alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sarah Douglas","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sschlied\/","title":"Collaborate with CoECI: Crowdsourcing Vendors","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8zY3qIp5AE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/prizes-challenges-crowdsourcing-program\/center-of-excellence-for-collaborative-innovation-coeci\/crowdsourcing-vendors\/\">Collaborate with CoECI: Crowdsourcing Vendors<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/prizes-challenges-crowdsourcing-program\/center-of-excellence-for-collaborative-innovation-coeci\/crowdsourcing-vendors\/embed\/#?secret=8zY3qIp5AE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Collaborate with CoECI: Crowdsourcing Vendors” — NASA\" data-secret=\"8zY3qIp5AE\" 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\/2020\/12\/partner2.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":335}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SYLVESTER DOUGLAS HOWARD.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
Exhibit No. 4(A)

May 7, 1997


Mr. Robert E. Little
National City Bank
1900 East 9th Street
Cleveland, OH  44114

Dear Mr. Little:

Per our discussion, the Progressive Corporation hereby accepts the terms for the
unsecured line of credit for ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) as of May 1,
1997.

Terms of the line are as follows:

      -     1/8 of 1% Commitment Fee

      -     Borrowings options include Base rate, Libor + 3/8% (reserve adjusted
            or money market rate.

      -     The line is subject to annual review.

      -     Progressive will furnish interim and annual audited statements as
            well as Security and Exchange Commission reports and annual
            convention statements.

THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION

/s/ Marilyn A. Muzic

Marilyn A. Muzic
Director of Financial Operations
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Freddie L. Woods,

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-17-03401-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 8460 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 1
#### John Todd *v.*James Miller.

Judgment — Verdict Contrary to Evidence.

Where the evidence shows from the facts brought out on the trial of a cause, a preponderance in favor of defendant, a verdict contrary thereto will be set aside and a new trial awarded.

APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 27, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

There is no substantial error in giving or refusing instructions. But it seems to this court that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence.

The testimony does not allow the imputation of spoliation while the whiskey was in the appellant’s custody, nor of the loss of any of the whiskey by his culpable negligence. On the contrary, the appellee himself seems to have been negligent in consigning the whiskey in defective and leaky barrels and also in *94not either repairing them properly or substituting good ones. In the course of two years after the deposit, *31*barrels as deposited were necessary for filling 25 full barrels, thus showing that, in that interval, there had been a loss of one-third by leakage and evaporation, but evidently by leakage chiefly; whereby only about one-third of the original quantity remained.' Consequently only an equal rate of leakage for five succeeding years could have left more than five barrels, if as much, which at the highest estimate could not have yielded half the amount of the verdict. Consequently there was no consistent ground for the assessement made by the jury conceding to them the utmost allowable latitude of discretion. And therefore the circuit court en;ed in over-ruling the motion for a new trial.

Fisks, *for appellant.*

Boyd, *for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
pertaining  to the  1994  Stock  Plan  (Form  S-8 No.  333-39863)  and the  1997
Supplemental  Plan (Form S-8 No.  333-23901),  including  their  Amendment No. 1
thereto  (Form S-8 No.  333-66091),  the  Supplemental  Option  Plan,  including
Amendment No. 1 thereto (Form S-8 No.  333-09569),  the Registration  Statement,
including  Amendment No. 1 thereto (Form S-3 No.  333-24097)  and in the related
prospectus of Geoworks  Corporation  for the  registration  of 1,282,754  common
shares,  and the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 No.  333-50746)  and in the
related  prospectus of Geoworks  Corporation  for the  registration of 3,377,437
common  shares of our report  dated April 18, 2001  (except Note 13, as to which
the  date  is  June  12,  2001),  with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial
statements  of Geoworks  included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 31, 2001.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Francisco, California
June 26, 2001
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

26

Christopher A. LaVoy (SB# 016609)

Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.

Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II

2525 East Camelback Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9240

Telephone: (602) 255-6000

Facsimile: (602) 255-0103

E-Mail: cal@tblaw.com

Connie J. Mableson (SB# 010665)

Connie J. Mableson, PLLC

1938 East Osborn Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: 602-277-8100

E-Mail: connie@mablesonlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Whirled Music Publishing, Inc., an Arizona 

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

John A. Costello, III and Jennifer Costello, 

husband and wife, 

Defendants.

Case No. 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE 

STATEMENT

This Corporate Disclosure Statement is filed on behalf of plaintiff Whirled Music 

Publishing, Inc. (“Whirled”) in compliance with the provisions of:

Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a nongovernmental corporate party to 

an action in a district court must file a statement that identifies any parent corporation and 

any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no 

such corporation. 
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

Whirled hereby declares that there is no such corporation.

A supplemental disclosure statement will be filed upon any change in the 

information provided herein.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2015.

TIFFANY & BOSCO P.A.

By: /s/ Christopher A. LaVoy

Christopher A. LaVoy

Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II

2525 East Camelback Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237

Connie J. Mableson 

CONNIE J. MABLESON, PLLC

1938 East Osborn Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Attorneys for Plaintiff
**Exhibit 99.4**

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’SCERTIFICATE

 

CAPITAL ONE BANK

 

CAPITAL ONE MASTER TRUST

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative ofCapital One Bank, as Servicer (the “Bank”), pursuant to the Amended andRestated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 30, 1993, asamended and restated as of August 1, 2002 (as amended and supplemented, the “Agreement”),among the Bank, as Servicer, Capital One Funding, LLC, as Transferor, and TheBank of New York, as Trustee, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             TheBank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement. Capitalizedterms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings as set forth inthe Agreement.

 

2.             Theundersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly authorized pursuant to theAgreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.

 

3.             Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year endedDecember 31, 2005, and of its performance under the Agreement was conductedunder my supervision.

 

4.             Basedon such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in allmaterial respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year andno default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuingexcept as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

 

5.             Thefollowing is a description of each default in the performance of the Servicer’sobligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to me to have been madeby the Servicer during the year ended December 31, 2005, which sets forth indetail (i) the nature of each such default, (ii) the action taken by theServicer, if any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status ofeach such default:

 

None.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 16th day of March, 2006.

 
|   | CAPITAL ONE BANK,  |
|--------|--------------------|
|   |   as Servicer |
|   |               |   |
|   | By:                | /s/ Steve Richter |   |
|   | Name:              | Steve Richter |
|   | Title:             | Director of Corporate  Accounting and Reporting |

 

1

----
#### The State *v.*Jackson.

An indictment against a person for selling spirituous liquors to an Indian, cannot be objected to merely because the name of the Indian is not inserted, if the indictment state that the name is unknown to tho jurors.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Friday, *May*29.

Blackford, J.

Indictment against the defendant for selling spirituous liquors to an Indian. The indictment was quashed on motion of the defendant.

The indictment -contains several counts. One of the counts states that the jury on their oath find,—That the defendant, (naming him,) on, &c. at, &c. (stating the time and place,) sold and disposed of a quantity of spirituous liquor, to wit, a pint of whiskey of the value of 10 cents, to an Indian of this state, of the Miami nation of Indians, the name of which, said Indian, to the jurors aforesaid is wholly unknown, contrary to the form of the statute and against the peace of the state.

We are at a loss to conceive what objection could be taken to this count'of the indictment. The statute of 1832 states the offence described in the indictment to be an indictable one (1). Perhaps if may have been supposed that the name of the Indian should have been stated. The indictment, however, states the name to have been unknown to the jury, which is a sufficient reason for not inserting the name. An *50indictment for the murder of a stranger, or for larceny from the person of a stranger, stating the name to be unknown to the jury, cannot be objected to because the name of the stranger is omitted. Archbold’s Crim. Pleading, p. 11.

*W. Herod,*for the state.

D. *H. Colerick,*for the defendant.

We see no objection to the count to which we have referred; and the judgment must be reversed.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Accord. Rev. Stat. 1838, p. 223.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #14161 and #14162]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New Jersey: dated 10/16/2014. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         08/12/2014. *Effective Date:*
                         10/16/2014. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/15/2014. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/16/2015.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road., Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Cumberland. *Contiguous Counties:* New Jersey: Atlantic, Cape May, Gloucester, Salem. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.125Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.063Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.000Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14161 B and for economic injury is 14162 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is New Jersey. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2014-25478 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Todd Lafountaine,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03924-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Nations Law Firm - Houston, TX

(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 10/25/2017, 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: October 26, 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 8472 Filed 10/30/17 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 8472 Filed 10/30/17 Page 2 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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Schuyler McHenry, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02356-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 60) filed by Plaintiff and 

Defendant Ithaca College, and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the above-entitled matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice 

as to Defendant Ithaca College only, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ 

fees. 

 Dated this 10th day of May, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02356-JJT Document 61 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Mark LARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. BYNO, Lieutenant at Franklin Corrections Facility, James Anctil, Corrections Officer at Franklin Correctional Facility, Roy A. Girdich, Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, and Glenn S. Goord, Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, DefendantsAppellees.

Docket No. 03-0095.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 4, 2005.

Mark Larry, Dannemora, NY, for Appellant pro se.

Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, State of New York (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, and Andrea Oser, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief) (on submission), for Appellee.

*39PRESENT: JACOBS, CALABRESI, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and this case be REMANDED for reconsideration in light of *Hemphill v. New York,*380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir.2004).
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 The Newark Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2004 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert H. Mullen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



Dated: December 10, 2004



/s/ Robert H. MullenRobert H. MullenChief Executive Officer




This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



-28-
#### Leo Thompson et al *v.*Waller Bartley’s Heirs.

Judicial Sales — Descriptions of Land Sold — Purchaser Must have Good Title.

The commissioner’s report of sale fails to describe the land sold so that same can be identified with legal certainty and the purchaser, therefore, being unable to get a good title was not compelled to pay the purchase money.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 12, 1869.

*Ray, for appellants.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The judgment in this case must be reversed for two reasons.

1. The heirs being infants, service on them was necessary before their real estate could be legally sold.

2. The petition does not sufficiently identify the reality sought to be subjected. Though it refers to various documents of title it states that indefinite portions had been sold; and moreover none of those documents include or discribe the houses and lots sold by the commissioner’s report, in any way, discribe those houses and lots so that they can be identified with legal certainty, or conveyances made assuring valid title. The appellants therefore being unable to get a good title ought not to be compelled to' pay the purchase money.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for proper proceedings according to this opinion.