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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan R. Gill,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04400-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 1/4/2018, 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: January 12, 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 9704 Filed 01/18/18 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 9704 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 2
V

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 742

For the relief of Florence Barrett Cox.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1997

Mr. BRYANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Florence Barrett Cox.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR FLOR4 ENCE BARRETT COX.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Florence Barrett Cox shall be eligible for issuance

8 of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that

9 of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

10 upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant

11 visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of

12 status to lawful permanent resident.
2

•HR 742 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Florence Barrett

2 Cox enters the United States before the filing deadline

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have

4 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi5 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of

7 the enactment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Florence Barrett Cox, the Secretary of State

16 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the

17 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of

18 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available

22 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section

23 202(e) of such Act.

Æ
Exhibit 10.31




 




SUMMARY OF MATERIAL

MODIFICATIONS




TO THE SUMMARY PLAN

DESCRIPTION FOR THE




HERITAGE OAKS BANCORP




EMPLOYEE STOCK

OWNERSHIP PLAN




 




The Heritage Oaks Bancorp

Employee Stock Ownership Plan has been amended.  Most of these amendments are to have the plan comply with the

changes in the law made by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation

Act of 2001.  The purpose of this

Summary Of Material Modifications (SMM) is to provide you with required notice

of the changes in the Plan.  It is

important to remember that the Summary Plan Description (SPD) describing the

plan, and this SMM, are summaries of the provisions contained in the official

Plan document and that any conflicts between either the SPD or the SMM and the

Plan document will be governed by the Plan document, including any Plan

amendments.  Recent changes made to the

Plan are as follows and are made effective January 1, 2002 unless stated

otherwise:




 




1.                                       Internal

Revenue Code section 415 Annual Addition Limit.  The limit on the total of employee and

employer contributions made on behalf of an employee under all plans sponsored

by an employer was changed from the lesser of $35,000 or 25% of compensation to

the lesser of $40,000 or 100% of compensation.




 




2.                                       Compensation

That May Be Taken Into Account Under the Plan.  The amount of annual compensation that can

be taken into account for purposes of calculating all contributions under the

plan and for performing all plan testing has been increased from $170,000 to

$200,000.




 




3.                                       Top

Heavy Changes.  The “top heavy” provisions of the plan

provide that if the accrued benefits of key employees under all plans sponsored

by the employer exceed 60% of all plan assets under the plans that minimum

contributions must be made on behalf of all non-key employees.  The Heritage Oaks Bancorp plans are not top

heavy.  The EGTRRA amendments:  (i) change the definition of key employee by

raising the amount of compensation required to be considered a key employee,

(ii) reduce the number of years one is required to look back in determining

whether an employee is a key employee from 4 years to one year, (iii) require

only distributions from the prior year (rather than the past five years) need

to be taken into account in determining accrued benefits, and (iv) allow matching

contributions to be taken into account to satisfy the minimum contribution

requirements.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 785 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.785

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the J. Phil Campbell, Senior, Natural Resource Conservation 
                                 Center.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF J. PHIL CAMPBELL, SENIOR, NATURAL RESOURCE 
              CONSERVATION CENTER.

    The Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center located at 1420 
Experimental Station Road in Watkinsville, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``J. Phil Campbell, Senior, Natural Resource 
Conservation Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``J. Phil Campbell, Senior, 
Natural Resource Conservation Center''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
{"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, FAA Invite Media to Briefing on Air Traffic Control Updates","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hKTvbLj6oa\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-faa-invite-media-to-briefing-on-air-traffic-control-updates\/\">NASA, FAA Invite Media to Briefing on Air Traffic Control Updates<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-faa-invite-media-to-briefing-on-air-traffic-control-updates\/embed\/#?secret=hKTvbLj6oa\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, FAA Invite Media to Briefing on Air Traffic Control Updates” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hKTvbLj6oa\" 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\/2021\/09\/atd_logo.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40748 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FILIBERTO RIVERA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-91-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Filiberto Rivera-Ortiz (“Rivera”) appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced Rivera to 60 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, as well as to 10 months in prison for the revocation of a prior supervised-release term. For the first time on appeal, Rivera argues that his sentence was unconstitutional because it was enhanced pursuant to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime rejected in UnitedNo. 04-40748 -2- States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Plain error is the appropriate standard of review. United States v. Malveaux , ___F.3d___, No. 03-41618, 2005 WL 1320362 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2005). Rivera has not established plain error with regard to his Booker claim because he has not established that his sentence affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). The record does not indicate that the district court “would have reached a significantly different result” under a sentencing scheme in which the guidelines were advisory only. Id. at 521-22 ; United States v. ValenzuelaQuevedo 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2005). Rivera also asserts that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and its progeny, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentencing judge to increase a sentence beyond the statutory maximum based on a factor that need not be submitted to a jury for proof or admitted by the defendant. Rivera concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “‘unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.’” United States v. Izaguirre-Flores , 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### Margaret A. Willis *v.*John W. Sewell et al.

Fraud — Suit for Relief — Allegation and Prayer.

Where the allegations show fraud and a right to the cancellation of an entire contract, and a restoration of the appellants land, the prayer for a re-eonveyanee of title and also for general relief authorizes any decree which the facts show to be equitable.

APPEAL FROM TRIMBLE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 23, 1868.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

A more elaborate and heartless fraud has rarely, if ever, been exposed in -a court of justice than that which the appellees perpetuated on the appellant in this case. On every feature of the contract shameless fraud by *Sewell*and his wife, and *Timberlake,*all co-operating, is palpably and indelibly imprinted. It is too glaring to, require or justify in this opinion argument to prove it. And every element of the contract being equally tainted, the appellant is clearly entitled to exoneration and cancellation as to the whole of it, and a reconveyance of her land.

We must presume that her petition for relief was dismissed only because the circuit court thought that her prayer was not sufficiently comprehensive or specific. But we think otherwise. The allegations show fraud and a right to the cancellation of the entire contract, and a restoration of the appellant’s land in Trimble. And thereupon the prayer for *a reconveyance of her title and*
      *648
      *also for general reief authorize*any decree which the facts show to be equitable.

*Scott, Carlisle &*O'Hara, *for appellant.*

Winslow, *for appellees.*

Timberlake was an efficient coadjutor in the fraud; and is consequently entitled to no compensation for his fraudulent services.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a decree rescinding the entire contract and placing the parties, as nearly as possible, in *statu quo.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CIVIL MINUTES

Phoenix Division

 

 CV 15-02105-PHX-SRB DATE: 1-4-16 

Year Case No. 

HON: SUSAN R. BOLTON 

 

Donita J. Cole v. MR Capital LLC 

Appellant(s) Appellee(s)

Deputy Clerk: Maureen Williams Court Reporter: Elva Cruz-Lauer 

Donita Cole Stephen Brower with Appellee representatives Ryan Robson and Darcy Myers

Appellant appearing pro se Appellee(s) counsel

=============================================================================

PROCEEDINGS: X Open Court Chambers SEALED

This is the time set for Hearing re: Appellant’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary

Injunction and Permanent Injunction Against All Defendants [Doc. 5].

Argument held.

For reasons as stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED denying Appellant’s Application for Temporary Restraining

Order, Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction Against All Defendants [Doc. 5].

Hearing length: 22 minutes 

Case 2:15-cv-02105-SRB Document 12 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 1