alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

Calendar No. 660 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2501 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ‘‘Perry B. 

Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3, 2004 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JULY 22, 2004 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New 

York, as the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERRY B. DURYEA, JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in 
2 

•S 2501 RS 

1 Montauk, New York, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Perry B. Duryea, Jr. 

7 Post Office. 

Calendar No. 660 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2501 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostJr. Post Office’’. Montauk, New York, as the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, al Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in 

JULY 22, 2004 

Reported without amendment
#### Frederick A. Cooper *v.*Charlotte S. Cooper.

[Decided May 24th, 1913.]

Evidence *held*insufficient in a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery, brought by a husband against his wife.

*Mr. Traverse A. Spraggins,*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Wilfred B. Wolcott,*for the defendant.

Baokes, V. C.

Cooper, the petitioner, charges his wife with adultery, naming one Bumstead as co-respondent. Her conduct with the corespondent, as she admits, was highly indiscreet and -venturesome, if not reckless. To some extent she was led in her indiscretion by an older female companion. The defendant admits the circumstances from which it is claimed guilt should be inferred, but she and the co-respondent emphatically deny the commission of crime. A denial by the defendant and corespondent is, as a rule, entitled to very little weight, but I watched and carefully observed the defendant while testifying. She was absolutely frank in relating her conduct and in confessing her imprudence. Her deportment on the stand was simple and modest, and her testimony was given in a straightforward and impressive manner, especially in the denial of her guilt. She impressed me as a truth teller. She unhesitatingly admitted suspicious circumstances which she could as well have suppressed without fear of contradiction.

She told and confessed all that could be used to build a story around her from which guilt might be deduced, even relating to *582matters which had not been brought out on the petitioner’s case. She struck me as one who appreciated to its fullest the moral obligation of her oath. The *indicia*of honesty was written all over her story. I think her denial is entitled to serious consideration.

The testimony did not satisfy my mind that she went so far as to submit her body to the co-respondent. While the appearances are against her, and the fact that she entertained him at her home, went out with him to public places, visited him at his office, and that he upon two occasions kissed her, may arouse suspicion that all was not right between the two, I am not convinced that she took the fatal step, that she broke her marriage vow, that she committed adultery. In fact, I believe she did not.

There is no testimony indicating that she was amorously in- ' dined toward the co-respondent and disposed to commit the crime charged against her. While the two had many opportunities to gratify a lustful desire, yet there is no evidence manifesting that the defendant had such desires towards Bumstead, the co-respondent. There is no evidence of lust or of lewdness on the part of the defendant. She is not shown to be depraved. She was a flirt and a fool, but not a criminal.

There is testimony that she is chaste of speech and well-behaved. Even her bitter enemy, Mrs. Flower, testified that she was a good woman at the time of her marriage, and it is difficult to believe that she changed her moral code within so short a time as two and a half years thereafter.

I cannot, in the circumstances, although they quicken suspicion, denounce this young wife, the mother of two babies, as an adulteress. I will advise a decree dismissing this petition.
#### Pifen LO, an individual, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. George W. TRAMMELL, III, Defendant, and County of Los Angeles, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-55658.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2005.

Decided March 18, 2005.

Christie Gaumer, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary N. Miller, Esq., Ken Hahn Hall, Jennifer A.D. Lehman, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: KOZINSKI, TROTT and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Pifen Lo appeals the order dismissing her complaint with prejudice. We affirm but on different grounds. *See, e.g., Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.,*208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2000).

In addition to the present suit, Lo litigated to final judgment a state court action against various defendants, including Defendant County of Los Angeles. That case involved the same primary right and arose from the same factual circumstances at issue here. Having litigated and lost in state court, Lo cannot pursue a federal action against the County on any legal theory resting on the same primary right. *See, e.g., Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.,*28 Cal.4th 888, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297, 301-04 (Cal.2002) (explaining res judicata law in California); *see also Takahashi v. Bd. of Trustees of Livingston Union Sch. Disk,*783 F.2d 848, 850-51 (9th Cir.1986) (applying California res judicata law to hold that federal claims were precluded). Moreover, the resolution of issues that were fully and actually litigated in the prior action is binding on Lo and effectively disposes of her claims against Defendant George W. Trammell, III. *See, e.g., Campbell v. Scripps Bank,*78 Cal. App.4th 1328, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 639-41 (Ct.App.2000) (discussing defensive issue preclusion).

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.
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michelle Lorraine Cross, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01113-PHX-JJT

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on April 5, 2019. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived her right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain her burden of proof 

by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., that she 

is not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

Dated this 5th day of April, 2019. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marlena E. Jones-Butler,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04421-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 1/23/2018, 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: February 1, 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 9900 Filed 02/01/18 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 9900 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MPW
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             121
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,062
<INVENTORY>                                      5,521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,933
<PP&E>                                          61,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,169
<BONDS>                                         26,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           107
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,095
<SALES>                                         29,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,837
<CGS>                                           19,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,709
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,599
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,599
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33

                      FIRST AMENDMENT TO DIRECTOR FEE PLAN

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Service Corporation International
(the "Company") adopted, and, on May 10, 2001, the shareholders of the Company
approved, the Service Corporation International Director Fee Plan (the "Plan");
and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend a certain provision of the Plan
relating to the Payment Date (as defined therein);

                                W I T N E S E T H

         Effective as of November 13, 2002, the first sentence of Section 4.3 of
the Plan is amended to read as follows in its entirety:

                  "4.3 The annual retainer fee shall be paid on the day of the
                  annual shareholders meeting (the "Payment Date")."

                                            SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL

                                            November 13, 2002
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Astronaut Candidate Anne McClain","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RCmVi1PStO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/astronaut-candidate-anne-mcclain\/\">Astronaut Candidate Anne McClain<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/astronaut-candidate-anne-mcclain\/embed\/#?secret=RCmVi1PStO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Astronaut Candidate Anne McClain” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RCmVi1PStO\" 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\/03\/jsc2013e078107.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":903}
#### W. H. Dinguid et al *v.*E. Curd's Exors.

Constable’s Bond — Allegations in Petition as to Liability — Sureties.

A petition, on a constable’s bond, for liability for dereliction, must specify each debt, and the reason of the liability therefor, whether because of its loss by reason of his non-performance of duty, or whether collected and failure to pay the amount over.

APPEAL FROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 26, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

This is a suit on a constable’s bond against appellants as his securities with the averment that said constable was elected to said office and executed said bond June 1, 1859, whilst the receipt for the collection of the debts bears date of April 1, 1859, or two months previous to the date' of the bond. There is no averment that Clayton, when he executed said receipt was a constable, and subsequently, and before he collected the debts, was re-elected and that he then had said debts in his hands as such constable when he executed said bond, sued on and by reason of the non-performance of his official duties, said debts remained uncollected, and had been lost, or that he had collected the same and failed to pay over to said plaintiffs.

The averment should specify each debt and the reason of the constable’s liability therefor, and whether because of its loss by *515reason of Ms non-performance of duty and failure to collect whilst the debtor was solvent, etc., or whether the debt had been collected by him, which he had failed to pay over.

*Holt, for appellant*

*Bush, for appellee.*

Even by the most liberal intendment, the essential facts to make these securities liable are not averred, hence, no cause of action is shown whereon to predicate a judgment by default. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, with directions to allow the plaintiff to amend his pleadings, should he offer to do so within reasonable time.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1000
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                       19,046
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                53,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (5,799)
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            103,238
<PP&E>                                      711,967
<DEPRECIATION>                              (22,087)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              830,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        72,593
<BONDS>                                     597,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        100
<OTHER-SE>                                  165,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                830,740
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             13,479
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 8,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 56
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,565)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,565)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,565)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.16)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Whitehouse,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04449-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Brown & Crouppen, PC

(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 12/4/2017, 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 9331 Filed 12/14/17 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 9331 Filed 12/14/17 Page 2 of 2