alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. District Judge: Raner C. Collins Date: August 10, 2017 

USA v. Lonnie Ray Swartz Case Number: CR-15-01723-001-TUC-RCC 

(DTF)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Wallace Heath Kleindienst 

Attorney for Defendant: Sean Christopher Chapman, Retained 

Deputy Clerk: Martha Hernandez

Court Reporter: Erica McQuillen

Interpreter: N/A 

Defendant: ☐ Present ☒ Presence Waived ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons 

MOTION HEARING: (Day 5) 

At 1:30 p.m. court convenes. 

Victim’s family is present and assisted by Spanish interpreter Sandy Frady, 

Government witness, Chad Steel, is seated and previously sworn. Jaime Calle begins cross examine. 

Exhibit 230- admitted. 

2:05 p.m. – Court addresses the witness. 

2:10 p.m. – Redirect by Sue Feldmeier 

2:19 p.m. – Witness excused 

Counsel presents oral argument as to Motion (Doc. 94) to Exclude Expert. 

IT IS ORDERED defendant’s Motion (Doc. 94) to Exclude Expert is taken under advisement. A 

formal order shall follow. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that (Doc. 211) Order is to be UNSEALED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 208) is granted. 

Trial is set for Tuesday, October 24th , 2017 at 9:30 a.m . before this court. Plea deadline is 

10/06/2017. Speedy trial is waived. Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) is found to 

commence on 10/12/2017 and end on 10/24/2017. 

Counsel shall meet in chambers on Friday 8/18/2017 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss juror questionnaire. 

At 3:25 p.m. proceeding is adjourned 

MTN HRG 55 min

Start: 1:30 p.m. 

Stop: 3:25 p.m. 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 214 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4763 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4763

   To declare certain Amerasians to be citizens of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 1998

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To declare certain Amerasians to be citizens of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN AMERASIANS.

    Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
or any other provision of law, any person having the status of an alien 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) on the date 
of the enactment of this Act, who was granted that status pursuant to a 
petition filed under section 204(f) of such Act (or any predecessor 
provision), is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer of Geerlings & Wade, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

     1) the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
        2002 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 Company's annual report on Form 10-K
        for the year ended December 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.

                                    /s/ Huib E. Geerlings
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Huib E. Geerlings
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 26, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4755 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4755

 To provide for the collection and interpretation of state of the art, 
 non-intrusive 3-dimensional seismic data on certain federal lands in 
                    Alaska, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 1998

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                     to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the collection and interpretation of state of the art, 
 non-intrusive 3-dimensional seismic data on certain federal lands in 
                    Alaska, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR NON-INTRUSIVE SEISMIC TESTING.

    Section 1001 of Title X of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3141) is amended by adding the following 
new subsection at the end:
    ``(g) Reassessment.--No later than 18 months after the enactment of 
this subsection, the Secretary shall revise the finding required by 
subsection (c)(1) for any of the lands identified in subsection (a) for 
which the United States Geological Survey has, within three years prior 
to enactment of this subsection, assessed the petroleum resources of 
these lands using two-dimensional seismic data that was originally 
collected and analysed more than 10 years prior to enactment of this 
subsection. The Secretary shall reassess the in-place petroleum 
resources of these lands using data obtained from three-dimensional 
seismic exploration to implement this subsection. Activities carried 
out in a conservation system unit under this subsection shall be 
subject to other provisions of this title, including regulations 
promulgated thereunder, applicable to that unit or an area within that 
unit.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Georgia Sarivalas, 

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-17-03959-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: November 6, 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 8677 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yolanda Medina,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00520-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, LLP

(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 2/26/2016, 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: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party 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 946 Filed 03/04/16 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 946 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1



                                  Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF 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), the Supplemental
Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-09569), the 1997 Supplemental Plan (Form S-8 No.
333-23901), and the Registration Statement, including Amendment No. 1 thereto
(Form S-3 No. 333-24097) and in the related prospectus of Geoworks Corporation
of our report dated April 21, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Geoworks included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 31, 1999.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                            Ernst & Young LLP


San Francisco, California
June 28, 1999












                                                                              62
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 259

To expand the eligibility for membership in veterans organizations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2003

Mr. HARKIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To expand the eligibility for membership in veterans 

organizations.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP REQUIRE4 MENT FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR VET5 ERANS’ ORGANIZATIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

7 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

8 to list of exempt organizations) is amended by striking ‘‘or 

9 widowers’’ and inserting ‘‘, widowers, or ancestors or lineal 

10 descendants’’. 
2

S 259 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Case 2:15-mj-01725-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01725-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01725-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/06/15 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STUPID P.C., INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    235,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,468
<PP&E>                                         142,537
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 717,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,037,870
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,122,108
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   717,233
<SALES>                                        815,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               815,178
<CGS>                                          697,487
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,395,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               173,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             173,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (754,461)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (754,461)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (754,461)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.12)


</TABLE>
#### N. Harris et al *v.*E. Vanarsdall et al.

Motion to Quash Sale — Consolidation.

The consolidation of several motions to quash the same sale, for several causes, is proper.

Sales by Sheriff Under Execution Levied by Jailer

The sale of land by the sheriff, under an execution formerly levied by the jailer, is illegal and void.

Same — Levy After Return Day.

A sale made by a sheriff, upon a levy made after the return day, is void.

APPEAL FROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

January 29, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The consolidation of the different motions for quashing the same sale for the same causes was clearly proper.

On the merits there is more difficulty. The record before us presents a crude preparation hardly intelligible with judicial confidence. But it seems to authorize the deduction that the land 'was sold to satisfy three executions, one of which was levied by the jailer in April and afterwards levied in September by the sheriff who made the sale. And, on this most probable status of the case, the sale was illegal and void, because the sheriff bad no authority under the jailer’s levy, and bis own levy was after the return day of that execution, and therefore that levy and the sale *157under it were void, and consequently more land was sold than was necessary.

*Thompson & Kellar, for appellant.*

*C. A. Hardin, Durham & Jacobs, for appellee.*

Wherefore, on this ground, the judgment dismissing the motions was apparently erroneous, and is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
**Exhibit 31.3****CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER**I, Cheryl Chartier, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Chindex International, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.June 23, 2006   /s/ Cheryl Chartier   Cheryl Chartier  Corporate Controller  (Principal Accounting Officer)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"December 3, 1968","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XDswVbqLyG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/december-3-1968\/\">December 3, 1968<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/december-3-1968\/embed\/#?secret=XDswVbqLyG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“December 3, 1968” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XDswVbqLyG\" 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\/250592main_ECN-1025_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":469}
Exhibit 10


[Ultrapar logo]



                                                                   May 24, 2002


To:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission


     Re:  Arthur Andersen LLP
          ("Andersen")


Dear Sirs:

     Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Temporary Final Rule and
Final Rule "Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing Clients" issued by
this Commission on March 18, 2002 (17 CFR PARTS 210, 228, 229, 230, 240, 249
and 260; RELEASE NOS. 33-8070, 34-45590; 35-27503; 39-2395; IA-2018; IC-25464;
FR-62; File No. S7-03-02 and RIN 3235-AI46), and in view of the audit report
issued by Andersen to ULTRAPAR PARTICIPACOES S/A ("Ultrapar"), by its duly
authorized representative, Ultrapar hereby declares that it has received by
letter dated April 29, 2002 certain representations from Andersen concerning
audit quality controls in connection with the audit of the consolidated
financial statements of Ultrapar and its subsidiaries as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2001, including representations regarding the continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audit, the availability of national office
consultation, and the availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Andersen to conduct relevant portions of the audit.


                                         Sincerely yours,

                                         ULTRAPAR PARTICIPACOES S/A
#### PETER HUNG v. CITY OF NEWARK.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.