alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachel Hoover","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rlhoove1\/","title":"NASA Ames Hosts Australian Space Agency for Moon to Mars Talks, Tours","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PfvHxhy58q\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-ames-hosts-australian-space-agency-for-moon-to-mars-talks-tours\/\">NASA Ames Hosts Australian Space Agency for Moon to Mars Talks, Tours<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-ames-hosts-australian-space-agency-for-moon-to-mars-talks-tours\/embed\/#?secret=PfvHxhy58q\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Ames Hosts Australian Space Agency for Moon to Mars Talks, Tours” — NASA\" data-secret=\"PfvHxhy58q\" 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\/05\/acd23-0037-018.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":558}
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25153]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:
    Name: Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering 
Meeting. #25104.
    Date/Time: November 6, 2014: 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford 
II--Suite 1155, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: OPEN, VIRTUAL.
    Contact Person: Diane Drew, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230 703-292-7220.
    Minutes: Meeting minutes and other information may be obtained from 
the AC-ISE Designated Federal Official at the above address or the Web 
site at http://www.nsf.gov/od/iia/ise/advisory.jsp.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations on major 
goals and policies pertaining to International programs and activities.

Agenda

Thursday, November 6, 2014 11 a.m.-2 p.m.

<bullet> Welcome and Opening Remarks
<bullet> Update on the Status of the ISE Section
<bullet> Presentation and Discussion of the Report from the ISE 
Committee of Visitors
<bullet> Presentation and Discussion of the Strategic Framework for 
International Engagement
<bullet> Discussion of Other Recent Evaluations of NSF International 
Activities
<bullet> (Tentative) Meeting with France C[oacute]rdova, NSF Director
<bullet> Closing Remarks and Wrap Up

    Dated: October 17, 2014.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-25153 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES J. PASANEN.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification granted. (See 229 *N.J.Super.*553)
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 500

To reprogram certain funds for fiscal year 1997 to provide additional

agricultural assistance to Armenia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. RADANOVICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To reprogram certain funds for fiscal year 1997 to provide

additional agricultural assistance to Armenia.

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 ‘‘Armenian Assistance

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE FOR AR7 MENIA.

8 Of the amount provided under the heading ‘‘BILAT9 ERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE—Other Bilateral
2

•HR 500 IH

1 Economic Assistance—Economic Support Fund’’, and

2 section 588, of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,

3 and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (as con4 tained in section 101(c) of division A of the Omnibus Con5 solidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. 104–208) for

6 assistance to the Government of Turkey, the unobligated

7 balance shall be made available for assistance to Armenia.

8 Such assistance shall be made for sustainable agricultural

9 development programs emphasizing crop and livestock

10 protection, including zoonotic disease control and agri11 business.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4751 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4751

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of 
    service connection for the occurrence of hepatitis C in certain 
                               veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 1998

 Mr. Snyder (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mr. 
 Abercrombie, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Ms. Carson, Mr. Mascara, Mr. 
  Filner, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mrs. 
 Capps, and Mr. Maloney of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of 
    service connection for the occurrence of hepatitis C in certain 
                               veterans.

    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 ``Veterans' Hepatitis C Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR HEPATITIS C FOR VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 11 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 1118. Presumption of service connection for hepatitis C
    ``For purposes of section 1110 of this title, and subject to 
section 1113 of this title, hepatitis C becoming manifest in a veteran 
shall be considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by active 
military, naval, or air service, notwithstanding that there is no 
record of evidence of such illness during the period of such service if 
it is shown that during such service the veteran experienced one or 
more of the following:
            ``(1) Transfusion of blood or blood products before 
        December 31, 1992.
            ``(2) Blood exposure on or through skin or mucous membrane.
            ``(3) Hemodialysis.
            ``(4) Tattoo or body piercing or acupuncture.
            ``(5) Unexplained liver disease.
            ``(6) Unexplained abnormal liver function tests.
            ``(7) Working in a health care occupation.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
1117 the following new item:

``1118. Presumption of service connection for hepatitis C.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lucy F. Sueed’s Heirs *v.*S. D. Payne’s Admr.

Forcible Entry and Detainer — Right of Revivor — Abatement.

An action of forcible entry and detainer was instituted, and before trial, the defendant died, and the action was revived against the administrator. Later, the plaintiff having died, the heirs moved the court to prosecute the action, which was denied. Held, that the landlord would have the right of possession, which descended to his heirs, and they could prosecute the action in their name.

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 2, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

This is a warrant for a forcible entry and detainer brought by Lucy T. Sneed against appellee’s estate, who traversed the inquisition in the country, and before the same was tried, the traversor died, and the action was revived against appellee his administrator —and then the plaintiff in the warrant died, intestate, and thereupon her heirs moved the court below to permit them to prosecute the action in their name; but that court ruled that as the heirs were not in possession of the premises the action could not be revived in their name, and adjudged that it abated.

As was said by this court in *Jones v.*Overton, *4 Bibb., 334.*It is plain from the provision of the act of assembly giving this remedy for the restitution of the possession of land, that a mere matter of abatement is not available defense. Por there is not only no mode pointed out, by which advantage might be taken of it, but the proceedings required to be had before the justice of the peace, as well as the nature of the issue made up by the traverse of the inquisition, excludes all inquiry into matters which operate in abatement only.

The tenant, and her heirs are bound to surrender the possession to the landlord, and the law should afford them the means of doing so if they are wrongfully deprived of the possession, and the court below erred in refusing to permit the heirs of Lucy T. Sneed to prosecute the action in their name.

*661
      *Turner, for appellants.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to permit appellants to prosecute the action in their names, and for further proceedings in conformity herewith.
January 5, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ELIAS YANEZ, Appellant

NO. 14-16-00769-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of 

appeal. Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately. We further order this 

decision certified below for observance.
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of eMagin Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew G. Sculley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  350
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; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless
of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated: August 13, 2009
By:
/s/ Andrew G. SculleyAndrew G. SculleyChief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

______________________________________ 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION Case No. 15-md-02641-PHX-DGC 

______________________________________ MDL No. 2641 

This Document Relates to: 

2:15-cv-445-DGC 

______________________________________ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

TO: The Clerk of Court and all parties of record: 

The undersigned, Ramon Rossi Lopez, has been admitted or otherwise authorized 

to practice in this Court, and appear in this case as counsel for: 

Plaintiff, Alexandra Willmarth. 

Dated: February 25, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Ramon Rossi Lopez 

Ramon Rossi Lopez 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 881 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4
LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Phone: (949) 737-1501 

Fax: (949) 737-1504 

Email: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 881 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

______________________________________ 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION Case No. 15-md-02641-PHX-DGC 

______________________________________ MDL No. 2641 

This Document Relates to: 

2:15-cv-445-DGC 

______________________________________ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of February, 2016, a copy of the foregoing 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE was filed electronically via the Court’s electronic filing 

system. Those attorneys who are registered with the Court’s electronic filing system may 

access this filing through the Court’s system, and notice of this filing will be sent to these 

parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. 

/s/ Ramon Rossi Lopez 

Ramon Rossi Lopez 

LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 881 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4
Phone: (949) 737-1501 

Fax: (949) 737-1504 

Email: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 881 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Royal as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ Robert R. Tabas

Robert R. TabasChief Executive OfficerMarch 27, 2009
  133
#### W. R. Fleming *v.*J. C. Martin.

Partnership — Dissolution—Notice to Creditors!

Constructive notice by publication of the dissolution of a partnership in a local newspaper, is sufficient to all who had not dealt with a firm, but actual notice is necessary to creditors.

Same — Instruction.

An instruction to the effect that such actual notice, derived from any source was sufficient, held nto erroneous. But an instruction that required such notice to be given by the debtors in person, was. erroneous.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

June 1, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

W. E. Fleming and J. M. Taylor, who were partners in a hotel in Owensboro, Ky., owned by the former and kept by the latter, dissolved their partnership on the 1st of January, 1867. Taylor .still continued to keep the hotel on his own account. Martin, who had previously sold supplies to the firm, continued, at Taylor’s instance, to furnish them to the house, charging, as hitherto, the account to the partnership, as if still subsisting. Fleming, denying his liability, refused to pay, and this action was subsequently brought against him and Taylor to enforce payment. Taylor let judgment go against himself by default; but Fleming pleaded the dissolution and actual notice of it to Martin when and before the account originated. On that issue the jury found a verdict against Fleming for the amount of the account, and the court, overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment for the amount so found.

While the constructive notice by publication of the dissolution in the local newspaper was sufficient for all who had not dealt with the firm, actual notice was necessary to Martin. And the evidence preponderates in favor of the conclusion that Martin or his vending agents had such notice before the goods were sold. But, confusion in the instructions given to the jury may have *702mislead them as to the law. of. the ease. One of the instructions indicated quite clearly that the notice should have been given by Fleming himself. But another told the jury truly that actual notice derived from any source was sufficient. The latter, however, did not purport to be a correction or explanation of the first. The jury, therefore, had no clue for determining, in that apparent conflict, which instruction embodied the true principle. They may, therefore, have been bewildered, and the verdict may authorize the presumption that they were mislead.

*McHenry, Craddock &*Trabue, Owen, *Sweeney & S. for appellant.*

Bush, *for appellee.*

On this ground, strengthened by the preponderance against the verdict, on the law if rightly understood by the jury, the circuit court ought to have granted a new trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the Company), I, Joe A. Shearin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |                     
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Joe A. Shearin      |  |  |  | Date: August 4, 2008
|    |  | Joe A. Shearin          |  |  |  |                     
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |                     



31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mary Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03436-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 10/26/2017, 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 8764 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 8764 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 2