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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donna M. Day,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00440-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Fleming, Nolen, & Jez 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 2/17/2016, 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: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party 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 936 Filed 03/04/16 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 936 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00419-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023-005541-1

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

ROBERT DYSART, Appellant

V.

RAYMOND BRITTON, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant’s brief was due on March 7, 2024. On April 8, 2024, we notified 

appellant that his brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

unless, within ten days, appellant filed with the court an appellant’s brief and an 

accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an 

extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have 

received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 9, 2024
No 14,547.

#### The City of Portland *v.*Taylor.

*Negligence.*— Personal *Injuries.*— Action *Against City for Damages.*— Com*plaint.*— Sufficiency *of.*— In an action against a city to recover damages for personal injuries, it was averred in the complaint that the sidewalk along a particular street was twelve feet in width; that the city had constructed a portion of the walk over a ditch, in an alley, only three feet wide, leaving it without any protection at the sides, or any lights or danger signals, so that the plaintiff in passing along the sidewalk, without knowledge of the situation or condition of the walk at the alley, stepped off into the ditch, thereby sustaining the injuries complained of, without any fault on her part.

*Held,*that the facts stated in the complaint constituted a good cause of action against the city for negligence.

*Parties.*— Personal *Injuries of Wife.*— Action *to Recover Damages for.*— Hus*band not Necessary Party.*— The husband is not a necessary party in an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the wife, and it is not error to dismiss as to him.

From the Jay Circuit Court.

*W. H. Williamson, D. T. Taylor*and *R. H. Hartford,*for appellant.

*L. J. Baker,*for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

— Eva Taylor and her husband brought suit against the city of Portland to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, Eva Taylor, on account of the neglect of the city in permitting a sidewalk within the corporate limits to be in a dangerous condition.

It is alleged that the sidewalks along a particular street were twelve feet in width, and that the city had constructed a portion of the walk over a ditch, in an alley, only three feet wide, leaving it without any protection at the sides, or any lights or danger signals, so that the plaintiff in passing along the sidewalk, without knowledge of the situation, or condition of the walk at the alley, stepped off into the ditch, thereby sustaining the injuries complained of, without any *523fault on her part. The facts stated in the complaint constitute a good cause of action against, the city for negligence.

Filed Oct. 29, 1890.

There was no error in permitting Charles S. Taylor, the husband, to be dismissed out of the case. He was not a necessary party, and it was wholly immaterial what the purpose was in dismissing him from the case. He had no interest in the action. *Ohio, etc., R. W. Co.*v. Cosby, 107 Ind. 32.

Dismissing the husband from the case in nowise affected the wife’s right to proceed with the action, and it is, therefore, plain that the motion to dismiss, insisted upon by the city, was properly overruled.

The evidence fairly sustains the finding of the court. The court committed no error in excluding an extract from a newspaper, offered in evidence. It is difficult to conceive what relevancy the evidence offered had to any issue, or inquiry before the court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with 10 per cent, damages.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"Benefits for Humanity: Microbiology in Microgravity","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mRvq73chdH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/benefits-microbiology-in-microgravity\/\">Benefits for Humanity: Microbiology in Microgravity<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/benefits-microbiology-in-microgravity\/embed\/#?secret=mRvq73chdH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Benefits for Humanity: Microbiology in Microgravity” — NASA\" data-secret=\"mRvq73chdH\" 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\/iss048e069879.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
#### MAE CAPPETTA v. MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER, ETC., ET AL.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2876 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2876

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate reductions 
 in payments to hospitals for the indirect costs of medical education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 30, 2004

Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate reductions 
 in payments to hospitals for the indirect costs of medical education.

    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 ``American Hospital Preservation Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF THE INDIRECT MEDICAL EDUCATION (IME) ADJUSTMENT 
              PERCENTAGE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)), as amended by section 502(a) of 
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2290), is amended--
            (1) in subclause (VII), by adding ``and'' after the 
        semicolon at the end;
            (2) in subclause (VIII)--
                    (A) by striking ``and before October 1, 2004,''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking the semicolon at the end and 
                inserting a period; and
            (3) by striking subclauses (IX), (X), (XI), and (XII).
    (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Determination of Standardized 
Amount.--Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395ww(d)(2)(C)(i)), as amended by section 502(b) of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public 
Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2290), is amended by striking ``, or the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2003'' and inserting ``, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003, or the American Hospital Preservation 
Act of 2004''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6306
ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BANKS; SERGEANT CARTER, SR.; WARDEN TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-132-R) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atkins v. Correctional Officer Banks , No. CA-96- 132-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 22, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### IN RE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OPINION 608, AS SUPPLEMENTED.

September 6, 1989.

Petitions for review of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion Number 608 entitled, *Attorney for Mortgage Lender Performing Services for Borrower,*is granted.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Energy Accommodation from Surface Catalyzed Reactions in Air Plasmas","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"o9JtCLzMLq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/energy-accommodation-from-surface-catalyzed-reactions-in-air-plasmas\/\">Energy Accommodation from Surface Catalyzed Reactions in Air Plasmas<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/energy-accommodation-from-surface-catalyzed-reactions-in-air-plasmas\/embed\/#?secret=o9JtCLzMLq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Energy Accommodation from Surface Catalyzed Reactions in Air Plasmas” — NASA\" data-secret=\"o9JtCLzMLq\" 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\/2016\/07\/herrmann-stanzel_roland.png?w=454","thumbnail_width":454,"thumbnail_height":841}
#### THOMAS E. SCHINDELAR v. ZENON ZAWADSKI, ET UX., ET AL.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
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 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTER PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

No. MDL15-02641-PHX-DGC

No. CV17-2326-PHX DGC

This document relates to: 

Eddie D. Hall, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, 

Inc., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER ON STIPULATION OF 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Considering the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice of Plaintiff 

Eddie Hall. Doc. 8528. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGE AND DECLARED that all claims of 

Plaintiff Eddie D. Hall in the above-captioned action against Defendants C.R. Bard and 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. are dismissed in their entirety without prejudice and each 

party shall bear its own costs. 

 Dated this 9th day of November, 2017. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8771 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6306

ANTHONY ATKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BANKS; SERGEANT CARTER,

SR.; WARDEN TAYLOR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-132-R)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Atkins v. Correctional Officer Banks, No. CA-96-

132-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 22, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vidish Ramnath,

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-17-03920-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: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

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

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8587 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-73047; 333-68871; 333-58753; 333-57893; 333-56823; 333-08025; 333-87315; 333-82489;333-45680; 333-56798; 333-90136; 333-127501) of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. of our report datedMarch 17, 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                          --------------------------

The following are subsidiaries of RightCHOICE Managed Care Inc. as of December
31, 1999:

                                                            State of
                                                          Incorporation
                        Name                             or Organization
---------------------------------------------------      ---------------

HMO Missouri, Inc. (BlueCHOICE)                              Missouri
Diversified Life Insurance Agency of Missouri, Inc.          Missouri
Healthy Alliance Life Insurance Company                      Missouri
HealthLink, Inc.                                             Illinois
HeatlhLink HMO, Inc.                                         Missouri
The EPOCH Group, L.C.                                        Missouri
RightCHOICE Insurance Company                                Illinois
Preferred Health Plans of Missouri, Inc.                     Missouri
#### Wheeler and Another *v.*Emmerson, on Appeal.

*Friday, November*13

ONE of two defendants in chancery cannot be examined as a witness by the complainant, without a special order of the Court.
SHARON KELLER

PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

JUDGES 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING

, 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET

, R OOM 106, A USTIN

, T EXAS 78701

W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA

. ASPX Friday, October 09, 2015

Michael Mowla

Attorney at Law

P. O. Box 868

Cedar Hill, TX 75106

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Charles "Chad" Baruch

3308 Grove Avenue

Dallas, TX 75204

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * George Rankin Milner III

Milner * Finn * Price

2828 N Harwood St., Suite 1950

Dallas, TX 75201-2143

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

L. T. Bradt

14015 Southwest Freeway

Suite 4

Sugar Land, TX 77478

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: HILL, ALBERT G.

CCA Nos. PD-0019-15, PD-0020-15, PD-0021-15, PD-0022-15

Dear Counselors:

The above-styled cases are set for submission on Wednesday, November 04, 2015, at 9:00 AM.

Please notify this Court within 10 days of the date of this notice whether you will appear for oral

argument.

Failure to respond constitutes waiver of oral argument

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

_____________________________ Abel Acosta, Clerk

cc: Robert Udashen (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

District Attorney Dallas County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Brett E. Ordiway (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Lisa McMinn (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)