alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jermaine Walker","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jwalke32\/","title":"Spectrum Certification Process","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5PSTnGCPBI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/somd\/space-communications-navigation-program\/spectrum-certification-process\/\">Spectrum Certification Process<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/somd\/space-communications-navigation-program\/spectrum-certification-process\/embed\/#?secret=5PSTnGCPBI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Spectrum Certification Process” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5PSTnGCPBI\" 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\/09\/capitol-building.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan R. Gill,

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-17-04400-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 12, 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 9705 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 1
#### Maria De Los Angeles BARRALES VARGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 03-74005, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXXXXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.**

Decided Feb. 22, 2005.

Maria De Los Angeles Bárrales Vargas, Zephyr Cove, NV, pro se.

Sarahi Flores Bárrales, Zephyr Cove, NV, pro se.

Ignacio Bernardo Flores Bárrales, Zephyr Cove, NV, pro se.

Bonniangeliaca Flores Bárrales, Zephyr Cove, NV, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John L. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Lead petitioner Maria De Los Angeles Bárrales Vargas and her children Sarahi *304Flores Bárrales, Ignacio Bernardo Flores Bárrales and Bonny Angelica Flores Barrales, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. *Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Evidence in the record establishes that the immigration court mailed notice of Bárrales Vargas’ deportation hearing to her last known address. This notice is sufficient regardless of whether Bárrales Vargas had actual notice of the hearing date. *See Farhoud v. INS,*122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997).

The BIA’s affirmance without opinion did not violate Barrales Vargas’ due process rights. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 851-52 (9th Cir.2003).

We have considered Bárrales Vargas’ remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *304courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                       691
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,083
<PP&E>                                         618,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 768,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,725
<BONDS>                                        402,518
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                     284,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   768,890
<SALES>                                        186,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,245
<CGS>                                          121,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,084
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,804
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,280
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,280
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ WILLIAM V. CAREYWilliam V. Carey Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer August 8, 2005
Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Amendment  No.  3 to
Registration Statement No. 333-103267 of Ferrellgas Partners,  L.P. on Form S-3,
in  Post-Effective  Amendment No. 1 to  Registration  Statement No.  33-55185 of
Ferrellgas  Partners,  L.P.  on  Form  S-4 to  Form  S-1  and in  Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to Registration  Statements No.  333-87633 and No.  333-84344 of
Ferrellgas  Partners,  L.P.  on  Form  S-8  of our  reports,  which  express  an
unqualified opinion and include an explanatory  paragraph relating to changes in
accounting principles, dated September 29, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Ferrellgas Partners, L. P. for the year ended July 31, 2003.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
October 20, 2003
#### Hendra WIJAYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1629.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2005.

Decided March 17, 2005.

Anthony M. Briggs, Jr., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, John L. Davis, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Hendra Wijaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.*

In his petition for review, Wijaya contends that he established his eligibility for asylum relief. The record reveals, however, that the Board found Wijaya’s asylum application untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). *See Zaidi v. Ashcroft,*377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir.2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Wijaya’s asylum claim.

While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Wijaya’s asylum claim, we can review denial of his request for withholding of removal, which is not subject to the one-year time limit on asylum claims. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 324 n. 13 (4th Cir.2002) (citing *INS v. Stevic,*467 U.S. 407, 430,104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that Wijaya has failed to meet this standard.

We deny Wijaya’s 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*

*

 Wijaya raises no claims concerning the Board’s treatment of his Convention Against Torture claim with this court. Therefore, we deem the claim abandoned. *See United. States*v. *Al-Hamdi,*356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir.2004); *Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).
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. 08-10792

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KERRY DEWAYNE LAURY

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:93-CR-3-2

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kerry Dewayne Laury, federal prisoner # 24149-077, appeals the district

court’s denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela, filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1651. In 1993, Laury was convicted of five counts of aiding and abetting

robbery and five counts of aiding and abetting the carrying of a firearm in

connection with the robberies. Laury was sentenced to a total of 1,071 months

of imprisonment.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10792

2

Laury argues that he was sentenced for conduct not charged in the

indictment or proven to a jury. He contends that his sentence was imposed in

violation of the principles announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), and that therefore he is entitled to relief in the form of a writ of audita

querela. A prisoner may not seek a writ of audita querela if he “may seek

redress under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255.” United States v. Banda, 1 F.3d 354, 356 (5th

Cir. 1993). Booker does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review and

does not provide a ground for filing a successive § 2255 motion. United States

v. Gentry, 432 F.3d 600, 605 (5th Cir. 2005); In re Elwood, 408 F.3d 211, 212-13

(5th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, the fact that a movant cannot meet the

requirements for bringing a successive § 2255 motion does not render the § 2255

remedy unavailable. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000).

Therefore, Laury has not shown that he is entitled to the relief requested.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"50 Years Ago: Apollo 15 Astronauts Post Mission Activities","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"D2A0Cx1HLi\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-15-astronauts-post-mission-activities\/\">50 Years Ago: Apollo 15 Astronauts Post Mission Activities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-15-astronauts-post-mission-activities\/embed\/#?secret=D2A0Cx1HLi\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“50 Years Ago: Apollo 15 Astronauts Post Mission Activities” — NASA\" data-secret=\"D2A0Cx1HLi\" 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\/2021\/08\/apollo_15_post_mission_1_new_york_parade_down_5th_ave_to_city_hall_aug_24_1971_as15-1130-71hc-1309.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":414}
{"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 HD Videos","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zr80qV8bqP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/apollo-11-hd-videos\/\">Apollo 11 HD Videos<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/apollo-11-hd-videos\/embed\/#?secret=zr80qV8bqP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo 11 HD Videos” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zr80qV8bqP\" 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\/03\/368236main_Apollo_11_Intro_HDthumb.jpg?w=237","thumbnail_width":237,"thumbnail_height":137}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Phyllis Burrell-Karriem,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04408-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 1/4/2018, 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 12, 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 9739 Filed 01/19/18 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 9739 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of DrugMax, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2003 (the Report), I, Ronald J. Patrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    RONALD J. PATRICKRonald J. Patrick Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer July 29, 2003