alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the cita tion of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 NANCY ALLISON CARL, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3 v. No. 31,696 4 CHESTER CARL, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF McKINLEY COUNTY 7 Robert A. Aragon, District Judge 8 John A. Chapela 9 Gallup, NM 10 for Appellant 11 Henry S. Howe 12 Gallup, NM 13 for Appellee 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 162 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed disposition. No memorandum oppos ing summary dismissal has been filed, 2 and the time for doing so has expired. 3 Dismissed. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10

11 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 12 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joyce Stanton,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00039-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Grossman & Moore, PLLC

(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 1/5/2018, 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 9688 Filed 01/16/18 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 9688 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LAURA WYMAN.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Astronaut Vance Brand Leads a Discussion on Apollo and Beyond","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DXexoh1Upa\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/astronaut-vance-brand-leads-discussion-apollo-beyond\/\">Astronaut Vance Brand Leads a Discussion on Apollo and Beyond<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/astronaut-vance-brand-leads-discussion-apollo-beyond\/embed\/#?secret=DXexoh1Upa\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Astronaut Vance Brand Leads a Discussion on Apollo and Beyond” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DXexoh1Upa\" 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\/afrc2019-0244-18-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":401}
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

h0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144282 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144282 

 COA: 300061 

Macomb CC: 2010-001446-FH 

JASON RONALD ZABORSKI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### LINDA A. CARLTON v. GREG CARLTON

No. 526A01

(Filed 18 December 2001)

Child Support, Custody, and Visitation— modification of custody order—changed circumstances—effect on welfare of child

A decision of the Court of Appeals remanding an order of the trial court which modified a prior joint child custody order by granting primary custody to the father is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that the mother’s absconding with the child for two months and the father’s relocation to Hawaii constitute a substantial change of circumstances and that the trial court made sufficient findings as to the effect of the changed circumstances on the welfare of the child to support its order.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 145 N.C. 252, 549 S.E.2d 916 (2001), vacating and remanding an order entered 28 March 2000 by Hodges, J., in District Court, Catawba County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 December 2001.

*Sigmon, Clark, Mackie, Hutton, Hanvey & Ferrell, P.A., by J. Scott Hanvey, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Sigmon, Sigmon & Isenhower, by C. Randall Isenhower, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                 EAGLE FINANCE CORP.

                         COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                      ---------------------------------------
                                                         1996           1995           1994
                                                      ----------     ----------     ----------
                                                       (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>            <C>
INCOME DATA:
1.  Net income (loss) as reported                     $  (5,349)     $     325      $   3,951
2.  Pro forma income taxes                                   --             --            819
                                                      ---------      ---------      ---------
3.  Pro forma net income (loss)                       $  (5,349)     $     325      $   3,132
                                                      ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                      ---------      ---------      ---------

NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING SHARES:
4.  Weighted average common shares
         outstanding                                      4,189          4,183          3,378
5.  Weighted average shares of treasury
         stock outstanding                                   --             --             --
6.  Weighted average shares reserved for
         stock options (utilizing the treasury
         stock method)                                       --            124             80
7.  Common shares outstanding
          (Line 4-5+6)                                    4,189          4,310          3,458

NET INCOME PER SHARE:
8.  Net income (loss) per common shares
          (Line 3 DIVIDED BY 4)                       $   (1.28)     $     .08      $     .93
9.  Fully diluted net income (loss) per common share
          (Line 3 DIVIDED BY 7)*                      $   (1.28)     $     .08      $     .91

</TABLE>

--------------------
*  Not reported, as dilution does not meet the three percent materiality test.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michele Ostovar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michele-e-ostovarnasa-gov\/","title":"Gemini IV","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"APQMNMwzTZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/gemini-iv\/\">Gemini IV<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/gemini-iv\/embed\/#?secret=APQMNMwzTZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Gemini IV” — NASA\" data-secret=\"APQMNMwzTZ\" 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\/04\/gemini-4-patch.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":620}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements indicated below and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,010,361
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,262,854
<PP&E>                                         185,069
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,307,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          657,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,190
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,641,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,307,708
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,721)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,483,208)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,483,208)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,483,208)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARLO GUNTER.

May 30, 1989.

Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 231 *N.J.Super.*34)
#### JOHN JOZEFYK v. GEORGE E. WALKER.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 234 *N.J.Super.*196).
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 Annual Report of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin M. Modany, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Company.

















/s/ Kevin M. Modany


Chief Executive Officer


February 19, 2010
{"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":"Shuttle-Mir","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tcBr2IeueY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/shuttle-mir\/\">Shuttle-Mir<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/shuttle-mir\/embed\/#?secret=tcBr2IeueY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Shuttle-Mir” — NASA\" data-secret=\"tcBr2IeueY\" 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"}
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2255

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

695 Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New York, as the ‘‘Maxine S. 

Postal United States Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2004

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 695 Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New 

York, as the ‘‘Maxine S. Postal United States Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. MAXINE S. POSTAL UNITED STATES POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 695 Marconi Boulevard in 

7 Copiague, New York, shall be known and designated as 
2

•S 2255 IS 

1 the ‘‘Maxine S. Postal United States Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Maxine S. Postal 

7 United States Post Office Building.

Æ
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 237

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the exemption 

from the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements of 

that Act for certain construction engineering and design professionals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify 

the exemption from the minimum wage and overtime 

compensation requirements of that Act for certain construction engineering and design professionals.

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

3 SECTION 1. FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938. 

4 Section 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

5 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)) is amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (17), by striking the period at 

7 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 
2

•S 237 IS 

1 ‘‘(18) any employee providing professional con2 sulting services recognized by a 4-year degree or 

3 greater, professional licensure, professional certifi4 cation, or at least 8 years of similar work experi5 ence, if—

6 ‘‘(A) the employee’s duties include—

7 ‘‘(i) interpretation and adherence to 

8 design documents and applicable construc9 tion codes; 

10 ‘‘(ii) supervision during a project; 

11 ‘‘(iii) interpretation of contract re12 quirements through analysis of specifica13 tions and drawings; 

14 ‘‘(iv) the application of a variety of 

15 testing and inspection techniques; 

16 ‘‘(v) implementation of research meth17 ods; 

18 ‘‘(vi) supervision of the inspection of 

19 materials and workmanship; or 

20 ‘‘(vii) the interpretation of engineering 

21 principles and national, State, and local 

22 construction code requirements or of estab23 lished codes (such as the Uniform Building 

24 Code) set by nationally recognized stand25 ard-setting organizations (such as the 
3

•S 237 IS 

1 International Conference of Building Offi2 cials); and 

3 ‘‘(B) the employee’s services relate to the 

4 preliminary or conceptual design and develop5 ment, design, bidding, construction, and 

6 postconstruction evaluation phases of engineer7 ing, architecture, landscape architecture, land 

8 and hydrographic surveying, land use planning, 

9 natural, environmental, and earth sciences, and 

10 construction technology.’’.

Æ