as to some, but not all, parties does not result in a final judgment reviewable in this court absent a certification by the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).4 Although the district court’s order was labeled “Final Judgment” and dismissed “all claims,” it did so as to “the” defendant (singular). Steven Boatner, who is Stanford Group Company’s co-defendant, was not named on the face of the judgment, which has not been expressly certified for appeal under Rule 54(b) and cannot reasonably be construed as such. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

1

. Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

2

. *Hernandez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs.,*380 F.3d 872, 878 (5th Cir. 2004).

3

. *See Brown v. Miss. Valley State Univ.,*311 F.3d 328, 331 (5th Cir.2002)('‘Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, our appellate jurisdiction is *614limited to appeals from final decisions of the district courts.”)(internal quotations omitted).

4

. *Id.*

WIENER, Circuit Judge,

Specially Concurring:

When we dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we generally write nothing because anything else would be dicta. In this instance, however, I write briefly as a prudential matter in the belief that doing so might be of assistance to the district court. When, at oral argument, counsel alerted us to the possible flaw in *appellate*jurisdiction, they also reiterated a central point of contention from their appellate briefs, viz., whether or not there is also a problem regarding *subject matter*jurisdiction -specifically, whether there is an absence of pure diversity of citizenship. On remand, the district court might wish to re-examine its ruling on subject matter jurisdiction, keeping in mind that, if the court is to have such jurisdiction grounded in diversity of citizenship, Boatner must be not only a non-resident of Louisiana but also a resident of some other state, presumably Florida. This is because a United States citizen who, for purposes of diversity, does not reside anywhere in this country is neither a citizen of any state nor an alien, and is therefore not susceptible to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. *See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain,*490 U.S. 826, 828, 109 S.Ct. 2218, 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989).
#### ANDREW G. ZWERNEMANN v. JANICE KENNY.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"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":"Lunar Surface Technology Research (LuSTR) 2021","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"48ICzSOzU8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/lunar-surface-technology-research-lustr-2021\/\">Lunar Surface Technology Research (LuSTR) 2021<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/lunar-surface-technology-research-lustr-2021\/embed\/#?secret=48ICzSOzU8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Lunar Surface Technology Research (LuSTR) 2021” — NASA\" data-secret=\"48ICzSOzU8\" 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"}