alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Robert BAREFOOT, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7589.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 24, 2005.

Decided March 9, 2005.

*107Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM.

Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barefoot has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Barefoot’s motion for 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### Ronald Evans TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 01-56307.

D.C. No. CV-00-10427-CBM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*298Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 18, 2005.

Ronald Evans Taylor, San Quentin, CA, pro se.

Kyle Brodie, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ronald Evans Taylor appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Taylor contends the instant petition is timely because he is entitled to equitable tolling for the period during which an earlier federal habeas petition was pending in district court prior to dismissal without prejudice. Because the district court properly dismissed Taylor’s earlier federal petition as mixed after he declined the opportunity to strike unexhausted claims, and because the district court was not required to advise Taylor it did not have the power to stay a mixed petition, we conclude that the district court did not affirmatively mislead Taylor in dismissing the earlier federal petition without prejudice. *See Pliler v. Ford,*542 U.S. 225, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2447, 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (holding that district courts are not required to give specific advisements prior to dismissal of a mixed petition or “to act as counsel or paralegal to *pro se*litigants”). Accordingly, Taylor is not entitled to equitable tolling for the period during which his earlier habeas petition was pending in federal district court. *See id.*at 2448 (noting that equitable tolling may be appropri*299ate if “petitioner is affirmatively misled”) (Connor, J., concurring).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dashawn Goudy,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04414-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 9640 Filed 01/12/18 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 9640 Filed 01/12/18 Page 2 of 2
#### NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOROTHY BRADLEY.

September 24, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James L. Grant,

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-17-04425-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: January 12, 2018 /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 9675 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for
the period ended September 30, 2002 of MPW Industrial Services Group, Inc. (the
"Issuer"). I, Richard R. Kahle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that:

            (i)   the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

            (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  November 14, 2002

                                               /s/ Richard R. Kahle
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                                 Richard R. Kahle
                                     Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                                              Secretary and Treasurer


                                       18
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 1 Image Gallery","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OtVE9ZxHxs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/expedition-1-image-gallery\/\">Expedition 1 Image Gallery<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/expedition-1-image-gallery\/embed\/#?secret=OtVE9ZxHxs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 1 Image Gallery” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OtVE9ZxHxs\" 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\/11\/iss01-s-001-9471555845-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00295

- CR

EX PARTE MIGUEL GOME Z

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 36,514

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Miguel Gomez filed a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the trial court.

Gomez appealed that denial but has now filed a motion requesting this Court to dismiss

the appeal. Gomez personally signed the motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 12, 2011

Do not publish

[CR25]
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Restaurant Company
(the "Company") for the quarter ended April 16, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
W. Stryker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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.

Dated: May 31, 2006

                                              By: James W. Stryker
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  James W. Stryker
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 1, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 1, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                             848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,595)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,540
<PP&E>                                          45,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (28,020)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         55
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,681
<SALES>                                        166,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,930
<CGS>                                           24,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,952
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,755
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,878
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    37.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARVIN SHERMAN.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF GEOWORKS CORPORATION AS OF MARCH 31,
1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR THEN
ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,738,000
<SECURITIES>                                11,243,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,412,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,935,000
<PP&E>                                       7,356,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,055,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,463,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,840,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    96,451,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (73,059,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,463,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,917,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            28,752,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             158,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,721,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (148,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,869,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,869,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.95)
        

</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, 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 fo r leave to appeal the November 22, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CORE/2061828.0222/129352865.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Carrie M. Francis (020453)

Joel E. Abrahamson (MN 0236895) (Pro Hac Vice)

Jennifer V. Ives (MN 0389105) (Pro Hac Vice)

Kristin Berger-Parker (MN 0389249) (Pro Hac Vice)

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Tel: (602) 279-1600 

Fax: (602) 240-6925 

Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com 

 joel.abrahamson@stinson.com 

 jennifer.ives@stinson.com 

 kristin.parker@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Brandy Williams, Case No. 15-cv-01744-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANT G&K SERVICES, INC.’S 

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF OFFER OF 

JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff,

v.

G&K Services, Inc., a Minnesota 

corporation, Jane and Johns Doe 1-100; 

Black Corporation 1-100; White 

Partnership 1-100, 

Defendant.

 Notice is hereby given that G&K Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) has on this date served 

an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 68, to Plaintiff Brandy 

Williams (“Plaintiff”), by emailing a copy of the offer to counsel for Plaintiffs, Robert T. 

Mills. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of October, 2016. 

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP

By: /s/ Carrie M. Francis

Carrie M. Francis

Joel E. Abrahamson 

Jennifer V. Ives 

Kristin Berger-Parker

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 2:15-cv-01744-DJH Document 69 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

CORE/2061828.0222/129352865.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on October 5th, 2016, I caused the foregoing document to be 

filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through ECF; and that ECF will send an e-notice of 

the electronic filing to: 

Robert T. Mills 

Sean A. Woods 

Mills & Woods Law PLLC 

5055 North 12th Street, Suite 101 

Phoenix, Arizona 85014 

docket@millsandwoods.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/s/ Linda Holder 

Case 2:15-cv-01744-DJH Document 69 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002
  1
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
    
    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/ James J. McSwigganJames J. McSwigganInterim Chief Financial Officer
March 17, 2008.