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

) ANTONIO COLBERT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-667 (JDB) ) U.S. POSTAL SERVICES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM Plaintiff filed this action in Superior Cour t against defendant U.S. Postal Services, complaining that defendant caused him mental anguish by providing him with poor customer service during telephone calls. Defendant removed the case and has now moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), (5), and (6). See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 3. The Court ordered plaintiff to respond to defendant’s motion on or before May 6, 2011 and warned plaintiff that failure to timely respond could result in defendant ’s motion being granted as conceded. Order, ECF No. 4. To date, plain tiff has not filed any response. The Court will therefore grant the motion to dismiss as conced ed and dismiss this case. A separate order consistent with this Memorandum shall issue this date.
/s/ JOHN D. BATES DATE: May 18, 2011 United States District Judge
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 4 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 5 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 6 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 7 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 8 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 9 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 10 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 11 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 12 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 13 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 14 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 15 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 16 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 17 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 18 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 19 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 20 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 21 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 22 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 23 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 24 of 25
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 51-7 Filed 10/04/16 Page 25 of 25
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Courtney Green, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 184]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, J.), rendered March 12, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to adduce legally sufficient proof of his identity as a robber is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; *People v Adames,*308 AD2d 454 [2003]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the identification evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The hearing court properly declined to suppress evidence of the lineup at which the complainant identified the defendant. The defendant’s contention that the lineup procedure was unduly suggestive because the fill-ins did not look like him, and that any in-court identification was thereby tainted, is without merit. “There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by persons who are nearly identical in appearance” *(People v Nieves,*183 AD2d 854, 856 [1992]; *see People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]; *People v Mason,*138 AD2d 411, 412 [1988]). The participants in the lineup were similar to the defendant in appearance, and any minor differences between them were insufficient to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification *(see People v Nieves, supra; People v Ramos,*170 AD2d 186 [1991]; *People v Mason, supra).*In addition, the lineup identification was not contami*579nated by a police officer’s remark to the complainant that a suspect was in custody. “When a complainant is brought to a police station to view a lineup, it is implicit that the lineup will contain at least one suspect, otherwise there would be no point whatever in conducting the lineup” *(People v Ramos, supra*at 186).

The defendant’s arrest was supported by probable cause *(see People v Baptiste,*201 AD2d 659, 659-660 [1994]; *People v Higgins,*178 AD2d 199 [1991]; *People v Green,*157 AD2d 745 [1990]; *People v Palacio,*121 AD2d 282, 283 [1986]; *People v Rhodes,*111 AD2d 194 [1985]; *People v Nelson,*79 AD2d 171, 173-174 [1981], *cert denied sub nom. Usher v New York,*454 US 869 [1981]). S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Commission Field Briefing

# DATES:

*Date and Time:*                         Friday, October 17, 2014; 9:00 a.m. EDT.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Place:*                         Rosen Plaza Hotel, The Grand Ballroom, 9700 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32819.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.

                        Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at                         *signlanguage@usccr.gov*                         at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## BRIEFING AGENDA—9:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

This briefing is open to the public.

                    Topic:                     *Stand Your Ground Laws and Its Impact*

I. Introductory Remarks by Chairman Castro

II. Issue Panel I—9:05 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: SYG laws and its impact 

Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners

III. Issue Panel II—10:45 a.m.-12:25 p.m.: Data Collection: What we have and what we need 

Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners

IV. LUNCH—12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m.

V. Issue Panel IV—1:35 p.m.-3:10 p.m.: SYG: Pros and Cons 

Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners

VI. Adjourn Briefing

Dated: October 7, 2014.

Marlene Sallo,

Staff Director.

[FR Doc. 2014-24210 Filed 10-7-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         586,976
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               622,322
<PP&E>                                         71,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 813,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          59,171
<BONDS>                                        560,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       526
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   813,264
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241
<CGS>                                          25,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  87,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             28,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (97,694)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (97,694)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (97,694)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.86)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2682 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2682

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 7, 2004

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 222 West 8th Street, Durango, Colorado, as the ``Ben Nighthorse 
                    Campbell Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 222 West 8th Street, Durango, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ben Nighthorse Campbell Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate July 22, 2004.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 11 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 11 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 11 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sheila Jones,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04063-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 11/6/2017, 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: November 27, 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. 

“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 8916 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert COSTNER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4753.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 25, 2005.

Decided March 17, 2005.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Anne M. Chapman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Research and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Marc A. Bonora, Special Assistant United States *134Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Robert Costner was convicted by a magistrate judge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3401 (2000), of simple assault on a federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2000). He received 24 months’ probation. Costner appealed the magistrate judge’s ruling to the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 58(g)(2). The district court affirmed. On appeal, Costner contends that there was insufficient evidence of force to sustain his conviction and that the district court employed the wrong standard of review on appeal. We affirm.

Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 58(g), on appeal from a conviction and/or sentence imposed by a magistrate judge, the “defendant is not entitled to a trial de novo by a district judge. The scope of the appeal is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment entered by a district judge.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 58(g)(2)(D). In determining whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction, the appropriate inquiry is whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). In bench trials, “the judge weighs the evidence, determines the credibility of the witnesses, and finds the facts ... [and] may select among conflicting inferences to be drawn from the testimony.” *United States v. Bales,*813 F.2d 1289, 1293 (4th Cir.1987). The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is de novo. *See United States v. Burgos,*94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district court’s order, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix. We conclude that the district court did not employ the wrong standard of review and that sufficient evidence supports Costner’s conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Costner’s conviction and sentence. 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*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tracy Marshall, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03523-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 10/30/2017, 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: November 6, 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 8816 Filed 11/10/17 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 8816 Filed 11/10/17 Page 2 of 2
ex_242377.htm


Exhibit 10.27


 


BOARD OF DIRECTORS ADVISORY AGREEMENT (Modification to Exhibit only)


 


This Director Advisory Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered and effective as of September 1, 2020 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Mitesco, Inc. 7535 E. Hampden Ave, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80210 (the “Company”) and Ronal Riewold (“Board Member” and together with the Company, the “Parties.”). The terms specified in this agreement supersedes all prior agreements, including but not limited to consulting or board of director agreements.


 


RECITALS


 


A.     The Company has requested that Board Member provide certain director services to the Company and Board Member has agreed to provide such services.


 


B.     The Parties would like to enter into this Agreement to define the Parties’ rights and obligations under which Board Member shall provide director services to the Company.


 


Modification of EXHIBIT A Board of Directors Agreement effective date 9/1/20


 


Modification To Terms Effective: September 1, 2020


 


A.         Services.  Board Member shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as are usually performed by a Board Member of the Company.


 


B.         Director Payments. The Board of the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of its shareholders to provide certain compensation to its Board members for his services to the Company.


 


C.         The Company will pay for professional fees of $2,500 per month, except for the month that an in person meeting is held, then the professional fee paid will also be $5,000 for that month.


 


D.         Addresses.  For purposes of notice under this Agreement the addresses of the Company and Board Member are as follows:


 


	 	Company:	Mitesco, Inc.
	 	 	
			7535 East Hampden Avenue, Ste. 400


			Denver, CO 80231

			
	 	 	 
	 	Board Member:	Ronald Riewold
	 	 	
			4794 Innisfill Street


			Palm Harbor, FL 34683          

			



 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Board Member Agreement to be duly executed by their respective authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.


 


 


	
			“COMPANY”:

				
			“BOARD MEMBER”:

			
	
			Mitesco, Inc.

			7535 E. Hampden Ave., Ste. 400

			Denver, CO 80231


			 


			By: ________________________


			Name: Lawrence Diamond


			Title: CEO & Director

				
			Ronald Riewold


			 


			 


			 


			By: ________________________


			Title: Chairman Of the Board of Directors