alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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



For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Baldwin Yung, the  Chief Executive and Financial Officer of IWI Holding Limited (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

(i)  the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  October 7, 2009                                                                                      By: /s/ Baldwin Yung

Chief Executive and Financial  Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward F. Cole, Sr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04386-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 9654 Filed 01/16/18 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 9654 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"STS-45","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GfgD0gRqyy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-45\/\">STS-45<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-45\/embed\/#?secret=GfgD0gRqyy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-45” — NASA\" data-secret=\"GfgD0gRqyy\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S45-S-002\/S45-S-002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 1 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 2 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 3 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 4 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 5 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 6 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 7 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 8 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 9 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 10 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 11 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 12 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 13 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 14 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 15 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 16 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 17 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 18 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 19 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 20 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 21 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 22 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 23 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 24 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 25 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 26 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 27 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 28 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 29 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 30 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 31 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 32 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 33 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 34 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 35 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 36 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 37 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 38 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 39 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 40 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 41 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 42 of 43
Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 100-1 Filed 06/11/02 Page 43 of 43
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 15,
  2010
  /s/
  Randy WoelfelRandy WoelfelChief Executive
  Officer(Principal
  Executive Officer)
#### W. G. Wade *v.*Harvey & Keith.

Exceptions to Over-ruling Motion for New Trial.

It is not necessary that a litigant should formerly except to the opinion of the court in over-ruling a motion for a new trial.

New Trial.

Where the findings of the jury are not so palpably against the evidence, a new trial will not be awarded, after it was refused by the court below.

APPEAL FROM SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 22, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

We regard the day as stated in. the record on which the motion for a new trial was made, as a mistake in the clerk, nor do we deem it necessary that a party should formally except to the opinion of the court in over-ruling a motion for a new trial.. But on the merits of the case there is more difficulty. One of the witnesses proves that money was advanced in the comencement of the business by’ appellant to became a partner, and although the anticipated permit was not obtained still he did not 'withdraw that money. And it seems that he after the first advancement of money loaned them money in New York. And although the brother who was examined as a witness says the money was loaned, yet he says he never heard appellant disclaim being a partner, meaning doubtless, that after the agreement had been made that he should be made a partner, although the permit was not obtained, the agreement still existed. It is often a matter of difficulty to prove that a man is a dormant partner, some motive operates to induce all parties concerned, to conceal the name, and of course it is rendered thereby difficult frequently to find evidence of the fact.

From all that was proved in this case we cannot say that the finding of the jury was so palpably against the evidence as to authorize this court to interpose and order a new trial, after it was refused by the circuit judge. And as no instructions appear to *121have been given, and no other errors complained of the judgment must be *affirmed.*

*W. B. Clarke, John M. Harlan, for appellant.*

*Craddock & Trabue, for appellee.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TAG-IT PACIFIC, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE FOUR MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         310,161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,457,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                   108,191
<INVENTORY>                                  2,496,441
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,769,521
<PP&E>                                       2,132,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                 953,413
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,075,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,586,139
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,070
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,484,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,075,189
<SALES>                                      7,870,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,870,235
<CGS>                                        4,986,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,660,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               124,289
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             124,289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,044
<INCOME-TAX>                                    47,511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,533
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 64","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"seyzM3QQ4m\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-64\/\">Expedition 64<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-64\/embed\/#?secret=seyzM3QQ4m\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 64” — NASA\" data-secret=\"seyzM3QQ4m\" 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\/exp64-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
{"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\u2019s X-59 Kicks Off 2022 in Texas for Ground Testing","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ewmSddrXDi\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-x-59-kicks-off-2022-texas-ground-testing\/\">NASA\u2019s X-59 Kicks Off 2022 in Texas for Ground Testing<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-x-59-kicks-off-2022-texas-ground-testing\/embed\/#?secret=ewmSddrXDi\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s X-59 Kicks Off 2022 in Texas for Ground Testing” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ewmSddrXDi\" 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\/097a2052-pano.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":293}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2070

DOUGLAS E. OSBORNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00750-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.*

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas E. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Nicole A. Crawford, Max 

Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, 

LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

 * The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 46(d).
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012), 

dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against his 

former employer for failure to state a claim. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial 

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order 

Osborne seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.† Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny as moot 

Osborne’s motion to compel the production of documents. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 † Because Osborne may amend his complaint to cure the 

defects identified by the district court, the dismissal order is 

interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, 

Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. 

Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 

1993).