alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Revised: 12/17/2012

Willard J. Moody, Jr. #22866

Jonathan Hogins, #83982

The Moody Law Firm

500 Crawford Street, Suite 200

Portsmouth, VA 23704

Phone: (757) 393-6020

Fax: (757) 399-3019

Email: Will@moodyrrlaw.com

Attorneys on behalf of Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Alethia Jones, Civil Action No.: 2:18-CV-00165-DGC

 

Plaintiff, NOTICE OF FILING OF AMENDED

COMPLAINT 

v. 

C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff, Alethia Jones files this notice of filing of Plaintiff’s Amended Short Form 

Complaint. The amended complaint is attached hereto. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18

th day of January, 2018.

By: /s/ Willard J. Moody, Jr.

Willard J. Moody, Jr. Esq. 

Jonathan Hogins, Esq.

THE MOODY LAW FIRM, INC.

500 Crawford St. Ste. 200 

P.O. Box 1138

Portsmouth, VA 23705

(757) 393-6020

(757) 399-3019 facsimile

will@moodyrrlaw.com

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9699 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 2
2

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 18th day of January, 2018, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the attorneys who are registered with the Court’s electronic filing 

system.

/s/ Willard J. Moody, Jr.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9699 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1956

ADAM K. PEARSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; VLADIMIR TENEV; BAIJU BHATT , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00533

- JAG )

Submitted : January 13, 2023 Decided: February 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Adam K. Pearson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1956 Doc: 29 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Adam K. Pearson appeals the district court ’s order s dismissing his complaint without prejudice and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e )(2)(B)(i), (ii)

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Pearson v. Robinhood Mkts., Inc. , No. 3 :22

- cv - 00533

- JAG (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2022; Aug. 9, 2022). We also deny Pearson’s “Untitled Motion for Appropriate Relief.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court an d argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1956 Doc: 29 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2148

To protect American workers from competition of foreign workforces for 

performance of Federal and State contracts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2004

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

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To protect American workers from competition of foreign 

workforces for performance of Federal and State contracts.

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 ‘‘U.S.A. Jobs Protection 

5 Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON OFF-SHORE PERFORMANCE OF 

7 CONTRACTS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF 

8 GOODS AND SERVICES. 

9 (a) LIMITATIONS.— 
2

•S 2148 IS 

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Office of Federal Pro2 curement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following new sec4 tion: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 42. LIMITATIONS ON OFF-SHORE PERFORMANCE OF 

6 CONTRACTS. 

7 ‘‘(a) FEDERAL CONTRACTS.—A contract that is en8 tered into by the head of an executive agency may not 

9 be performed outside the United States except to meet a 

10 requirement of the executive agency for the contract to 

11 be performed specifically at a location outside the United 

12 States. 

13 ‘‘(b) STATE CONTRACTS.— 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Funds appropriated for fi15 nancial assistance for a State may not be disbursed 

16 to or for such State during a fiscal year unless the 

17 chief executive of that State has transmitted to the 

18 Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, not 

19 later than April 1 of the preceding fiscal year, a 

20 written certification that, except as described under 

21 paragraph (2), none of such funds will be expended 

22 for the performance of State contracts outside the 

23 United States. 

24 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Funds described in para25 graph (1) may be expended for the performance of 
3

•S 2148 IS 

1 a State contract outside the United States if the 

2 chief executive of such State certifies in advance to 

3 the Administrator that such expenditure is for a 

4 contract that cannot be performed within the United 

5 States. 

6 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION OF STATE.—In this section, the 

7 term ‘State’ means— 

8 ‘‘(1) each of the several States of the United 

9 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 

10 of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

11 Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Amer12 ican Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific 

13 Islands; and 

14 ‘‘(2) a political subdivision of a State.’’. 

15 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec16 tions in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by add17 ing at the end the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 42. Limitations on off-shore performance of contracts.’’.

18 (b) INAPPLICABILITY TO STATES DURING FIRST

19 TWO FISCAL YEARS.—Section 42(c) of the Office of Fed20 eral Procurement Policy Act (as added by subsection (a)) 

21 shall not apply to disbursements of funds to a State dur22 ing the fiscal year in which this Act is enacted and the 

23 next fiscal year.

Æ
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00109

- CR

SUZANNE EDITHA JOHNSTON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Upshur County, Texas Trial Court No. 17971

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 O R D E R Our review of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record in this case indicates that they contain “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(1). Volume four of the reporter’s reco rd includes a social security number and the clerk’s record includes a driver’s license number. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volume four of the reporter’ s record and the clerk’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed volume four of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: October 31, 2019
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 9, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128313 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, Justices v SC: 128313 COA: 259544 Oakland CC: 03-190499-FC JOSEPH ANISE FARHAT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to a ppeal the February 10, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is cons idered. We DIRECT the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the defendant’s application for leave to app eal within 28 days after the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.

s1102 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.

November 9, 2005

Clerk
2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-28-2012

In Re: Rogel;Grant

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3654

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Rogel;Grant " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 111.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/111
BLD-035 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3654

___________

IN RE: ROGEL GRANT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Crim. No. 2:04-cr-00749-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

November 8, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 28, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

On or around September 17, 2012, federal prisoner Rogel Grant filed a pro se 

petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this Court directing the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to appoint him counsel and 

rule on two motions that were pending in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. One of 

those motions sought to stay his § 2255 proceedings, and the other requested 

reconsideration of the District Court’s April 2012 order denying him a new trial.
2

On September 25, 2012, the District Court entered an order denying the 

aforementioned motions. That same day, the District Court entered a separate order 

denying Grant’s § 2255 motion and directing the District Court Clerk to close the case. 

Because Grant has received a ruling on his motions and his § 2255 action is now closed, 

we will deny his mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 

77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of 

adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case 

must be dismissed as moot.”).
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIE C. HORNE.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### CLARK v. ITT GRINNEL INDUS. PIPING, INC.

No. 80P01

Case below: 141 N.C. App. 417

Petition by defendant (ITT Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc.) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 18 December 2001 for the limited purpose of remand for reconsideration in light of *Austin v. Continental General Tire.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra L. Johnson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-l-johnsonnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-76","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AjX8gcHk6E\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-76\/\">STS-76<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-76\/embed\/#?secret=AjX8gcHk6E\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-76” — NASA\" data-secret=\"AjX8gcHk6E\" 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"}
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 The following is a list of the subsidiaries of Hudson City Bancorp, Inc.:Hudson City Savings Bank
Name
    
    United States of America

Jurisdiction of IncorporationThe following is a list of the subsidiaries of Hudson City Savings Bank:HudCiti Service Corporation
    
    New JerseyName
    
    State of IncorporationHC Value Broker Services, Inc
    
    New JerseyName
    
    State of IncorporationThe following is a list of the subsidiaries of HudCiti Service Corporation:Hudson City Preferred Funding Corp.
    
    DelawareName
    
    State of IncorporationSound REIT, Inc.

Name
    
    New York

State of Incorporation
 Exhibits Page 1
#### RONALD M. SADRI v. BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE, ETC., ET AL.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelly M. Matter","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kmatter\/","title":"NASA Trains Teachers on Upcoming Solar Eclipse","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bQyf1L9zNe\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/nasa-trains-teachers-on-upcoming-solar-eclipse\/\">NASA Trains Teachers on Upcoming Solar Eclipse<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/nasa-trains-teachers-on-upcoming-solar-eclipse\/embed\/#?secret=bQyf1L9zNe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Trains Teachers on Upcoming Solar Eclipse” — NASA\" data-secret=\"bQyf1L9zNe\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/grc-2024-c-00593.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nellie Campbell,

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-17-04191-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 27, 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 9158 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Nicholas J. Cuccaro, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Raindance
Communications, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: May 10, 2004 /s/ Nicholas J. Cuccaro
MAY 0 9 2022 

A. BROWN 

E COURT 

DEPUTY LERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83482 

FILED 

ERIC GARZA, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT 

OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND 

REHABILITATION; THE STATE OF 

NEVADA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 

DIVISION; ELISA CAFERRATA, IN 

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE 

DIRECTOR OF DETER; LYNDA 

PARVEN, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS THE ADMINISTRATOR 

OF THE ESD; AND ROSA MENDEZ, IN 

HER OFFICAL CAPACITY, 

Res • ondents. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from an order granting a motion to 

dismiss appellant's complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; Tara D. Clark Newberry, Judge. 

On March 2, 2022, this court entered an order directing 

appellant to file the opening brief or informal brief form for pro se parties. 

Pursuant to that order, the brief was due by March 16, 2022. This court 

cautioned that failure to timely file the brief could result in the dismissal of 

this appeal. To date, appellant has not filed the brief or otherwise 

14-9-0 

SUMER% COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

( f )I947A 408111. 
J 

communicated with this court. Accordingly, it appears appellant has 

abandoned this appeal, and this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

%.1Z64,2,0 

Silver 

-1.11r/•) *

Cadish 

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge 

Eric Garza 

State of Nevada/DETR 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

> J. 

1 J 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A .01Do 

2