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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Luke J. Patula,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04777-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Johnson Becker, PLLC

(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 12/28/2017, 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: January 5, 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 9571 Filed 01/10/18 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 9571 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 11

                          FRANKLIN FINANCE CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

Net income for basic income per share is computed by subtracting from the
applicable income the dividend requirements on preferred stock to arrive at
income applicable to common stock and dividing this amount by the weighted
average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                Three Months Ended
                                                                     March 31,
                                                                2000           1999
                                                           ----------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>            <C>
INCOME
Net income                                                 $     685,041  $     614,611
Less: Preferred stock dividend requirements                      450,225        450,225
                                                           ----------------------------
Net income applicable to common stock                      $     234,816  $     164,386

SHARES
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding              22,077         22,077

NET INCOME PER SHARE                                       $       10.64  $        7.45
</TABLE>
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 

Johnny David Cato, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-01804-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation recommending that: 1) 

the Court deny Petitioner’s request to stay this case while he exhausts further claims in 

state court, and 2) the Court grant Petitioner’s request to voluntarily dismiss his mixed 

petition. (Doc. 26). Neither party has filed objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

 This Court previously warned Petitioner that voluntarily dismissing his petition 

might cause his claims in this petition to be time barred if he tries to bring them again 

later. (Doc. 20). Petitioner nonetheless has decided this is the course he is choosing to 

take. 

 Given that there are no objections to the Report and Recommendation,1

 

 

1

 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes 

that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 

Case 2:15-cv-01804-JAT-ESW Document 27 Filed 02/07/17 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 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) is accepted and 

adopted. As a result, the motion to stay (Doc. 25) is denied. The Petition is dismissed, 

without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied. 

 Dated this 7th day of February, 2017. 

 

otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge=s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 

U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 

Case 2:15-cv-01804-JAT-ESW Document 27 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 2
#### Sherman O. DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Happy SMITH, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-7631.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 2005.

Decided March 17, 2005.

Sherman O. Davis, Appellant pro se. Rosalie Pemberton Fessier, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, P.C., Staunton, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Sherman 0. Davis appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Davis v. Smith,*No. CA-03-425-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 31, 2003; filed Sept. 13, 2004, entered Sept. 15, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63882-63883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25486]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602; FRL-9918-49-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR33


Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary 
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the 
Federal Register on September 25, 2014, an extending the comment period 
for the proposed rule titled ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for 
Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units'' by 45 
days. Inadvertently, that proposed rule included an incorrect digit in 
the docket number for the proposed rule. This proposed rule corrects 
that error.

DATES: This correction is effective on October 27, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Vasu, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711; telephone number (919) 541-0107, facsimile number (919) 541-
4991; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1a7b0a2a4ffb0bca891b4a1b0ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d3b2c3e38632c20340d283d2c632a223b">[email protected]</span></a> or Ms. Marguerite McLamb, Sector 
Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-7858, facsimile number (919) 
541-4991; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a5759565b575814575b485d4f5f48534e5f7a5f4a5b145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5c8c6c9c4c8c78bc8c4d7c2d0c0d7ccd1c0e5c0d5c48bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 63883]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA published in the Federal Register on 
September 25, 2014 (79 FR 57492), a proposed rule extending, by 45 
days, the comment period for the proposed rule titled ``Carbon 
Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 
Utility Generating Units.'' This proposed rule corrects an incorrect 
docket number published on September 25, 2014.
    In FR Doc. 2014-22832, published on September 25, 2014 (79 FR 
57492), in the first column of page 57492, correct the docket number 
listed in the notice to read:
    Docket: The EPA has established the official public docket for this 
rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602.

    Dated: October 20, 2014.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-25486 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 2:15-mj-01857-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01857-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01857-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3
423 A.2d 1303

#### Commonwealth v. Jones, H., Appellant.

Argued June 25, 1979.

Julius E. Fioravanti, for appellant; Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*628Before WIEAND, ROBINSON and LOUIK, JJ.*

*

 President Judge Otto P. Robinson of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and Judge Maurice Louik of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
No. 13,471.

#### Johnson *v.*Ahrens et al.

Filed Jan. 10, 1889.

From the Warren Circuit Court.

*C. V. McAdams,*for appellant.

J. *McCabe*and *E. F. McCabe,*for appellees.

Berkshire, J. —

The questions which are presented by the record of this cause and the errors assigned thereon are exactly the same as in the ease of *Jones v. Ahrens,*116 Ind. 490.

For the reasons given in the decision of that cause, this case must be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.11

                      FIRST AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTAFF, INC.
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

         The Administaff, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and
restated effective April 1, 2002 ("Plan") shall be, and hereby is, amended in
the following respects:

                                       I.

         Effective July 31, 2002, Section 8 of the Plan is amended in its
entirety to provide as follows:

                  "8.      Purchase of Shares.

                  (a)      Following the end of each Purchase Period, the
         Participants' Accounts shall be applied automatically by the
         Recordkeeper to purchase the maximum number of shares of Common Stock
         that may be purchased with the accumulated payroll deduction and
         dividends, if any, allocated to the Participants' Accounts. Each
         Participant's Account shall be allocated each Purchase Period its pro
         rata share (whole shares only) of the total number of shares purchased
         for such Purchase Period. If any amount of a Participant's payroll
         deductions for the applicable Purchase period remains after subtracting
         the costs of the whole shares allocated to the Participant's Account,
         such amount will be retained as residual cash and shall be applied to
         the purchase of shares of Common Stock during the following Purchase
         Period(s). A Participant shall have all of the rights and privileges of
         a stockholder of the Company with respect to the whole shares of Common
         Stock allocated to the Participant's Account."

                                       II.

         Except as modified herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.

         Executed effective as of July 31, 2002.

                                                 ADMINISTAFF OF TEXAS, INC.

                                                 By:/s/ Paul J. Sarvadi
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 Paul J. Sarvadi
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rosemarie Maggiacomo-Sackler,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04786-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Burnett Law Firm

(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 12/29/2017, 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: January 5, 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 9589 Filed 01/11/18 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 9589 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-mj-01742-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01742-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01742-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 3
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

27

28

David J. McGlothlin, Esq. (SBN 026059)

david@southwestlitigation.com

Hyde & Swigart

2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Telephone: (602) 265-3332

Facsimile: (602) 230-4482 Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (SBN 032001)

ryan@kazlg.com

Kazerouni Law Group, APC

2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Telephone: (800) 400-6808

Facsimile: (800) 520-5523

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Plaintiff PAULETTE M. MUHAMMAD (“Plaintiff”) voluntarily dismisses the 

claims against Defendant EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

(“Experian”) and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (“BoA”) in the above-captioned

Paulette M. Muhammad, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Experian Information Solutions, 

Inc. and Bank of America, N.A.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 4:15-cv-00563-RCC-DTF

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS

EXPERIAN INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS, INC. AND BANK OF 

AMERICA, N.A.

Case 4:15-cv-00563-RCC-DTF Document 8 Filed 05/02/16 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

26

27

28

matter, without prejudice as to the named plaintiff. Each party will bear its own 

costs, disbursements, and attorney fees. Plaintiff requests that all future hearings 

and deadlines be vacated and the case be dismissed in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted,

Kazerouni Law Group

Date: May 2, 2016 By: /s/ Ryan L. McBride 

Ryan L. McBride

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:15-cv-00563-RCC-DTF Document 8 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32(a)



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 United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America), Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley S. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 1. |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Companies.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





August 14, 2003





|/S/    BRADLEY S. JACOBS                 
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|Bradley S. Jacobs Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Bannister *v.*Allen.

MOTION for an alias certiorari.

*Per Curiam.*

It is the duty of the party obtaining an order *415for a certiorari, to use due diligence in having the writ issued and delivered to the clerk of the Court below, and in having a complete record made out and transmitted to the clerk of this Court, Such diligence not appearing to have been used on the present occasion, the motion is refused.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Apollo 8 Crew Remembers Historic Mission Live On NASA TV","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nB63kuQlL0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/apollo-8-crew-remembers-historic-mission-live-on-nasa-tv\/\">Apollo 8 Crew Remembers Historic Mission Live On NASA TV<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/apollo-8-crew-remembers-historic-mission-live-on-nasa-tv\/embed\/#?secret=nB63kuQlL0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo 8 Crew Remembers Historic Mission Live On NASA TV” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nB63kuQlL0\" 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"}