alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50804

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADAN RUIZ-LOERA, also known as Adan Ruiz

Loera, also known as Eugenio Rivera-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-328-ALL-PRM

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Adan Ruiz-Loera

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior

conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 529 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 529

   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exempt certain small 
  lenders from the audit requirements of the guaranteed student loan 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

   Mr. Ewing (for himself and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exempt certain small 
  lenders from the audit requirements of the guaranteed student loan 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM AUDIT REQUIREMENT.

    Section 428(b)(1)(U)(iii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(U)(iii)) is amended by inserting after ``compliance 
audit of each lender'' the following: ``that has a loan portfolio under 
this part that exceeds $10,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lisa Robles,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00553-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 3/1/2016, 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 954 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 954 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF
GERHARD E. KURZ, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a) I, Gerhard E. Kurz, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Seabulk International, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; and 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. Date: April 20, 2005/s/ GERHARD E. KURZGerhard E. KurzChairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
#### TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, ET AL. v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, ETC., ET AL.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 232 *N.J.Super.*219).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM HOWMET
INTERNATIONAL INC. UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              17,744
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      143,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5,378
<INVENTORY>                                        165,886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     4,910
<PP&E>                                             542,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                     156,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,127,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              350,937
<BONDS>                                             53,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         467,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,127,578
<SALES>                                          1,097,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,097,592
<CGS>                                              839,412
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      839,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    14,310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    162,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                        58,450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                103,904
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       103,904
<EPS-BASIC>                                         1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.03



</TABLE>
Order entered February 4 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01327
- CV MACARIO FLORES, Appellant
V. FEDERAL NATIONAL MOR TGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 13
- 05190
- C 

### O RDER By letter dated December 19, 2013, we referred the attached affidavit of indigence filed by a ppellant Macario Flores to the trial court b ecause it d id not appear the affidavit had been filed there. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 20.1(h)(4). We explained that u nder rule 20.1(e), the clerk, reporter, or any party could challenge the indigency claim by fi ling a contest with the trial court clerk ; set a deadline for filing any contest s and for holding a hearing on the
contests ; and directed Dallas County C lerk John F. Warren to file , no later than January 13,
201 4 , either a supplemental clerk’s record containing a ny contest s and the order on the
contests or written verification no contest had been file d

. See id. 20.1(e),(i). On January 23, 2014, when neither the record nor the requested verification had been filed, we sent a letter to Mr. Warren again directing him to file the supplementalrecord or requested verification. He responded that no cont est was filed because appellant had not filed an affidavit of ind i gency . Because it appears the trial court did not receive our December 19, 2013 letter, we again refer appellant’s affidavit of indigence to the trial court . We ORDER any contests be filed no later than February 13, 2014 and the hearing on any contests be held no later than February 2 4 , 2014. We further ORDER Mr. Warren to file a supplemental clerk’s record

or the requested verification no later than February 28, 2014.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order by electronic transmission to (1) the Honorable Sally Montgomery, Presiding Judge of County Court at Law No. 3; (2) Janet Wright, Official Court Reporter of County Court at Law No. 3; (3) Mr. W arren ; and , (4) counsel for appellee. We further DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of this order to appellant’s last known mailing address.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Case 2:15-mj-01803-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01803-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01803-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3
**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 Annual Report of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rene R. Champagne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 financial |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Rene R. Champagne

Chief Executive Officer

February 23, 2007
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jorge Luis Alvarado, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-1144-PHX-GMS 

DETENTION ORDER 

 

 On October 25, 2018, defendant, Jorge Luis Alvarado, appeared before this Court 

on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information 

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the 

defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed 

on supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition 

to revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 26th day of October, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul M. Walker,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04411-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/23/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9908 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9908 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4810 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4810

      To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the 
  deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals subject to 
                       Federal hours of service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 12, 1998

 Mr. Collins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the 
  deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals subject to 
                       Federal hours of service.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES FOR 
              INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON HOURS OF 
              SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 274(n) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal hours 
        of service.--In the case of any expenses for food or beverages 
        consumed while away from home (within the meaning of section 
        162(a)(2)) by an individual during, or incident to, the period 
        of duty subject to the hours of service limitations of the 
        Department of Transportation, paragraph (1) shall be applied by 
        substituting `80 percent' for `50 percent'.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:15-mj-01787-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01787-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01787-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/29/15 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**We have issued our report dated January 22, 2004, accompanying the 2003 consolidated financialstatement included in the Annual Report of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. and Subsidiarieson Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said report in the Registration Statements of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc.and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-25855, effective April 25, 1997; File No. 333-129894,effective November 22, 2005, effective June 22, 2006.)/s/ Grant Thornton, LLPPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robert G. Adams, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Health Realty, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date
within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date'); and

c)	presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures based on such evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:   November 1, 2005

| | /s/ Robert G. Adams    
| | -----------------------
| | Robert G. Adams        
| | President              
| | Chief Executive Officer
#### William Hall *v.*John O’Donnell.

Mechanics’ Liens — Sub-contractor—Notice.

A mechanic’s lien asserted by a sub-contractor is unavailing where a written notice, as required by the statute, has not been given.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 30, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The mechanic’s lien asserted by the appellant as a sub-contractor is unavailing for want of the written notice required by the statute. And there is no proof of the alleged promise.

Nor does it sufficiently appear that after payments to the under*496takers and. most of the subordinates, any surplus demandable for work or material remains unappropriated.

*Carlisle & O’Hara, for appellant.*

*Fisks, for appellee.*

The $1,000 charged by the petition to have been a loan, must be adjudged to have been a payment. Positive testimony and intrinsic probability authorize no other conclusion.

Wherefore, the judgment dismissing the petition is *affirmed.*
No. 87-6373.

#### Calo *v.*McMackin, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.