alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Kilday *v.*James Leytle.

Damages — Default Judgment.

No judgment by default can be taken for damages without proof before a jury or commissioner.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 30, 1869.

*Menzies & Furber, for appellant.*

Dawson, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

There are various items iu appellee’s set-off which sound entirely in damages as for a tort and are not of mere contract, hence no judgment by default could be taken on such without proof before a jury, or reference to a commissioner.

Wherefore the judgment being erroneous is reversed, with directions for further proceedings.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . 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 forNo. 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 23

                       Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-42171) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43483 and 333-43495) of
Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation of our report dated February 9, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Hispanic Broadcasting
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000,
and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Hispanic Broadcasting
Corporation.


                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 30, 2001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donna L. Goode,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04484-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 12/5/2017, 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 9285 Filed 12/12/17 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 9285 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 2
----

EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A) PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Bryan A. Coates, certify that: 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Cambior Inc. (the "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

4. The Company's other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company 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 Company, 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 Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that  occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially  affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal  control over financial reporting; and 

5. The Company's other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 
  (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  Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting.   Date:                  March 31, 2006                            */s/ Bryan A. Coates                                      * Bryan A. Coates Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial    Officer Cambior Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7857
In Re: DOVON BROWN, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error. (CR-95-144) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dovon Brown, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Dovon Brown, a federal inmate, filed this petition for a writ of error seeking to have this court recall its mandate dismissing the appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United States v. Brown , No. 00-7254, 2000 WL 1707272 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2000) (unpubl ished). In the alternative, Brown requests that this court allow him to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (20 00). In his petition, Brown alleges that his conviction and sentence are unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and this court’s cases applying Apprendi . Brown has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying recall of the mandate. See Calderon v. Thompson , 523 U.S. 538, 549-50 (1998). Moreover, we have held that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable in a § 2241 petition. SeeSan-Miguel v. Dove , 291 F.3d 257, 261 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Brown’s petition for writ of error. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               81,863
<PP&E>                                         7,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,625)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          507,255
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       278
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,030
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               28,662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28,662)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADDED BY


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Royal Bancshares a Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Royal”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, F. Kevin Tylus, Principal Executive Officer, 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), as applicable, 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 Royal as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.


/s/ F. Kevin TylusF. Kevin TylusPrincipal Executive OfficerMay 20, 2013





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 278 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 38
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 278

                          [Report No. 108-23]

   To make certain adjustments to the boundaries of the Mount Naomi 
                Wilderness Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2003

  Mr. Bennett introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                             March 19, 2003

              Reported by Mr. Domenici, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make certain adjustments to the boundaries of the Mount Naomi 
                Wilderness Area, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary 
Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.

    (a) Lands Removed.--The boundary of the Mount Naomi Wilderness is 
adjusted to exclude the approximately 31 acres of land depicted on the 
Map as ``Land Excluded''.
    (b) Lands Added.--Subject to valid existing rights, the boundary of 
the Mount Naomi Wilderness is adjusted to include the approximately 31 
acres of land depicted on the Map as ``Land Added''. The Utah 
Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-428) shall apply to the land 
added to the Mount Naomi Wilderness pursuant to this subsection.

 SEC. 3. MAP.

    (a) Definition.--For the purpose of this Act, the term ``Map'' 
shall mean the map entitled ``Mt. Naomi Wilderness Boundary 
Adjustment'' and dated May 23, 2002.
    (b) Map on File.--The Map shall be on file and available for 
inspection in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department 
of Agriculture
    (c) Corrections.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make technical 
corrections to the Map.

                                                        Calendar No. 38

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 278

                          [Report No. 108-23]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To make certain adjustments to the boundaries of the Mount Naomi 
                Wilderness Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 19, 2003

                       Reported without amendment
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"NASA Research Pilot David Zahn","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9P1ure9aXA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/assured-vehicle-automation-ava-hazard-perception-and-avoidan\/\">NASA Research Pilot David Zahn<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/assured-vehicle-automation-ava-hazard-perception-and-avoidan\/embed\/#?secret=9P1ure9aXA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Research Pilot David Zahn” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9P1ure9aXA\" 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\/acd22-0036-011orig-2.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
#### JOHN J. BRUNETTI, ET AL. v. BOROUGH OF NEW MILFORD AND ARTHUR SCHUMACHER, ET AL.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Joseph E. Byrne, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Newark Group, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 coveredby this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial 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 ensurethat 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 theeffectiveness 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) 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’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor 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 controlover financial reporting. 

Date: December 14, 2006 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                              [SYNOVIS LETTERHEAD]


                                             October 15, 2002


F&G, Inc.
Attn: Martin Gross
C/O Sentry Real Estate, Inc.
474 Apollo Drive, Suite 10
Lino Lakes, MN 55014


RE: Renewal of Lease

Dear Mr. Gross:

     Synovis Interventional Solutions, formerly Jer-Neen Manufacturing Co.,
Inc. hereby notifies F&G, Inc. that it is hereby exercising its OPTION TO RENEW
that certain OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING/ASSEMBLY LEASE, dated September
30, 1998, for the five (5) year period provided for therein, in accordance with
Section 44 of the lease.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        Synovis Interventional Solutions


                                        BY: /s/ Chris Smith
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        ITS: Controller
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN G. TRANSUE.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.