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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sandra M. Watson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04362-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 9924 Filed 02/02/18 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 9924 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"X-59 Model Tested in Wind Tunnel in Japan","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"leY9M98HWc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/x-59-model-tested-wind-tunnel-japan\/\">X-59 Model Tested in Wind Tunnel in Japan<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/x-59-model-tested-wind-tunnel-japan\/embed\/#?secret=leY9M98HWc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“X-59 Model Tested in Wind Tunnel in Japan” — NASA\" data-secret=\"leY9M98HWc\" 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\/img_0984.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant

to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40456

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL BRAD LASSITER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BILL WELK, In House Investigator

for Smith County Jail; CAROL “CURLY”

BEDDINGFIELD, Lt. in Charge of Smith

County Jail Medium and Low Risk

Facilities; J.B. SMITH, Sheriff of

Smith County; MARVIN WINTERS, Captain

over Smith County Jail Operations,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:94-CV-835)

December 4, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Brad Lassiter appeals the dismissal of his in forma pauperis civil rights

complaint as frivolous. We are to construe liberally the legal arguments presented by a pro
 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995);

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed.R.App.P. 28(a).

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1994).

 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

 Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Louisiana v. Litton Mortgage Co., 50 F.3d 1298 (5th Cir. 1995);

Joplin v. Bias, 631 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1980).

 5th Cir. Loc.R. 42.2.

2

se appellant in his brief.1

Stripped to essentials, Lassiter contends in his brief that he was deprived of

constitutional rights by an alleged seizure of legal and nonlegal material, a denial of access

to the law library, a denial of a hardcover Bible, secondary tobacco smoke, an inadequate

medical observation facility, and the placement of colortelevision setsin a portion ofthe jail.

We find no error in the district court’s disposition of these issues.2

Lassiter also challenges the manner in which the district court handled his case.

Again, we find no error.3 Additionally, Lassiter maintains that he was entitled to a default

judgment. The district court did not err in allowing the defendant to answer the amended

complaint.4

The instant appeal is frivolous. We dismiss it as such.5

We caution Lassiter that the filing of additional frivolous appeals will invite the

imposition ofsanctions. He is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not merely present issues previously considered and rejected by this court.

DISMISSED.
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

Each of the undersigned in connection with this Annual Report of Quality
Distribution, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigneds knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Date: March 11, 2011



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Gary R. Enzor      
|GARY R. ENZOR          
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Date: March 11, 2011



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph J. Troy                                  
|JOSEPH J. TROY                                      
|EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Quality Distribution, Inc. and will be retained by Quality Distribution, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1502

_____________________________

TODRICK PREANTON ROBERTS 

a/k/a Natan Torres,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James L. Marsh, Judge.

February 7, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Court grants Appellee’s motion filed December 19, 2023, 

and dismisses the appeal. All other motions are denied as moot.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Todrick Preanton Roberts, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Brian R. Flynn-Fallon, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4402

_____________________________

VALERIE NICOLE BRINKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

March 27, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3
No. 14,573.

#### McCray *v.*Smith.

Assignment of *Errors.*— Practice.—Where the errors assigned are the sustaining of demurrers to certain paragraphs of the amended complaint, and the alleged errors discussed by counsel for appellant are the sustaining of demurrers to certain paragraphs of his answer, and the record shows that demurrers were sustained to certain paragraphs of appellant’s answer, and that after they were sustained the appellant withdrew his answer and refused to plead, and judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of the appellee, no question is presented for the decision of this court.

From the Clinton Circuit Court.

*J. F. McCray*and *J. V. Kent,*for appellant.

*J. G. Adams, T. H. Palmer*and *W. F. Palmer,*for appellee.

*70Filed Nov. 15, 1890.

Olds, J.

— This was a proceeding by the appellee to enjoin the appellant from digging trenches and removing gravel from the land of the appellee.

The record presents no question for the decision of this court.

The errors assigned are the sustaining of demurrers to the first, second and third paragraphs of the amended complaint.

The alleged errors discussed by counsel for appellant are the sustaining of demurrers to certain paragraphs of his answer.

The record shows that demurrers were sustained to certain paragraphs of appellant's answer, and ¿hat after they were sustained the appellant withdrew his answer, and refused to plead, and judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of the appellee.

With the record showing this state of facts there is no question presented for decision.

The appellee files a motion to dismiss the cause, for the reason that the pages of the transcript are not numbered, and no marginal notes are made, as required by Rule 31 of this court.

This motion is well taken, but we have looked into the record far enough to see that no question is presented even if the rule was complied with.

There is no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
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

1

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)

KENT LAW OFFICES

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com

Of Counsel to:

Nitzkin & Associates

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Telephone: (248) 353-2882

Facsimile: (248) 353-4840

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Samantha Thomas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Samantha Thomas,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 

an Ohio corporation.

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:15-cv-01998-ROS

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff and Defendant, Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc., in the above-captioned case have reached a settlement. 

Case 2:15-cv-01998-ROS Document 12 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The parties anticipate filing a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(a) within 60 days.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29

th day of December, 2015.

 KENT LAW OFFICES

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent 

Attorney for Plaintiff,

Samantha Thomas

Case 2:15-cv-01998-ROS Document 12 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,641,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,800,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                   139,096
<INVENTORY>                                  1,164,310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,999,420
<PP&E>                                       8,605,387
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,026,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,598,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       50,324,405
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,253
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,682,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,598,470
<SALES>                                    147,142,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           147,142,637
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              165,697,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,132,188)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             324,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,746,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (17,746,370)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,746,370)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,746,370)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.95
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         502
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               502
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          97,598
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50
<OTHER-SE>                                     (97,146)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,716
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,837)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,837)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        




</TABLE>
#### Q. Q. Quigley et al *v.*James N. Quigley.

Will — Heir Cut Off from His Co-equal Eights.

An heir should not be adjudged as cut off from his co-equal rights by a will, unless the proper interpretation of it clearly manifests such intention.

Words and Phrases.

“All,” used in a will, imports, all those among whom the advancements mentioned were to be equalized.

APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT.

February 27, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

Had the testator died intestate, his grandson, the appellee, as the only child of his deceased father, who would have inherited one-sixth of the estate, had he surviyed, would have been entitled representatively to that one-sixth.

An heir should not be adjudged as cut off from his co-equal rights by a will, unless the proper interpretation of it clearly manifests such an intention.

The spirit and context of the will in this case do not evince *377such a purpose as to the appellee, but rather conduce to the contrary presumption. After providing for the equalization of advancements, the testator indicated the equality of residual distribution prescribed by law, in cases of intestacy, and, in no way, intimated the pretermission of the appellee as his father’s representative. “All” in the will, imports, according to any consistent construction, all those among whom the advancements were to be equalized, and the appellee was evidently one of those.

Quigley, *for appellants.*

*John*G. *Quigley, for appellee.*

And, therefore, the circuit court having so adjudged, the judgment is *affirmed.*
Joint Report on Settlement Talks Page 1

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

PH I L L I P S DA Y E S

LAW FIRM

A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

SEAN C. DAVIS, No. 030754

seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com

Direct: (602) 288-1610 ext. 432

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZIONA

Daniel Curry, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

Grove at Peoria Assisted Living, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants

Case No.: CV-15-02208-PHX-ESW

JOINT REPORT ON SETTLEMENT 

TALKS

Per the Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. 17), the parties provide the following joint 

report on settlement talks.

The parties have been in active negotiations which seek to resolve all claims brought in 

this matter.

At this time, the parties do not believe the assistance of the Court is needed in seeking a 

settlement of this case.
Joint Report on Settlement Talks Page 2

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

Dated: September 7, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM PC

By /s/Sean C. Davis

Trey Dayes

Sean C. Davis

seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SPIESS & BELL, PC

By /s/ James Bell

 James Bell

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 7, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the clerk’s office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice 

of Electronic Filing to each of the following registrants:

James O. Bell (023584)

SPIESS & BELL, PC

5050 N. 40th Street, Suite 220

Phoenix, Arizona 85018

(602) 254-8100

jim@spiessbell.com

By: /s/Sean C. Davis

Sean C. Davis