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

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 2, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GARRY DON SCOTT, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-5117

(D.C. Nos. 4:14-CV-00346-CVETLW, 4:10-CR-00087-CVE-1)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before TYMKOVICH, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Garry Scott pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and

failing to appear at a court date. At sentencing, the district court reviewed Mr.

Scott’s criminal record and found he had at least three prior violent felony

convictions, so it applied a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA) and ordered him to serve 262 months in federal prison. See

18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Mr. Scott now seeks to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, arguing the district court erred in applying the ACCA.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Appellate Case: 14-5117 Document: 01019392182 Date Filed: 03/02/2015 Page: 1 
But this is not Mr. Scott’s first § 2255 petition, and we cannot authorize a

second or successive collateral attack unless he (1) presents newly discovered

evidence suggesting his innocence or (2) identifies a new rule of constitutional

law retroactively applicable to his case. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Invoking the

second exception, Mr. Scott argues he should be resentenced in light of the

Supreme Court’s decision in Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). 

But Descamps did not announce a new rule of constitutional law — it merely

clarified, as a purely statutory matter, when prior convictions qualify as violent

felonies under the ACCA. See 133 S. Ct. at 2281-82; see also Ezell v. United

States, No. 14-71696, 2015 WL 294306, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2015) (holding

that Descamps is not a “constitutional” decision for purposes of § 2255(h)); In re

Jackson, No. 14-30805, 2015 WL 127370, at *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2015) (same). 

Because § 2255(h) provides no remedy for a second or successive petition “based

on intervening judicial interpretations of statutes” like the ACCA, we see no path

forward for Mr. Scott’s second collateral attack. Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d

538, 547 (10th Cir. 2013).

Mr. Scott’s application for a certificate of appealability is denied and this

appeal is dismissed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 14-5117 Document: 01019392182 Date Filed: 03/02/2015 Page: 2
----

EXHIBIT NO. 15.3 

Consent of Independent Registered CharteredAccountants 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement 333-148866on Form S-8 andin Registration Statement 333-142684 on Form F-3 of our reports dated March 29,2007 (except for notes 13 and 20 which are as of June 15, 2007) relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Zi Corporation as at December 31, 2006 and2005 and for each of the years then ended (which audit report expresses anunqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements and includes aseparate paragraph on our consideration of internal control over financialreporting and includes a separate report titled Comments by IndependentRegistered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States of America ReportingDifference relating to substantial doubt on the Company s ability to continue asa going concern), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Zi Corporationfor the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP            

Independent Registered Chartered AccountantsCalgary, Canada March 27, 2008 

----
#### A. P. Bonysson *v.*Thompson & Gilson.

Pleading — Sufficiency of Answer.

A petition on an action of account, did not refer to the exhibit attached, as a part thereof, nor made a bill of particulars. Held that an answer thereto was not necessary.

Same.

Nor could the defendant be required to admit or deny particular items, not so alleged by implication.

Same.

A demurrer to the answer, for insufficiency, was improperly sustained.

APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 23, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Acording to the decision of this court in the case of *Webb v. Jeffries, etc., 2 Bush 221,*and the more recent case of Thurston’s admr. v. Oldham, the demurrer to the answer of thej defendant was erroneously sustained.

It was said in the last named case in accordance with the cases of *Frances v. Frances, 18 B. Monroe, 57,*and said case of *Webb v. Jeffries etc.,*that

> “what is necessary to constitute a sufficient denial in any particular case must depend on the import of the petition or of the counter-claim or set-off presented by an answer. Such pleadings when founded on an account, as in this case, have been construed to relate to it and by implication, to allege what may be reasonably inferred from the statement of the items of the account; and if for example the foundation of the action is an ordinary account for goods, the petition, although in the brief form prescribed for use under the Code, will be taken to allege a sale and delivery of the goods to the party charged upon an express or implied promise to pay therefor the prices stated in the *356account, and the answer therefore, to be sufficient, as a denial, should controvert some material part of these actual or constructive averments.”

*King, for appellant.*

The paper filed showing the aggregate sum claimed, is not referred to in the petition, as it should have been if intended to be treated as the foundation of the action. *(Hill, etc. v. Barrett, etc., 14 B. Monroe, 83.)*But if it was, as it is not a bill of particulars, it does not render the averments of the petition more specific, nor render greater particularity in the answer necessary. The bill of particulars afterwards filed might have had that effect, but according to the case of *Webb v. Jeffries, etc., supra,*as it was not so referred to as to make it the foundation of the action, the defendant was not bound to respond to it.

The only remaining question, then, is whether the answer is sufficiently explicit so far as it purports to controvert the plaintiffs claim, as set forth in the petition.

The defendant could not be required to admit or deny particular items of the claim, for it was not so alleged in terms or by implication. But admitting the sum of $150 of the account as just, including the credit of $13, it seems to us the answer sufficiently controverted the residue of the claim as presented by the petition.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-02111-BSB Document 8 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:15-cv-02111-BSB Document 8 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 512 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 512

     To prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and Water 
  Conservation Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges 
      without specific authorization from Congress pursuant to a 
  recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
                           create the refuge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

    Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself and Mr. Pombo) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and Water 
  Conservation Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges 
      without specific authorization from Congress pursuant to a 
  recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
                           create the refuge.

    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 ``New Wildlife Refuge Authorization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. NEW REFUGES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be 
expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund established by 
Public Law 88-578, for the creation of a new refuge within the National 
Wildlife Refuge System without specific authorization from Congress 
pursuant to recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service, to create that new refuge.
                                 <all>
```
{"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 Supercomputer Simulations Help Improve Aircraft Propulsion Design","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0s8SlQ2btI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasa-supercomputer-simulations-help-improve-aircraft-propulsion-design\/\">NASA Supercomputer Simulations Help Improve Aircraft Propulsion Design<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasa-supercomputer-simulations-help-improve-aircraft-propulsion-design\/embed\/#?secret=0s8SlQ2btI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Supercomputer Simulations Help Improve Aircraft Propulsion Design” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0s8SlQ2btI\" 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\/nas-contra-rotor-image-feature.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":375}
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**YUHE
      INTERNATIONAL, INC.**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (the “Company”)
      on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Gao Zhentao, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, CERTIFY, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that :





(1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
      10th day of July, 2008.





/s/
                Gao ZhentaoGao
                ZhentaoChief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Singer,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-01690-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 8548 Filed 11/02/17 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 8548 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-mj-01962-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01962-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01962-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 3
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 488

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with

the Arch Hurley Conservancy District in New Mexico, authorizing the

District to prepay any present value amounts outstanding under water

reclamation repayment contracts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into

an agreement with the Arch Hurley Conservancy District

in New Mexico, authorizing the District to prepay any

amounts outstanding under water reclamation repayment

contracts.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 488 IH

1 SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN WATER RECLAMA2 TION REPAYMENT OBLIGATIONS RELATING

3 TO TUCUMCARI WATER RECLAMATION

4 PROJECT.

5 The Secretary of the Interior may enter into an

6 agreement with the Arch Hurley Conservancy District in

7 New Mexico, authorizing the District to prepay any

8 present value amounts outstanding under repayment con9 tracts between the United States and the District with re10 spect to the Tucumcari water reclamation project in San

11 Miguel and Quay Counties, New Mexico.

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"The seven-member Expedition 64 crew","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RGJS4RvXPY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/seven-member-expedition-64-crew\/\">The seven-member Expedition 64 crew<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/seven-member-expedition-64-crew\/embed\/#?secret=RGJS4RvXPY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“The seven-member Expedition 64 crew” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RGJS4RvXPY\" 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\/iss064e020868.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. QUINN BRYANT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued November 27, 1989

Decided December 21, 1989.

*Marijean Raffetto Stevens,*Deputy Atty. Gen., argued the cause for appellant *(Peter N. Perretti, Jr.,*Atty. Gen. of New *496Jersey, attorney; *John M. Holliday,*Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).

*Alan Dexter Bowman*argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The State has appealed to this Court as of right by virtue of a partial dissent in the Appellate Division. *Rule*2:2-1(a)(1). So much of the Appellate Division’s judgment as vacated defendant’s sentence is reversed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Muir’s dissenting opinion, reported at 237 *N.J.Super.*102 (1988).

*For affirmance*— None.

*For reversal*— Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI ■ and STEIN — 7.
| 1. | to the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  May 12, 2011 | /s/ Lonnie D. Schnell                               |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Lonnie D. Schnell                                   |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |