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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7172

RICCARDO DARNELL JONES, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

SGT. RIGGS, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00390-UA-RAE) 

Submitted: December 18, 2008 Decided: January 9, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Riccardo Darnell Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Riccardo Darnell Jones appeals from the magistrate 

judge’s order denying his motion for preliminary injunction. 

Because we find that the magistrate judge did not have authority 

to enter a final, appealable order in this matter, we dismiss 

the appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and remand 

to the district court for further proceedings. 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate 

judge may enter a final order directly appealable to the court 

of appeals upon consent of all parties. Otherwise, under 

§ 636(b), a district court must initially review the magistrate 

judge’s order or proposed findings under either a de novo or 

clearly erroneous standard of review depending upon the nature 

of the ruling appealed. Absent an express adoption, 

modification, or rejection of the magistrate judge’s ruling by 

the district court, the ruling is generally not reviewable by 

the court of appeals. See Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 

416-18 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, we find nothing in the 

record showing that the parties agreed to have the motion 

decided by the magistrate judge. As a result, the magistrate 

judge lacked the authority to enter a final dispositive order. 

See Gleason v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 777 F.2d 1324, 

1324 (8th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and 

remand to the district court for further proceedings. See

2 
3 

Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510-11 (6th Cir. 1993) 

(dismissing appeal from unauthorized order issued by magistrate 

judge but remanding to district court for corrective action). 

We further deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel and 

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. 

 

 DISMISSED AND REMANDED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 20, 2010

s1213 

# Order

December 20, 2010

141527

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141527 COA: 289439 St. Clair CC: 08-001484-FH JAMES FREDERICK SANFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 29, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

D AVIS



### , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not par ticipating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
Case 2:15-mj-01702-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01702-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01702-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3
V

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4783

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel GRIEFSWALD.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 9, 1998

Mr. ORTIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

GRIEFSWALD.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106

6 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise
2

•HR 4783 IH

1 trade for the vessel GRIEFSWALD (Liberian registration

2 number 90212).

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lois Howell,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04388-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 9896 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 9896 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 I, Mario
Ayub, the Acting Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial
Officer of Mexoro Mineral Ltd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (1)           the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2008
(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.
 
 
 Date:  July
21, 2008
 
 /S /Mario
Ayub
 _________________________________
 Mario
Ayub
 Acting
Principal Executive Officer
 Acting
Principal Financial Officer
#### Igor MOISEEFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1042.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 2, 2005.

James T. Bilicki, Benner & Bilicki, Farmington Hills, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*236Richard M. Tuyn, Vicki J. Patterson, Cattel, Tuyn *&*Rudzewicz, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BATCHELDER, COLE, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Thomas B. Russell of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Igor Moiseeff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Daimler-Chrysler Corporation in this case brought pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. The district court found that Moiseeff did not establish a *prima, facie*case of retaliation under the FMLA because he failed to show a causal connection between his FMLA-protected leave and his discharge. In the alternative, the court found that Moiseeff failed to show that Daimler-Chrysler’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharge was pretextual.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo. McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg., USA, Inc.,*110 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir.1997). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions. For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive opinion dated November 21, 2003, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.
#### Alfred G. Holcombe et al. *v.*Trenton White City Company.

[Argued June 19th, 1913.

Decided October 16th, 1913.]

On two appeals from a decree of the court of chancery, one by John S. Broughton, and the other by Charles J. Fury, which decree was advised by Vice-Chancellor Walker, whose opinion is reported in *80 N. J. Eq. (10• Buck.) 122.*

*Mr. John M. Dichinson*and *Mr. Gilbert Gollins,*for the appellant and respondent, John S. Broughton.

*Mr. Peter*Baches, for the respondent and appellant, Charles J. Fury, receiver.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Walker.

*For*affirmance—Garrison, Swayjze, Trencitard, Parker, Kalisch, Vredenburgh, Congdon, Terhune, Heppenheimer —9.

*For*reversal—None.
#### David L. Taylor, respondent, v. Mary S. Borden et al., appellants.

[Submitted July 7th, 1913.

Decided October 16th, 1913.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson.

*Mr. Edmund W. Wahelee,*for the appellants.

*Messrs. Gohn & Golin,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The testimony in the cause fully sustains the facts found by the learned vice-chancellor. Upon those facts the complainant was clearly entitled to the relief granted to him. The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

*For*affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Yoorhees, Kalisch, YredenBURGH, CONGDON, TeRI-IUNE, HePPENI-IETMER—12.

*For*reversal—None.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 157 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 158 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 159 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 160 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[157 EAL 2023, 158 EAL 2023, 159 EAL 2023, 160 EAL 2023, 161 EAL 2023, 162 EAL 

2023, 163 EAL 2023, 164 EAL 2023 and 165 EAL 2023] - 2

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 161 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 162 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 163 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

No. 164 EAL 2023
[157 EAL 2023, 158 EAL 2023, 159 EAL 2023, 160 EAL 2023, 161 EAL 2023, 162 EAL 

2023, 163 EAL 2023, 164 EAL 2023 and 165 EAL 2023] - 3

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 165 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rebecca Moore,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04163-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Bertram & Graf 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 12/6/2017, 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 9364 Filed 12/15/17 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 9364 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, James W. Stryker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Restaurant Company;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
      being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely
      affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: May 31, 2006

                                          BY: /s/ James W. Stryker
                                              ------------------------
                                          James W. Stryker
                                          Chief Financial officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"Celebrating Pi Day on the International Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ngEAGsyshb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/iss068e075336\/\">Celebrating Pi Day on the International Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/iss068e075336\/embed\/#?secret=ngEAGsyshb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Celebrating Pi Day on the International Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ngEAGsyshb\" 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\/2024\/03\/iss068e075336orig-iotd.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}