alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA\u2019s First Deaf Engineer in Active Crewed Mission Control Role Impresses","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QEqyMsZkmw\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-first-deaf-engineer-in-active-crewed-mission-control-role-impresses\/\">NASA\u2019s First Deaf Engineer in Active Crewed Mission Control Role Impresses<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasas-first-deaf-engineer-in-active-crewed-mission-control-role-impresses\/embed\/#?secret=QEqyMsZkmw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s First Deaf Engineer in Active Crewed Mission Control Role Impresses” — NASA\" data-secret=\"QEqyMsZkmw\" 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\/2017\/05\/afrc2017-0002-15_johanna_lucht.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1174

EMMETT JOHNSON JAFARI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE OLD DOMINION TRANSIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a/k/a The 

Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC),

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00629-JRS-DJN)

Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: August 12, 2013

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmett Johnson Jafari, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Bruscia, 

Patricia Sjoblom Gill, Ryan Ayers Glasgow, Gregory Branch 

Robertson, Charles Randolph Sullivan, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Emmett Johnson Jafari appeals the district court’s 

order granting GRTC’s motion for summary judgment in Jafari’s 

action alleging common law defamation and retaliation in 

violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a subsequent 

order denying Jafari’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or 

amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Jafari v. The Old Dominion Transit Mgmt. 

Co., No. 3:08-cv-00629-JRS-DJN (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2012 & Jan. 7, 

2013). We further deny Jafari’s motion to strike GRTC’s 

informal response brief. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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. 64) filed by Plaintiff and 

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A., and good cause appearing, 

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

as to Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. only, the parties to bear their own costs and 

attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 1st day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02356-JJT Document 65 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 1
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

Scott E. Davis 

State Bar No. 016160 

SCOTT E. DAVIS, P.C. 

8360 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 140 

Scottsdale, AZ 85260 

Telephone: (602) 482-4300 

Facsimile: (602) 569-9720 

email: davis@scottdavispc.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff Susan Weiler 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Susan Weiler, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-01854-GMS 

STIPULATED MOTION TO 

DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE

 

The parties, having settled their dispute, stipulate that the Court shall dismiss this 

matter with prejudice. Each side will bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of February, 2016. 

/s/ Shelley Hebert, Esq. /s/ Scott E. Davis, Esq. 

 Shelley Hebert, Esq. Scott E. Davis, Esq. 

 Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-01854-GMS Document 26 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Monaghan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-b-monaghannasa-gov\/","title":"Second Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Ground Terminal at Dawn","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"07PFUmrmL7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/photo_stgt_sglts-at-dawn-2\/\">Second Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Ground Terminal at Dawn<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/photo_stgt_sglts-at-dawn-2\/embed\/#?secret=07PFUmrmL7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Second Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Ground Terminal at Dawn” — NASA\" data-secret=\"07PFUmrmL7\" 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\/02\/Photo_STGT_SGLTs-at-Dawn.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":258}
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-61059

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD LEE CLONCE,

also known as Rick Clonce,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:03-CR-14-1

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Lee Clonce appeals his conviction and sentence

for willful failure to pay child support for Ashley, the child he

fathered with his ex-wife, Nancy Marsack. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 228(a)(3). His challenge to federal jurisdiction is without

merit. There is no authority to support his argument that the term

“residence” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3) has the same meaning

as “domicile.” In fact, the only courts to have considered the
2

issue have found to the contrary. See United States v. Namey, 364

F.3d 843 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 302 (2004); United

States v. Venturella, 391 F.3d 120, 131 (2d Cir. 2004). Moreover,

the clear language of the statute reveals that the issue was where

Ashley resided and not where her parents claimed to be domiciled.

18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). Clonce’s inquiry into Marsack’s domicile

was irrelevant and was properly excluded. FED. R. EVID. 401, 402.

Clonce argues that in light of United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), this case should be remanded for resentencing. The Government concedes this issue. Because there does

not appear to be anything in the record “that would prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that the district court would not have sentenced

[Clonce] differently had it acted under an advisory Guidelines

regime,” Clonce is entitled to a remand for resentencing. United

States v. Akpan, 2005 WL 852416, *11 (5th Cir. 2005).

Clonce’s challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.

§ 228 is without merit. See United States v. Bailey, 115 F.3d

1222, 1226-30, 1232-33 (5th Cir. 1997).

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Neal Hayward, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04038-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Skikos, Crawford, Skikos & Joseph, 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 11/2/2017, 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 8782 Filed 11/10/17 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 8782 Filed 11/10/17 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lisa Crandell,

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-17-04638-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: January 12, 2018 /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 9717 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 1
No. 14,670.

#### Straight *v.*Roberts et al.

Eraudulent *Conveyance.*— Evidence *of Fraud.*— Where a mortgage is founded upon a valuable consideration it will not be decreed void unless the mortgagee united with the mortgagor to defraud the creditors of the latter. If, in such a case, there is no affirmative evidence of fraud on the part of the mortgagee, the mortgage will stand.

*Same.*— Mortgage *to Creditor.*— *Preference of Creditor.*— Where a chattel mortgage was executed to secure a debt due the mortgagee, knowledge that a verdict had been returned against the mortgagor, which he was unable to pay, did not make it a fraud on the part of the mortgagee to take the security, as a creditor may obtain a preference from his debtor.

From the Benton Circuit Court.

D. *E. Straight*and *D. Fraser,*for appellant,

M. *H. Walker*and *G. H. Gray,*for appellees.

Elliott, J.

— The appellant assails a chattel mortgage executed to the appellee, Richard B. Roberts, by his brother and co-appellee, Carroll K. Roberts, upon the ground that it was fraudulent.

The only point made against the finding of the trial court is that it is contrary to the evidence, but we are required by a long settled rule to adjudge that the point is not well taken, for there is evidence supporting the finding. It appears that the chattel mortgage was executed to secure a debt due the mortgagee, and hence it was supported by a sufficient consideration. It is a familiar rule that where a mortgage is founded upon a valuable consideration it will not be decreed void unless the mortgagee united with the mortgagor to defraud the creditors of the latter. If there is in such a case no affirmative evidence of fraud on the part of the mortgagee, the mortgage will stand. *We*think there was no evidence of that character in this instance sufficient to justify us in setting aside the finding of the trial court. The mortgagee, it is true, knew that a verdict had been returned against the mortgagor, and, knew, also, it may, perhaps, be *384inferred, that the mortgagor was unable to pay the sum named in the verdict, but this knowledge did not make it a fraud on the part of the mortgagee to take security for a debt due him, for it is well settled that a creditor may obtain a preference from his debtor. *Lord*v. *Fisher,*19 Ind. 7; *Wilcoxson*v. *Annesley,*23 Ind. 285; *McGoldrick*v. *Slevin,*43 Ind. 522; *Brookville Nat’l Bank*v. *Kimble,*76 Ind. 195; *Boling*v. *Howell,*93 Ind. 329.

Filed Dec. 20, 1890.

There may be circumstances indicative of fraud, but they do not outweigh the evidence, which the trial court accepted as trustworthy.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Douglas C. Haskett II, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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:



| |  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|---------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------
|/s/ Douglas C. Haskett II                            |  |  |  |  |  | Date: August 16, 2010
|Douglas C. Haskett II                                |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |  |  |
Letter from Bank of Scotland



EXHIBIT 10.1 
 
[GRAPHIC APPEARS HERE] 
 
 
Corporate Banking (Scotland)

4th Floor 
New Uberior House 
11 Earl Gray Street, 
Edinburgh 
EH3 9BN 
 

	 Strictly Private & Confidential
	 	 Telephone:  Direct Line:        0131-659-0717

	 Vernon Brannon, Senior Vice President
	 	                     Switchboard:      0131-442-7777

	 HLM Design Inc.
	 	                     Fax:                 
   0131-659-0760

	 Suite 2950
121 West Trade Street
 Charlotte, NC 28202-5399
 USA
	 	 Email: chris_solfey@bankofscotland.co.uk
  
 Our Ref: CORP/CS

  
 Your Ref:


 
17 MARCH 2003 
 
Dear Vernon, 
 
Re: Term Loan dated 15th February 2002 (“the Term Loan”) between G A Design International (Holdings) Limited (“Borrower” ) and Bank of Scotland (“BoS”)

 
With reference to schedule 4
(Financial Covenants) of the Term Loan agreement. The purpose of this letter is to confirm that BoS is in the process of reviewing the current suite of covenants prior to 30th April 2003, and in the meantime, BoS will waive the Borrowers obligation to comply with the Gearing (clause 1.1), Trade Debtor Cover (1.2) and
Consolidated Interest Cover (1.6) covenant tests, as at 31st January 2003. 
 
This waiver is for a period of one year and a day and only
applies to the financial covenants and test date noted above. 
 
All other rights are reserved under the facility letter as noted above. 
 
I trust that this is in order. 
 
Kind regards 
 
Yours sincerely 
 

	 /s/ ANDREW SHANKLAND


	 Andrew Shankland


	 Associate Director of Corporate Banking
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Tommy L. McAden, as Chief Financial Officer of
Technical Olympic USA, Inc. (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 to my
knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
    June 30, 2003 (the Report), filed with the U.S.
    Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
    and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
| | 2. the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                      



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | TECHNICAL OLYMPIC USA, INC.
|
| | By: /s/ TOMMY L. MCADEN    
| |                            
| | TOMMY L. MCADEN            
| | Chief Financial Officer    

Date: August 5, 2003