alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25824]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Oregon 
Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene by 
conference call at 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Thursday, November 20, 
2014. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss its 
report on civil rights issues in Oregon.
    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-
free call-in number: 877-446-3914, conference ID: 6281269. Any 
interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the 
meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate 
over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred 
charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over 
land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with 
hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling 
the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service 
with the conference call number and conference ID number.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by December 20, 2014. 
The address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional 
Office, 300 North Los Angeles St., Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA, 90012. 
Comments may be emailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9988d8b9c8f909796b98c8a9a9a8bd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d6c797f687b6463624d787e6e6e7f236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated October 23, 2014.
David Mussatt,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2014-25824 Filed 10-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elizabeth Bonham,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03406-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 8447 Filed 10/30/17 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 8447 Filed 10/30/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"European Astronaut Andreas Mogensen Trains at Johnson Space Center","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wRGPaZej9B\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/european-astronaut-andreas-mogensen-trains-johnson-space-center-2\/\">European Astronaut Andreas Mogensen Trains at Johnson Space Center<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/european-astronaut-andreas-mogensen-trains-johnson-space-center-2\/embed\/#?secret=wRGPaZej9B\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“European Astronaut Andreas Mogensen Trains at Johnson Space Center” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wRGPaZej9B\" 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\/03\/jsc2014e077891-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Leroy Walker, Sr.,

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-17-04133-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 9632 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Barrett Financial Group LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Bank of England, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02292-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer Case (Doc. 24), in which the 

parties request that the Court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Arkansas for the purpose of potential consolidation with a closely 

related case being adjudicated in that Court. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 

division where it might have been brought.” A district court has discretion “to adjudicate 

motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by case consideration of 

convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) 

(quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). In making this determination, 

a court must balance numerous factors, including: (1) the state that is most familiar with 

the governing law, (2) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (3) the respective parties’ contacts 

with the forum, (4) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen 

forum, (5) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (6) the availability 

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 25 Filed 07/27/16 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 

of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling, non-party witnesses, and (7) 

the ease of access to sources of proof. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 

498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The parties do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Eastern 

District of Arkansas. (Doc. 24 at 4-5.) Moreover, as the parties lay out in their Motion 

(Doc. 24 at 5-10) and considering the parties’ agreement that the Court should transfer 

this case in the interest of judicial economy, all of the factors the Court must consider are 

either neutral or favor transfer. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer Case (Doc. 24). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to take all necessary 

steps to ensure the prompt transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Arkansas and to close the action in the District of Arizona. 

 Dated this 26th day of July, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 25 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 2
DISMISS; Opinion Filed August 19, 2013.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00819
- CV
LOWELL MERRITT , Appellant

V. ROBERT DAVIS , Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 01630
- 2013 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans This is an attempted appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing Lowel l Merritt ’s “bill of review.” The trial court’s order reflects Merritt, who has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre

- filing order under section 11.101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code , 1 failed to obtain an order from the lo cal administrative judge permitting him to proceed with his litigation. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § § 11.101, 11.103 (West Supp. 2012). By letter dated July 18, 2013, the Collin County District Clerk informed us that the local administrative jud ge had also denied the filing of Merritt’s appeal. See id. § 11.103. Because a

1 See http://www.txcourts.gov/oca/Vexatious_Litigants.pdf (listing vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders under section 11.101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code ) . We take judicial notice of this list. See Douglas v. Am. Title Co. , 196 S.W.3d 87 6 , 878 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2006 , no pet.) (taking judicial notice of Harris County record of vexatious litigants).vexatious litigant may not file an appeal without an order from the local administrative judge

permitting the filing, we directed Merritt to file a letter brief demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See id. Merritt responded, but his response fails to show the appeal may proceed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id.

130819F.P05
/David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LOWELL MERRITT, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00819

- CV V. ROBERT DAVIS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 01630

- 2013. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans

. Justices Lang and Myers participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellee Robert Davis recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Lowell Merritt.

Judgment entered this 19th day of August, 2013.

/David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<CIK>                                  923027
<NAME>                                 BENEDEK BROADCASTING CORPORATION

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                   2,647,055
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                           25,475,891
<ALLOWANCES>                               471,651
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        36,912,325
<PP&E>                                 131,993,910
<DEPRECIATION>                          58,182,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         465,523,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   34,400,422
<BONDS>                                247,114,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                 1,046,500
<OTHER-SE>                             127,503,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           465,523,004
<SALES>                                141,859,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       145,566,299
<CGS>                                   18,493,729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           18,493,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       114,938,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           231,479
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      34,217,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (22,314,783)
<INCOME-TAX>                            (6,392,418)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (15,922,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           (15,922,365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
#### Adams, Administrator, *v.*Evans.

In error.

*Saturday,*January 14, 1837

*WILSON*obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace against *Evans,*and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. Whilst the appeal was pending, the suit abated by the death of *Wilson. Held,*that the administrator of the deceased might revive the suit.

*Evans*had filed before the justice, in the above-named suit, an account against *Wilson*as a set-off, which amounted to more than *Wilson’s*demand; and on the trial in the Circuit Court, (the suit having been revived, &c.) the jury gave a verdict in *Evan’s*favour for a certain sum, without finding the amount.of assets in the administrator’s hands. *Held,*that the omission to find the amount of assets was not, in this case, any objection to the verdict.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, John Carrozza, Chief Financial Officer of PSB Bancorp, Inc., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PSB Bancorp, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) and we have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 15, 2006              /s/ John Carrozza   John Carrozza   Chief Financial Officer  
26
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6817

DENNIS GENE PAULEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LORETTA SIMMONS GANDEE; KEVIN WAYNE GANDEE;

MICHAEL CLIFFORD, Prosecutor; DAVID L. TUCKER,

Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-04-152-2)

Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: January 3, 2005

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Gene Pauley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Gene Pauley appeals the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pauley v.

Gandee, No. CA-04-152-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 4, 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
Case 2:15-mj-01832-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01832-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01832-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.3
 KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 INCENTIVE PLAN
 RESTRICTED STOCK CERTIFICATE
  1.
    
    Name of Participant:
    
    [Participant Name]2.
    
    Social Security Number of Participant:
    
    [Social Security Number]3.
    
    Date of Grant:
    
    [Grant Date]4.
    
    Type of Grant:
    
    [Grant Type]5.
    
    Number of Shares:
    
    [Number of Shares Granted]6.
    
    Vesting Schedule:
    
    The restrictions upon the Restricted Stock shall
lapse upon the 3rd anniversary
of the date of grant.7.
    
    Purchase Price:
    
    $0.00
  KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:Name:Title:




---



##### 



RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO THE KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
INCENTIVE PLAN
  1. AWARD OF RESTRICTED STOCK.
  2. GOVERNING PLAN.
  3. RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESTRICTED STOCK.
 No Transfer
 Vesting
 4. VOTING AND OTHER RIGHTS.
  2




---



##### 



5. CERTIFICATION, ESCROW AND DELIVERY OF SHARES.
 Certificates
 
 Escrow
 Delivery of Certificates
 6. ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS.
 Tax Matters
 3




---



##### 



only
if, Participant acknowledges that it is
Participants sole responsibility, and not the Companys, to file a timely election under
Section 83(b) . Participant is relying solely on Participants advisors with respect to the
decision as to whether or not to file a Section 83(b) election.
 Independent Advice; No Representations
 Value of Restricted Stock
 Adjustment in Capitalization
 4




---



##### 



Change of Control.
 Termination of Employment
 No Right to Continued Employment
 Approved Retirement
 7. GENERAL.
 Successors and Assigns
 Notices
 5




---



##### 



To the Company:
    
    King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.400 Crossing BoulevardBridgewater, NJ 08807Attention: Human Resources
   Entire Agreement
 Governing Law; Severability
 Remedies
 Interpretation
 6




---



##### 



Waivers; Amendments
 7