alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1  Certification  I, Randy Woelfel, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of NOVA Chemicals Corporation;  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;  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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for thecompany and have:  a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, 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)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d)Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 12, 2012

/s/ Randy WoelfelRandy WoelfelChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
-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

SCHLEIER LAW OFFICES, P.C. 

3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1090 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 277-0157 

Facsimile: (602) 230-9250 

TOD F. SCHLEIER, ESQ. #004612 

Email: tod@schleierlaw.com 

BRADLEY H. SCHLEIER, ESQ. #011696 

Email: brad@schleierlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant DrapeStyle, Inc., and 

Ardith and David Andjelich, Third Party Defendants 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

DrapeStyle, Inc., an Arizona corporation, 

 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant 

v. 

Amy Pearce, a single woman, 

 Defendant/Counterclaimant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CV15-02371-DKD 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE 

SUBPOENAS 

 ) 

Amy Pearce, a single woman, 

 Third Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ardith A. Andjelich and David N. Andjelich, 

 Third Party Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 ) 

 Pursuant to Rule 45, Fed.R.Civ.P., DrapeStyle, Inc., Ardith and David Andjelich, 

through counsel undersigned hereby provide notice of intent to serve Subpoenas directed to 

Marloy, Inc., Superior Window Coverings, Inc., and Beach Drapery Services, Inc. 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 50 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 DATED this 7th, day of September, 2016. 

 SCHLEIER LAW OFFICES, P.C. 

 /s/ Bradley H. Schleier 

 Bradley H. Schleier 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant 

DrapeStyle, Inc., Third Party Defendants Ardith 

and David Andjelich 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I hereby certify that on this 7th, day of September, 2016, I electronically filed the 

foregoing NOTICE with the U.S. District Court Clerk using the CM/ECF System which 

will send notification to the following: 

Samuel R. Randall 

RANDALL LAW, PLLC 

2729 North 7th Street 

Phoenix, Arizona 85006 

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant 

Third Party Plaintiff Pearce 

/s/ Mary H. Portillo 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 50 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jeffery Rubio","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jeffery-j-rubionasa-gov\/","title":"CLPS Deliveries","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"gqt1S6r4zz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/clps-deliveries\/\">CLPS Deliveries<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/clps-deliveries\/embed\/#?secret=gqt1S6r4zz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“CLPS Deliveries” — NASA\" data-secret=\"gqt1S6r4zz\" 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\/11\/clps-astrobotic-press-kit-featured-image-11-28-23.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":370}
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice Page 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

PH I L L I P S DA Y E S

 LAW FIRM

 A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

SEAN C. DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 432

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Crowder; 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Bravo Cleaning Services, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; Rafael Bravo

and Jane Doe Bravo, husband and wife

 Defendants

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02277-DMF

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH 

PREJUDICE

The parties, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree to 

dismiss this matter with prejudice with each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ 

fees. 

Dated: October 4, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM PC

By: /s/ Sean C. Davis

Trey Dayes

Sean C. Davis

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02277-DMF Document 21 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 2
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice Page 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HADDOCK LAW GROUP, LLC

By: /s/ Naija M. Haddock (with permission)

Naija M. Haddock

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 4, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF Registrant:

Najia M. Haddock

Haddock Law Group, LLC

4605 E. Chandler Blvd #110-115

Phoenix, AZ 85044

Najia@HaddockLawGroup.com

Attorney for Defendants Bravo Cleaning Services, LLC and

Rafael Bravo

By: /s/Sean C. Davis

Case 2:15-cv-02277-DMF Document 21 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Warren *v.*The State.

In an indictment for larceny, the jury have a right to determine the law 0» well as the facts of the case.

*Friday, June*10.

ERROR to the *Green*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Indictment for larceny. Plea not guilty. Verdict and judgment for the state.

After the evidence on both sides was closed, the defendant below asked the Court to instruct the jury that they were the *151judges of the law as well as of the facts in the cause, which instruction the Court refused to give.

*J. Whitcomb,*for the plaintiff.

*W. Herod,*for the state.

We thinlc that the *Court*ought *to*have given the instruction required; and that their refusal to do so renders the judgment erroneous (1).

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed and the verdict set aside. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

*Contra. Townsend*v. *The State,*Vol. 2 of these Rep. 151.

The Circuit Court of the *United States,*third circuit, in. their charge to the jury on the trial of an indictment for robbing the mail, use the following language on this subject:

“In repeating to you what was said on a former occasion to another jury,— that you have the power to decide on the law as well as the facts of this case, and are not bound to find according to our opinion of the law,—we feel ourselves constrained to make some explanations not then deemed necessary, but' now called for from the course of the defence.

“You may find a general verdict of guilty or not guilty as you think proper, or may find the facts specially and leave the guilt or innocence of the prisoner t® the judgment of the Court. If your verdict acquits the prisoner, we cannot grant a new trial, however much we may differ with you as to the law which governs the case; and in this respect a jury are the judges of law, if they choose tobecome so. Their judgment is-final, hot because they settle the law,but because they either think it not applicable, or do not choose to apply it to the case.

“But if a jury find a prisoner guilty against the opinion of the Court on the law of the case, a new trial will be granted. No Court will pronounce a judgment on a prisoner against what they believe to be the law. On an acquittal there is no judgment; the Court do not act, and cannot judg-e, there remaining nothing to act upon.

“ This, then, you will understand to be what is meant by your power to decide on the law; but you will still bear in mind, that it is a very old, sound, and valuable maxim in law, that the Court answers to questions of law and the jury to facts. Every day’s experience evinces the wisdom of this rule.” *United States*v. *Wilson et al.*1 Baldw. 108.

*Vide,*also, *The People*v. *Bradford,*1 Wheeler’s Cr. Cas. 219; and *The People*v. *Moore,*3 id. 82; in which the same opinion is expressed as that contained in the text.
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 559

To amend title 38, United States Code, to add bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma

to the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected for certain radiation-exposed veterans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to add bronchioloalveolar carcinoma to the list of diseases presumed to

be service-connected for certain radiation-exposed veterans.

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

3 SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION THAT BRONCHIOLO-ALVEOLAR

4 CARCINOMA IS SERVICE-CONNECTED.

5 Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code,

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub7 paragraph:
2

HR 559 IH

1 ‘‘(P) Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma.’’.

Æ
423 A.2d 1306

#### Commonwealth v. Ray, Appellant.

Submitted March 23, 1979.

John P. Donohue, Jr., for appellant; James A. Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.

Order affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Astronaut Bruce McCandless Performs the First Untethered Spacewalk","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AyelIMXVml\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/s84-27018orig\/\">Astronaut Bruce McCandless Performs the First Untethered Spacewalk<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/s84-27018orig\/embed\/#?secret=AyelIMXVml\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Astronaut Bruce McCandless Performs the First Untethered Spacewalk” — NASA\" data-secret=\"AyelIMXVml\" 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\/2024\/02\/s84-27018orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
#### Anthony ANDREWS, Appellant, v. John D. ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General, et al., Appellees.

No. 04-5261.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 1, 2005.

Anthony Andrews, Petersburg, VA, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: EDWARDS, HENDERSON, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*409
      *JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34Q). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 29, 2004, be affirmed as modified below. Appellees had no duty to intervene in appellant’s post-conviction proceeding, given the discretionary nature of their investigatory and prosecutorial duties. *See, e.g., United States v. Nixon,*418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); *Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce,*786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1986). We therefore affirm the dismissal for failure to state a claim, but modify the district court’s order to reflect a dismissal with prejudice.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements No.
333-73090, No. 333-95193, No. 333-78969 and No. 333-114536 on Form S-8 of Hudson
City Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated February 22, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated statements of financial condition of Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiary as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004
annual report on Form 10-K of Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. KPMG LLP Short Hills, New Jersey
February 25, 2005
#### Tucker *v.*Tipton.

In a suit by the assignee against the maker oí a promissory note, not payaDie and negotiable at a chartered bank, the defendant may prove, under the general issue, a want or failure of the consideration.

*Monday, June*4.

ERROR to the *Cass*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Assumpsit by the assignee against tne maker oi a promissory note, not payable and negotiable at a bank in this state. Plea, the general issue. Judgment for the plaintiff.

*530
      *I. Naylor*and *J. W. Wright,*for the plaintiff.

*H. Chase, C. Fletcher,*and *O. Butler,*for the defendant.

On the trial below, the defendant offered evidence that the note had been given without consideration, or that the consideration had failed. The testimony was rejected by the Court: the defendant excepted. This is the only error assigned.

We see no ground on which the decision of the Circuit Court can be sustained.

At common law, evidence of a total want or failure of consideration, in actions founded upon simple contracts, (excepting negotiated bills of exchange,) is admissible under the general issue. *2*Stark. Ev. 169, 170.—1 Chitt. Pl. *511.—Sill*v. *Rood,*15 Johns. 230. Since the statute of *Anne,*this doctrine is equally applicable to promissory notes in *England.*

In this state, such promissory notes only as are made payable and negotiable at a chartered bank in the state, are governed by the law merchant. R. C. 1831, p. 94 Other notes are made assignable by the same statute; but the maker of them is entitled to the same defence against an assignee, which he might have had against the payee. His common law right to prove entire want or failure of consideration under the general issue, is not impaired by that statute; nor is it affected by the statute authorising special pleas alleging the want or failure of consideration, entirely or in part, in actions on specialties or other contracts. R. C. 1831, p. 405. This point was decided in the case of *Jamison*v. *Buckner,*2 Blackf. 77. We adhere to this decision.

In actions upon simple contracts not protected by the law merchant, the defendant has a right to give a want or failure of consideration in evidence under the general issue, either against the payee or assignee of the instrument sued on.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the issue set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mary King,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03434-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 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

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

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

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

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

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

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

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

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8522 Filed 11/01/17 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 8522 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2