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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Betty L. Byrne,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04321-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Raffert & Proctor, PA

(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 11/28/2017, 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 9259 Filed 12/11/17 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 9259 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 2
{"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":"Hidden Figures","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"B4eoNu2MRO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/hidden-figures\/\">Hidden Figures<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/hidden-figures\/embed\/#?secret=B4eoNu2MRO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Hidden Figures” — NASA\" data-secret=\"B4eoNu2MRO\" 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. 2355

To make available hazardous duty incentive pay to uniformed service members 

performing firefighting duties. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2004

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

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To make available hazardous duty incentive pay to uniformed 

service members performing firefighting duties.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Pay for Military 

5 Firefighters Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF HAZARDOUS DUTY INCENTIVE 

7 PAY FOR MILITARY FIREFIGHTERS. 

8 (a) ADDITIONAL TYPE OF DUTY ELIGIBLE FOR

9 PAY.—Subsection (a) of section 301 of title 37, United 

10 States Code, is amended— 
2

•S 2355 IS 

1 (1) in paragraph (12), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) by redesignating paragraph (13) as para4 graph (14); and 

5 (3) by inserting after paragraph (12) the fol6 lowing new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(13) involving regular participation as a fire8 fighting crew member, as determined by the Sec9 retary concerned; or’’. 

10 (b) MONTHLY AMOUNT OF PAY.—Subsection (c) of 

11 such section is amended— 

12 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘(12)’’ and in13 serting ‘‘(13)’’; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘(13)’’ and 

15 inserting ‘‘(14)’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4854 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4854

   To declare certain Amerasians to be citizens of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 19, 1998

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To declare certain Amerasians to be citizens of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN AMERASIANS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, or any other provision of law, each eligible alien (as 
defined in subsection (b)) is declared to be a citizen of the United 
States as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``eligible 
alien'' means an alien--
            (1) having the status of an alien lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a) of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) before the 
        date of the enactment of this Act;
            (2) who was granted that status when the alien was under 
        the age of nine years; and
            (3) who--
                    (A)(i) was granted that status pursuant to a 
                petition filed under section 204(f) of such Act (8 
                U.S.C. 1154(f)) (or any predecessor provision); and
                    (ii) was adopted by a United States citizen; or
                    (B)(i) was admitted to the United States under 
                section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
                Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
                1988 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note);
                    (ii) is an alien described in subsection (b)(1)(A) 
                of such section; and
                    (iii) was adopted by a United States citizen.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


April 28, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2076


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2076 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-253973 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. REMO RENZULLI.

May 16, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1
                       CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William F. Garrett, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Delta Mills,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

  1.    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 1, 2005
        of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
        section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

  2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350) and may not be relied upon by anyone for any other purpose. The
undersigned expressly disclaims any undertaking to update such certification
except as required by law.

Date      November 15, 2005                  By: /s/ William F. Garrett
                                             -----------------------------
                                             William F. Garrett
                                             President & Chief Executive Officer

A signed copy of this written statement required by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40280 c/w

No. 00-40293 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADAN ESCAMILLA-GUERRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-94-CR-49-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 14, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judge. 

PER CURIAM:*

Adan Escamilla-Guerra is appealing the sentence imposed in

this case. The district court sentenced Escamilla-Guerra to 33

months of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute marijuana and eight months of imprisonment for failure

to appear in a criminal proceeding unrelated to the marijuana

offense. Escamilla-Guerra asserts that the sentence for the

failure-to-appear offense should have been imposed to run

concurrently with rather than consecutively to the sentence for
No. 00-40280 c/w No. 00-40293

- 2 

the marijuana offense. Escamilla-Guerra concedes that the

district court did not err in determining the combined offense

level for multiple offenses and determining that an offense level

of 20 is appropriate for his case. Escamilla-Guerra also

concedes that a sentencing range of 33 to 41 months of

imprisonment is appropriate for this offense level and his

Criminal History Category I. The imposition of a 33-month term

of imprisonment followed consecutively by an eight-month term of

imprisonment does not exceed the appropriate guidelines range of

33 to 41 months and conforms to the mandate of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3146(b)(2). The district court did not err in sentencing

Escamilla-Guerra. United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719, 721

(5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 ) 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS ) 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) 

) 

) This Document Relates to:

) Denise Gill 

) MDL Case No. MD-15-02641-DGC 

) Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-110-DGC 

) 

_________________________________________ )___________________________________

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff DENISE GILL 

and Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc., through their undersigned counsel, that the above-captioned 

action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and without costs or fees to any party. 

 Dated this 24th day of February, 2016 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

/s/Matthew R. Lopez 

 Ramon Rossi Lopez 

Matthew Ramon Lopez 

LOPEZ MCHUGH, LLP 

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Telephone: (949) 737-1501 

Facsimile: (949) 737-1504 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/s/ Richard B. North 

Richard B. North 

Matthew Lerner

 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 877 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 

 Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

 

Attorneys for Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 877 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, this 24th day of February, 2016, I have electronically filed a copy 

of the above and foregoing with Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent 

notification of such filing to counsel of record. 

/s/Matthew R. Lopez 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 877 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Flora,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00517-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, 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 2/26/2016, 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: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party 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 971 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 10.2.7**
                                                            AMENDMENT NO. 6                                                       NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 6, dated as of June 22, 2005, among THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association ("Citibank"), CITIGROUP INC., a Delaware corporation and the ultimateparent of Citibank ("Citigroup" and, together with Citibank, the "Parents").
WHEREAS, the Company, Citibank (successor by merger to Citibank (New York State)), and Citicorp, a Delaware corporation,have heretofore entered into a Non-Competition Agreement, dated as of December 22, 1992, the term of which was extendedpursuant to a letter agreement dated November 1, 1999, the term of which was further extended pursuant to Amendment No. 1dated as of June 22, 2000, Amendment No. 2 dated as of June 22, 2001, Amendment No. 3 dated as of May 5, 2002, AmendmentNo. 4 dated as of June 22, 2003, and Amendment No. 5 dated as of June 22, 2004, and Citigroup Inc. was substituted as aparty in lieu of Citicorp (the Non-Competition Agreement, as so extended and amended, being referred to herein as the"Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement wish to extend the term of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt andsufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup hereby consent and agree as follows:
SECTION 1.  Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 6, all defined terms used in this Amendment No. 6 shall havethe meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.
SECTION 2.  The term of the Agreement (originally scheduled to expire on December 22, 1999, and previously extended toJune 22, 2005) shall be extended for an additional three (3) year period to June 22, 2008.
SECTION 3.  This Amendment No. 6 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but allof which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
SECTION 4.  From and after the date of this Amendment No. 6, all references in the Agreement to this "Agreement" shallrefer to the Agreement as amended hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup have each caused this Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement to be dulyexecuted by their respective officers as of the day and year first above written.
THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION
By  /s/ Michael J. Reardon               Name:  Michael J. Reardon          Title:  Chief Executive Officer
CITIBANK, N.A.
By  /s/ Kristen Driscoll                         Name:  Kristen Driscoll          Title:  Vice President
CITIGROUP INC.
By  /s/ Ajay Banga                             Name:  Ajay Banga          Title:  Business Head
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Edwards, 

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-17-03443-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8716 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Timbu Philip ANJA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2038.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 2005.

Decided March 11, 2005.

Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*117Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Timbu Philip Anja, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The order denied his motion to reopen and reconsider the Board’s dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Anja contends that he established eligibility for asylum. As the IJ and Board concluded that the asylum application was untimely, we find that consideration of Anja’s asylum claim is barred. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). Additionally, we have reviewed the evidence of record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to reopen and reconsider with respect to the relief of withholding of removal. *See Stewart v. INS,*181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999); *Chen v. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); *INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we find that Anja’s CAT claim, which was entirely undeveloped in his brief before this court, has been abandoned. *See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*