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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Levanda Denise Grogan,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03916-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Nations Law Firm - Houston, TX

(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 10/25/2017, 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 8510 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 8510 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
#### James Lynch & Bonett *v.*Martin Sherlock.

Work and Labor — Inconsistency of Pleading.

New trial’ should be granted on, when shown.

APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

September 29, 1869.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

Although the affiants, .Spect and Miles, testified before the court for the plaintiff upon the trial, the important facts stated in Miles’ affidavit were not communicated to appellants until after the judgment was rendered.

The fact that the work spoken of by Miles was not set up in the original petition, but in an amendment filed a few days after the original and before the work could possibly have been done after bringing the original suit, and it being for a larger sum than sought to be recovered in the first petition, renders the facts stated by Miles highly probable, and if these be true there is no doubt but Sherlock recovered a larger amount than he is entitled to, and this secured by his own improper conduct.

'The refusal of a new trial was erroneous, wherefore the judg*543ment is reversed, with directions for a new trial and further proceedings.

*George R.*Fearons, *T. F. Ilallam, for appellants.*

Hawhins, *for appellee.*
#### Freeman *v.*Hukill.

In error.

*Tuesday, May*26.

A JUDGMENT by' default was set aside by consent of parties, on the condition that the defendant should, within 20 days, give sufficient bail to the sheriff, or that execution should issue on the judgment. *Held,*that this proceeding was incorrect.

It was ordered by the Circuit Court, that a non-resident plaintiff should give security for costs within 20 days, or that the suit should be dismissed. *Held,*that the Court, (the security not having been given according to the order,) might permit the plaintiff, at the next term,, to file the bond for costs.

Pleas in abatement must be filed on or before the day on which the cause is docketed, at the first term at which the cause stands for trial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-QSB OF TAG-IT PACIFIC,
INC. TO WHICH THIS EXHIBIT IS A PART AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                     0
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                     16,450,095
<ALLOWANCES>                         525,442
<INVENTORY>                       15,821,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  32,800,136
<PP&E>                             6,159,419
<DEPRECIATION>                     2,418,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    38,029,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             23,789,016
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                        1,400,000
<COMMON>                               6,788
<OTHER-SE>                        10,045,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      38,029,852
<SALES>                           37,064,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  37,064,439
<CGS>                             27,077,844
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     35,082,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   412,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,570,244
<INCOME-TAX>                         416,625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                1,153,619
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       1,153,619
<EPS-BASIC>                             0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.16


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Scott E. Davis 

State Bar No. 016160 

SCOTT E. DAVIS, P.C. 

8360 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 140 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 

Telephone: (602) 482-4300 

Facsimile: (602) 569-9720 

davis@scottdavispc.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff Francene Rosenkrans 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Francene Rosenkrans, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

American General Life Insurance 

Company; Camden Property Trust; 

Camden Property Trust Disability Plan, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02620-ESW 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE ONLY AS TO 

DEFENDANTS CAMDEN PROPERTY 

TRUST AND CAMDEN PROPERTY 

TRUST DISABILITY PLAN

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), plaintiff Francene Rosenkrans hereby 

dismisses defendants Camden Property Trust and Camden Property Trust Disability 

Plan, without prejudice, from the above-captioned action. Neither Defendant has filed a 

responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02620-ESW Document 13 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Dated: February 16, 2016. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Scott E. Davis 

Scott E. Davis 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day, February 16, 2016, electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which 

will automatically send notification of such filing to attorneys of record. 

By: Brittany Muchmore-Rhoads 

An employee of Scott E. Davis, P.C. 

Case 2:15-cv-02620-ESW Document 13 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Carlotta Heath, appellant, *v.*Frederick R. Maddock, respondent.

[Argued June 30th, 1913.

Decided November 17th, 1913.]

On appeal from a decree made by the ordinary of the prerogative court, whose opinion is reported in *81. N-. J. Eq. (11 Buck.) iw.*

*Messrs. Edward A. & William T.*Day,-for the appellant.

*Messrs. Lum, Tamblyn & Colyer,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons 'stated in-the opinion filed in the court below by the ordinary.

*For*affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kaliscit, Vreden-BUHGI-I, CONGDON, WHITE, TERI-IUNE, ITePPBNHÉIMER-13.

■ ■ • *For*reversal—-None.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"STS-51C","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WVVws5Yzlm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-51c\/\">STS-51C<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-51c\/embed\/#?secret=WVVws5Yzlm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-51C” — NASA\" data-secret=\"WVVws5Yzlm\" 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\/word-image-1225.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALROY JARVIS LAWRENCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-90-195, CA-01-401-1) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 25, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Alroy Jarvis Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin H. White, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alroy Jarvis Lawrence seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lawrence , Nos. CR-90-195; CA-01-401-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Richard Joseph Martin

, * From the 70 th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. A

- 42,411

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 0 4 0

- CR * Febr uary 2 8 , 2019

The State of Texas

, * Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consist s of: Bailey , C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Wright

, S.C. J.

, sitting by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes t hat there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Washington Miller’s Exr. *v.*Washington Miller’s Heirs.

Rent — Recovery for by Administrator from Heirs.

Where the evidence preponderates in favor of voluntary surrender of rent notes by a testator, and giving them the use of the land another year ■without taking notes therefor, they cannot be held liable for rent in a suit by the administrator against them as heirs.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

March 3, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Waiving other questions discussed by counsel, it is first to be settled whether the evidence in this case will authorize a recovery against appellees. The testator had rented his land and hired slaves to his two sons for two or three years previous to 1863, and taken their notes therefor as the evidence shows — and it further shows that said notes had been surrendered to the sons, whether because they were paid, or voluntarily by their father without payment is not very material, but the strong probability from the evidence is that he had determined to give them the rents and heirs. For 1863 he took no notes, and said that on account of the war, and the disturbed condition of the county he had taken no notes from them. Burch, who was asked by- appellant for the *680statements of Isaac Miller in. relation, to the rents for 1863, proves that be said bis father bad' taken no notes for the rent for that year, as they might sow and not reap — and Mrs. Gay proves that in conversation with her father, be told her be bad taken no notes for that year, all be wanted was a support from the farm, and Washington was to furnish that, and in speaking of Isaac said be could not turn him and bis family out in the then unsettled condition of the country, but when things settled be would have to look out.

*Hazelrigg & Winn, Simpson & Huston, for appellant.*

*Reid, Breckinridge & Buckner, for appellees.*

In view of the fact that no notes were taken from bis sons by testator for rents and, hires for 1863, when for the preceding year be bad uniformly taken their notes, that be spoke of the unsettled condition of the country, and the strong probability from the evidence that be surrendered the notes be bad previously taken without requiring payment thereof. It is very difficult to reach the conclusion that the testator did not permit bis sons to occupy the land and use the slaves without the payment of rent and hire.

Wherefore the judgment dismissing the amended petition is *affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                         MARISA CHRISTINA, INCORPORATED

           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Marisa Christina, Incorporated. (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to
his knowledge, on the date hereof:

      (a)   the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
            December 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
            Exchange Commission (the Annual Report) fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Michael H. Lerner                    /s/ S.E. Melvin Hecht
----------------------------------       ---------------------------------------
Michael H. Lerner                        S.E. Melvin Hecht
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,       Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer,
 and President                            and Treasurer
Marisa Christina, Incorporated           Marisa Christina, Incorporated
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NC/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO COCA, AKA Anthony

Alvaras,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DWIGHT NEVEN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-16428

D.C. No. 2:05-CV-00816-JCM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Antonio Coca appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction 

FILED

MAR 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NC/Research 2 08-16428

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Coca contends that the state court violated the legal principles articulated in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it considered facts other

than the fact of his prior convictions when it sentenced him pursuant to Nevada’s

habitual criminal statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.010. Coca’s arguments are

squarely foreclosed by Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1143-45 (9th Cir. 2008).

Coca further contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

object to the state court’s alleged Apprendi error. Because Coca’s underlying

Apprendi argument fails, Coca cannot meet his burden under Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Coca’s letter, received in this court on February 26, 2010, is deemed filed

and is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jesus R. Lopez Jr, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Equifax Information Services Incorporated, 

et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02316-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 The Court has reviewed the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss with prejudice pursuant 

to Settlement. (Doc. 22.) For good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs or 

attorneys’ fees to either party. 

 Dated this 11th day of July, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02316-DLR Document 23 Filed 07/11/16 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Derek Leander Owen Johns, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-16-147-01-PHX-DGC 

 

ORDER OF DETENTION 

 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on January 23, 2019. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of proof 

by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., that he is 

not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 24th day of January, 2019. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge
#### Prewitt *v.*Jenkins.

IF a bill in chancery for a specific performance of a contract to convey land, do not aver that the complainant has not a complete remedy at law, the defect can only be taken advantage of by demurrer (1).

(1)

 So, an objection to the bill, that the party has an adequate remedy at Jaw, should be taken by a demurrer. It cannot be made, after an answer, at the hearing. *Underhill*v. *Van Cortlandt,*2 Johns. Ch. R. 339, 369.
##### 



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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Donald F. Detampel, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer,
and Nicholas J. Cuccaro, the Chief Financial Officer, of Raindance Communications, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge: 1.     The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and 2.     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and
results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Periodic Report. Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ Donald F. Detampel, Jr.
    
    /s/ Nicholas J. CuccaroDonald F. Detampel, Jr.
    
    Nicholas J. CuccaroChief Executive Officer and President
    
    Chief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Raindance
Communications, Inc. (the Company) and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request. This certification
accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.