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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joann Luiz,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03454-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 8476 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 8476 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Alexis Arrieta, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-1501-28-PHX-SRB 

DETENTION ORDER 

 

 On November 14, 2018, defendant, Alexis Arrieta, appeared before this Court on a 

petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information 

provided to the Court, and any arguments of counsel in determining whether the 

defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed 

on supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition 

to revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 15th day of November, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry L. Marling,

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-17-03476-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: October 26, 2017 /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 8507 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 525 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 525

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and 
        gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

Mr.  Crane (for himself and Mr. Hulshof) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and 
        gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 11 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate tax) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Chapter 12 of such Code (relating to gift tax) is hereby 
repealed.
    (c) Chapter 13 of such Code (relating to tax on generation-skipping 
transfers) is hereby repealed.
    (d)(1) The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply to the estates 
of decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (2) The repeals made by subsections (b) and (c) shall apply with 
respect to transfers made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 31
                    RULE 13A-14(A) / 15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION

         I, John J. Joyce, Chief Executive and Principal Financial Officer of
Ambient Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Ambient 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me
by others within the small business issuer, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):

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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2003



                       /s/ JOHN J. JOYCE
                       ---------------------------------
                       JOHN J. JOYCE
                       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
for the quarter ending October 2, 1999, and such is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0001047368
<NAME>                                  Glenoit Corporation

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           761
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 52,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (4,450)
<INVENTORY>                                   56,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             115,101
<PP&E>                                       117,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               (46,778)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               246,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         32,193
<BONDS>                                      256,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (55,254)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 246,710
<SALES>                                      222,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             222,135
<CGS>                                        156,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 60,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              17,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            19,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (14,363)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (5,100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (9,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (9,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (9.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (9.26)


</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 15298 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:13

- cv - 01777

- SLB

- TMP

ARTHUR BRENNAN MALLOY, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS, Respondents

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________
(July 9, 2015) Be fore MARCUS , WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-15298 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 of 32 Arthur Malloy, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition related to his other than honorable discharge f rom the military in 1965. Malloy a sserts the district
court erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he did not meet the “in custody” definition of § 2241. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Taylor v. United States , 396 F.3d 1322, 1327 (11 th Cir. 2005) . To bring a federal habeas action, a petitioner must be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U .S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Supreme Court has interpreted § 2241 as requiring that a habeas petitioner be “in custody” under the conviction or sentence that he seeks to attack at the time when his petition is filed. Carafas v. LaVallee , 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). The Supreme Court has also recognized habeas actions brought pursuant to § 2241 may be appropriate where “members of the armed services . . . have been unlawfully detained, restrained, or confined” by the military. Schlanger v. Seaman s , 401 U.S. 487, 489 (1971). Although a petitioner can challenge his other than honorable discharge from the military in district court and seek declaratory judgment, § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for bringing such a claim. See Harmon v. Brucker , 355 U.S. 579, 58 0

- 8 3 (1958) (finding the district court had jurisdiction to review petitioners ’ actions seeking declaratory judgments that the Secretary of Army’s

Case: 14-15298 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2 of 33 issuance of other than honorable discharge certificates were v oid and in excess of his powers ). The distr ict court did not err in dismissing Malloy’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Malloy is not challenging his conviction or sentence related to his confinement in Alabama state prison , and he is not detained, restrained, or confined by the mil itary. T hus, he does not meet the “in custody” definition of § 2241. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-15298 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 3 of 3
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL KOVACSIK

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1181

[ May 13, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Edward H. Merrigan , Judge; L.T. Case No. 97

- 12501CF10E

.

Jeremy Kroll of Dutko and Kroll, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert Gregg,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, G ERBER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 704 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 704

   To require the general application of the antitrust laws to major 
                league baseball, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

  Mr. Bunning  (for himself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the general application of the antitrust laws to major 
                league baseball, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Major League Baseball Antitrust 
Reform Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL MAJOR LEAGUE 
              BASEBALL.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 27. (a) Subject to subsection (b), the antitrust laws shall 
apply to the business of professional major league baseball.
    ``(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect--
            ``(1) the applicability or nonapplicability of the 
        antitrust laws to professional baseball's amateur draft, the 
        minor league reserve clause, the Professional Baseball 
        Agreement, or any other matter relating to the minor leagues;
            ``(2) the applicability or nonapplicability of the 
        antitrust laws to any restraint by professional baseball on 
        franchise relocation; or
            ``(3) the application of Public Law 87-331 (15 U.S.C. 1291 
        et seq.) (commonly known as the Sports Broadcasting Act of 
        1961).''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 1O-Q FOR THE
THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,379
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,408
<PP&E>                                          39,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,013
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,931
<SALES>                                        100,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,131
<CGS>                                           68,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,309)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  ($0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.33)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Keresha Woods,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-01691-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Wetherall Group, Ltd

(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 10/20/2017, 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 8498 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 8498 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2