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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sandra G. Batkin,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00191-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Zonies Law LLC

(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 1/19/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: January 24, 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 9849 Filed 01/26/18 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 9849 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

p0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144838

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 14 4838

COA: 299867

Wayne CC: 10

- 002425

- FC

RICHARD HARRISON GOREE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 28, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60281 Summary Calendar

SRISRAM AMARESEN,

Petitioner,

versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 75 895 937

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Sri Lankan citizen Srisram Amarese n petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
his req uests for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. For the following reasons, Amaresen’s petition is DENIED.1 See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).

2 See Faddoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994).

3 230 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2000).

4 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001).

2 F irst, we will not disturb the administrative finding that

Amaresen was noncredible as a witness. 1 Because Amaresen was noncredible, his own statements and testimony about his individual
situation may be disregarded. Nothing in the record indicated that
the Sri Lankan government systematically persecutes Tamils who are

not suspected of involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) solely by virtue of their ethnicity or by virtue of
their area of origin. Amaresen has failed to show that he is entitled to asylum or withholding of deportation. 2
Second, regarding Amaresen’s claim under the Convention Against Torture, apart from the nonconsideration of the documentary
evidence of country conditions in Sri Lanka, the concerns expressed
by our sister circuits in Mansour v. INS 3 and Kamalthas v. INS 4 were largely absent in Amaresen’s case. Both the IJ and BIA indicated that they realized the different analytical frameworks for asylum
and Convention Against Torture claims, and the credibility
determination relevant to Amaresen’s asylum claim also was relevant

to his Convention Against Torture claim. Finally, while the documentary evidence in Amaresen’s case indicates that torture
remains an issue in Sri Lanka, the Eighth Circuit has noted that5 Perinpanathan v. INS , 310 F.3d 594, 599 (8th Cir. 2002).

6 See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir. 2002).
3 there is no evidence that returnees to Sri Lanka who had sought asylum are being tortured. 5 Amaresen has failed to demonstrate
that he is entitled to relief. 6

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,270
<SECURITIES>                                   231,106
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               502,349
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    250,000
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     252,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502,349
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,951
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    7,172
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    7,172
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





The Board of Directors
Lakeview Financial Corp.:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the Registration  Statement on Form
S-8 of Lakeview Financial Corp.  relating to the 1993 Stock Option Plan (Plan A,
Plan B and Plan C) of our report dated September 2, 1998,  except as to Note 22,
which is as of October 16, 1998, relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of
Lakeview  Financial Corp. and  subsidiaries as of July 31, 1998 and 1997 and the
related consolidated statements of income,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 31, 1998, which report
is  included  in the July 31,  1998  Annual  Report on Form  10-K/A of  Lakeview
Financial Corp.


                                                     /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Short Hills, New Jersey
October 22, 1998
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sarah A. Loff","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sloff\/","title":"Apollo 11 Mission Overview","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dwMj5CnoQp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/apollo-11-mission-overview\/\">Apollo 11 Mission Overview<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/apollo-11-mission-overview\/embed\/#?secret=dwMj5CnoQp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo 11 Mission Overview” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dwMj5CnoQp\" 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\/2015\/04\/s69-34875_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Laura Tanner, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03988-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Skikos, Crawford, Skikos & Joseph, 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 10/30/2017, 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: November 6, 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 8748 Filed 11/09/17 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 8748 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juanita King,

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-17-04787-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

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

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

Date: January 5, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

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

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9594 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-115","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xE2mhwHJyd\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-115\/\">STS-115<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-115\/embed\/#?secret=xE2mhwHJyd\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-115” — NASA\" data-secret=\"xE2mhwHJyd\" 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"}
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4765

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount allowable for qualified adoption expenses, to permanently extend the credit

for adoption expenses, and to adjust the limitations on such credit

for inflation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 9, 1998

Mr. BLILEY (for himself and Mr. GINGRICH) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the amount allowable for qualified adoption expenses,

to permanently extend the credit for adoption expenses,

and to adjust the limitations on such credit for inflation.

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 ‘‘Hope for Children

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. ADOPTION EXPENSES.

7 (a) INCREASE IN AMOUNTS ALLOWED.—
2

•HR 4765 IH

1 (1) DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALLOWED EX2 PENSES.—Paragraph (1) of section 23(b) of the In3 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limi4 tation) is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and all that

5 follows and inserting ‘‘$10,000.’’.

6 (2) PHASE-OUT LIMITATION.—Clause (i) of sec7 tion 23(b)(2)(A) of such Code (relating to income

8 limitation) is amended by striking ‘‘$75,000’’ and

9 inserting ‘‘$150,000’’.

10 (b) REPEAL OF SUNSET ON CHILDREN WITHOUT

11 SPECIAL NEEDS.—Paragraph (2) of section 23(d) of such

12 Code (relating to definition of eligible child) is amended

13 to read as follows:

14 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE CHILD.—The term ‘eligible

15 child’ means any individual who—

16 ‘‘(A) has not attained age 18, or

17 ‘‘(B) is physically or mentally incapable of

18 caring for himself.’’.

19 (c) ADJUSTMENT OF DOLLAR AND INCOME LIMITA20 TIONS FOR INFLATION.—Section 23 of such Code is

21 amended by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i)

22 and by inserting after subsection (g) the following new

23 subsection:

24 ‘‘(h) ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION.—In the case of

25 a taxable year beginning after December 31, 1999, each
3

•HR 4765 IH

1 of the dollar amounts in subsections (b)(1) and

2 (b)(2)(A)(i) shall be increased by an amount equal to—

3 ‘‘(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by

4 ‘‘(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined

5 under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which

6 the taxable year begins, determined by substituting

7 ‘calendar year 1998’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub8 paragraph (B) thereof.’’.

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

11 December 31, 1998.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Perot Systems Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Ross Perot, Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my
capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1. The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: August 14, 2003

| |  |                                                                         
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ ROSS PEROT, JR.Ross Perot, Jr.
President and Chief
Executive Officer