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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Christoffer G. Day, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03455-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 8633 Filed 11/06/17 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 8633 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         203,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               96,540,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     165,489,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,107,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             252,588,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               252,588,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,613,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               455,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,375,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,646,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

*Notice of Cancellation:*                     This notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 29, 2014, Volume 79, Number 189, page 58353. The meeting previously scheduled to convene on October 23, 2014 has been cancelled.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Gayle Hickman, Committee Management Specialist, Office of the Chief of Staff, 1600 Clifton Road, Mail Stop D-14, Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone 404/639-7158, fax 404/639-7212; Email:                     *ghickman@cdc.gov*.                

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Claudette Grant,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2014-25258 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                        RICHMOND COUNTY FINANCIAL CORP.
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              (In Thousands, Except Share and Per Share Amounts)



                                                                  For The
                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                             September 30, 1998
                                                          ---------------------

Net income                                                        $     5,354
                                                                  ===========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                         24,362,800

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect of stock options           --
                                                                  -----------

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents               24,362,800
                                                                  ===========

Basic earnings per common and common share equivalents            $      0.22
                                                                  ===========

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding   24,362,800

Additional dilutive shares using ending period market value
   versus average market value for the period when utilizing
   the treasury stock method regarding stock options                       --
                                                                  -----------

Total shares for diluted earnings per share                        24,362,800
                                                                  ===========

Diluted earnings per common share equivalents                     $      0.22
                                                                  ===========










                                      22
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"OpenET: A Satellite-Based Water Data Resource","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wqyrDWR6Dg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/openet-satellite-based-water-data-resource\/\">OpenET: A Satellite-Based Water Data Resource<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/openet-satellite-based-water-data-resource\/embed\/#?secret=wqyrDWR6Dg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“OpenET: A Satellite-Based Water Data Resource” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wqyrDWR6Dg\" 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\/nasa_melton_openet_instrument.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":482}
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 Imagin Molecular Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Patrick Rooney, as Chief Executive Officer hereby certifies, 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) or 15 (d), as applicable 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 Registrant.
 
 Dated: August 23, 2010
/s/ Patrick RooneyPatrick Rooney, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2495 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2495

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2004

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To strike limitations on funding and extend the period of authorization 
           for certain coastal wetland conservation projects.

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

SECTION 1. COASTAL WETLAND CONSERVATION PROJECT FUNDING.

    (a) Funding.--Section 306 of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 
Protection, and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3955) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``, not to exceed 
        $70,000,000,'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, not to exceed 
        $15,000,000''; and
            (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``, not to exceed 
        $15,000,000,''.
    (b) Period of Authorization.--Section 4(a) of the Dingell-Johnson 
Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c(a)) is amended in the second 
sentence by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2019''.

            Passed the Senate September 30, 2004.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Jamison *v.*Buckner.

The act authorising a defendant, in actions of assumpsit, to plead a want or failure of consideration specially, is cumulative, and does not take away 'the party’s right, ' existing before the act, to avail himself of such a defence under the general issue.

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court. Assumpsit by *Buckner*against *Jamison.*Plea, non-assumpsit. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Friday, May 18

Fletcher, for the plaintiff.

Gregg, for the defendant.

Scott, J.

On the general issue, in an action of assumpsit, the Court refused to hear evidence, on the part of the defendant^ of a failure of consideration. By pur statute, regulating the practice in suits at law, the defendant is aúthorised to allege the want or failure of consideration, by special plea. R. C. 1824, p. 295 (1). Prior to the statute, evidence of that fact could have been given on the general issue. The statute is cumulative, and does not take away the fight which existed prior to its enactment.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs.

(1)

 Accord. R. C. 1831, p. 405.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99(b)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

         In connection with the Annual Report of The UniMark Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacity and date indicated below, 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) 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 Company's financial condition and results of
         operations.

Date: August 12, 2003               /s/ David E. Ziegler
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    David E. Ziegler, Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Accounting Officer)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 60265

In the Matter of: STEPHEN PAUL SMITH, JESSICA NICHOLE SMITH,

Debtors
STEPHEN PAUL SMITH; JESSICA NICHOLE SMITH, also known as Jessica Nichole Miles, also known as Jessica Nichole Burk,
Appellants

v.

MID

- SOUTH MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED, AN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION; MID

- SOUTH MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED, MEMPHIS, A TENNESSEE CORPORATION; WORLDWIDE STEEL WORKS, INCORPORATED, AN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION,
Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court Northern District of Mississippi U S D C 3:18

- CV

- 111

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60265 Document: 00515265462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2020This appeal comes to us from the district court, which reviewed decisions by the bankruptcy court. “We review a district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court decision by applying the same standard of review to the bankruptcy court decision that the dis trict court applied.” UTSA Apts. L.L.C. v. UTSA Apts. 8, L.L.C. (In re UTSA Apts. 8, L.L.C.) , 886 F.3d 473, 485 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court appropriately reviewed the bankruptcy court’s post

- trial findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Smith v. Mid

- S. Maint., Inc. , 363 F. Supp. 3d 701, 703 (N.D. Miss. 2019) ; In re UTSA Apts. 8, L.L.C , 886 F.3d at 485 (reviewing district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusion s of law de novo)

. Essentially for the reasons explained by the district court, we agree that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying Stephen and Jessica Smith’s motion to dismiss the adversary complaint filed by the Mid

- South creditors in this case. B urk v. Smith (In re Burk) , 583 B.R. 655, 674 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2018), aff’d sub nom. Smith , 363 F. Supp. 3d at 702

– 10. N or did the bankruptcy court err in finding

— in a thoroughly

- reasoned 35

- page opinion following a three

- day trial

— that the Smiths’s debts to the Mid

- South creditors are non dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523 (a)(6). See id. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Case: 19-60265 Document: 00515265462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
VII

Private Calendar No. 1

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 584

[Report No. 105–87]

For the relief of John Wesley Davis.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

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

on the Judiciary

MAY 5, 1997

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

For the relief of John Wesley Davis.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.

4 The time limitations set forth in section 3702(b) of

5 title 31, United States Code, shall not apply with respect

6 to a claim by John Wesley Davis, of Forestville, Maryland,

7 for the amounts due to him by the—
2

•HR 584 RH

1 (1) Department of the Navy in the amount of

2 $42,123.84; and

3 (2) Department of the Treasury in the amount

4 of $12,508.20.

5 The amounts due are represented by checks that were re6 ceived but not negotiated by John Wesley Davis.

7 SEC. 2. DEADLINE.

8 Section 1 shall apply only if John Wesley Davis or

9 his authorized representative submits a claim pursuant to

10 such subsection before the expiration of the 6-month pe11 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

12 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.

13 The time limitations set forth in sections 3702(c) and

14 3328(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply

15 with respect to a claim by John Wesley Davis, of Forestville,

16 Maryland, for the amounts due to him by the—

17 (1) Department of the Navy in the amount of

18 $42,123.84; and

19 (2) Department of the Treasury in the amount

20 of $12,508.20.

21 The amounts due are represented by checks that were re22 ceived but not negotiated by John Wesley Davis.

23 SEC. 2. DEADLINE.

24 Section 1 shall apply only if John Wesley Davis or

25 his authorized representative submits a claim pursuant to
3

•HR 584 RH

1 such subsection before the expiration of the 6-month period

2 beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Private Calendar No. 1

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 584

[Report No. 105–87]

A BILL

For the relief of John Wesley Davis.

MAY 5, 1997

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed
Case 2:15-mj-01773-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01773-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01773-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 3
#### A. E. Geohagen *v.*S. B. Thomas.

Pleadings — A Proper Co-Plaintiff Cannot Be Made Co-Defendant.

The appellant’s eo-eontraetor was a necessary party to his counterclaim and without an allegation that he would not consent to be co-plaintiff, the 36th section of the Code did not allow him to be made a co-defendant.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 29, 1868.

*Wintersmith, for appellant.*

*Cofer, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The appellant’s brother, R. D. Goehagen, as co-contractor, was a necessary party to his counter-claim, and without an allegation that he would not consent to be co-plaintiff, the 36th section of the Code did not allow him to be made co-defendant.

His name was, therfore, properly stricken out as defendant. And the appellant persisting in leaving him out as so-plaintiff in his counter-claim, the court rightly adjudged that, as pleaded, the counter-claim was insufficient.

Moreover, the alleged contract to rebuild being denied by the appellee’s answer, the counter-claim could not have been made available without proof outweighing the answer. There is not only no such proof, but the evidence fortifies the answer and tends to show that the appellee contributed to the rebuilding as far as, according to his answer, he had promised to do.

There is, therefore, no apparent injustice in the judgment on the note, disregarding the counter-claim.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No.DA 20-0427
RISE MAY COOLEY, Co-Petitioner and Appellee, vs. HARVEY LYNN COOLEY, Co-Petitioner and Appellant. ORDER 

# FstED MAY 0 3 2021 Bowen Greenwoo0 Clerk of Suprerne Court StatF+ of Montana

Upon examination ofthe Motion to Dismiss filed by the Appellant Harvey Lynn Cooley, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal filed by the Appellant on the 27th day of August,2020 is hereby DISMISSED. Dated this ,3 1 day of May,2021.

Montana Supreme Court Justice 05/03/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0427