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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Earl Loury,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03433-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 8441 Filed 10/27/17 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 8441 Filed 10/27/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                                BARNES GROUP INC.

                      RETIREMENT BENEFIT EQUALIZATION PLAN

1.   Purpose

     The purpose of the Retirement Benefit Equalization Plan (the
"Equalization Plan") is to equalize the benefits for those participants in the
Barnes Group Inc. Salaried Retirement Income Plan (the "Pension Plan") whose
benefits are limited by statute, including Section 415 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 as amended from time to time (the "Code").

2.   Participants

     "Participant" shall mean any employee of Barnes Group Inc. (the
"Company") who is a participant in the Pension Plan whose benefits under the
Pension Plan are limited by statute, including Section 415 of the Code, and who
are not receiving benefits under the Company's Supplemental Senior Officer
Retirement Plan.

3.   Benefits

3.1  Barnes Group Inc. will pay to any Participant the difference between the
     benefits paid under the Pension Plan and what the Participant would have
     received but for the limitations set forth in section 6.8 (or any successor
     thereto) of the Pension Plan.

                                      - 1 -

<PAGE>


3.2  Benefits payable hereunder will be paid at the same time and in the same
     manner as benefits paid pursuant to the Pension Plan.

4.   Administration

     The Benefits Committee which administers the Pension Plan shall administer
the Equalization Plan, and it shall have the same powers relating to the
Equalization Plan as it does with respect to the Pension Plan.

5.   General

5.1  The Equalization Plan may be amended or terminated at any time by the Board
     of Directors of the Company, except that no such amendment or termination
     shall adversely affect the benefits payable to any person who has begun to
     receive benefits hereunder.

5.2  Benefits payable hereunder shall not be funded and shall be paid out of the
     general assets of the Company.

5.3  The Equalization Plan shall be construed, administered and enforced
     according to the laws of the State of Connecticut.

As amended April 3, 1996

                                        2
David Ali Chami

SBN: 027585

Price Law Group, APC 

1204 E. Baseline Road, Suite 102

Tempe, AZ 85283

Tel: (866) 881-2133

Fax: (866) 401-1457

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorney for Plaintiff,

Hattie Wallace

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

HATTIE WALLACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. f/k/a SALLIE 

MAE, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-02071-BSB

Notice of Settlement

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, HATTIE WALLACE, (“Plaintiff”), through her attorney, Price Law Group, APC, 

informs this Honorable Court that the Parties have reached a settlement in this case. Plaintiff 

anticipates dismissing this case, with prejudice, within 30 days.

[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Case 2:15-cv-02071-DGC Document 12 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

DATED: December 18, 2015

 

By: /s/ David Ali Chami________________

 David Ali Chami 

 Price Law Group, APC

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 HATTIE WALLACE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On December 18, 2015, I electronically filed the Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the 

U.S. District Court, using the CM/ECF system. I e-mailed a copy of the filed Notice of Settlement 

to Defense counsel, Brian Roth, at broth@sessions.legal.

By: /s/ David Ali Chami________________

 David Ali Chami 

Case 2:15-cv-02071-DGC Document 12 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-mj-01806-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01806-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01806-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01876-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01876-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01876-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3
Filed 11/29/22 P. v. Stiles CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHELSEA STILES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B321005

(Super. Ct. No 19F-09422)

(San Luis Obispo County)

Chelsea Stiles appeals an order granting victim restitution 

in the amount of $6,224.69 following her conviction of gross

vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (Pen. Code, § 191.5, 

subd. (a).) The trial court held a restitution hearing. At that 

hearing Stiles’s counsel advised the court that “Stiles would be 

submitting on the issue of restitution.” The court ordered Stiles 

to pay $6,224.69 to the California Victim’s Compensation Fund.

We appointed counsel to represent Stiles on this appeal. 

After examination of the record, her counsel filed an opening brief 

requesting the court to make an independent review under People 
2

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have independently reviewed 

the record.

On October 7, 2022, we sent a letter to Stiles advising her

that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any 

contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. She did 

not file a supplemental brief and did not respond to our letter. 

After examination of the record, we are satisfied that Stiles’s 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no 

arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp.

441, 443.) 

The judgment (order) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
Denise De Bellefeuille, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Mark R. Feeser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
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, 

vs.

Sergio Osvaldo Galeano-Larreynaga, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-50158-PHX-DJH

AMENDED ORDER OF DETENTION

*amended on 10/30/15 to amend Judge's

signature*

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 30th day of October, 2015

Case 2:15-cr-50158-DJH Document 7 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 22, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A0585. ANDRE HOWARD v. THE CITY OF MACON.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On December 04, 2020, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than December 14, 2020. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Case 2:15-mj-01969-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/31/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01969-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/31/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01969-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/31/15 Page 3 of 3
#### Sarbjeet Kaur BHULLAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71393.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 3, 2005.**

Decided Feb. 25, 2005.

*812Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Kuldip Singh Dhariwal, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA; Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., and Shelley R. Goad, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Sarbjeet Kaur Bhullar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review from the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of the opinion of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying her application for asylum, withholding, and Convention Against Torture relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

We review the IJ’s decision because the BIA affirmed summarily. *See Khup v. Ashcroft,*376 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir.2004). The IJ found Bhullar not credible, and that determination must be supported by substantial evidence and “a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility, and ... a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003) (quotations omitted). “The discrepancies must go to the heart of the asylum claim.” *Id.*at 992-93.

The IJ’s decision met this standard. The IJ noted that Bhullar was not credible because she failed to explain why she had obtained her passport before any claimed police persecution. He found it incredible that after three years of marriage, Bhullar would not know her husband’s immigration status or even when he arrived in the United States. Her corroborating documents were extremely general and vague, lacking even a birth certificate for her brother. Further, Bhullar presented no evidence of her medical treatment and there was no mention of her arrest in any of the supporting documents. *See id.*at 993. The IJ presented legitimate, specific and cogent reasons for his credibility determination, and nothing “compels” us to *813believe Bhullar when the IJ did not. *See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I, James R. Lattanzi, Chief Financial Officer of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date:  May 10, 2005                        /s/ James R. Lattanzi
                                           --------------------------
                                             James R. Lattanzi
                                             Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Seeing Sagittarius C in a New Light","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OTdoNkxTzq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/stsci-01hf7p3b6pw5ds5n9m9xd1ey27\/\">Seeing Sagittarius C in a New Light<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/stsci-01hf7p3b6pw5ds5n9m9xd1ey27\/embed\/#?secret=OTdoNkxTzq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Seeing Sagittarius C in a New Light” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OTdoNkxTzq\" 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\/11\/stsci-01hf7p3b6pw5ds5n9m9xd1ey27.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":227}
{"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-132","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Jy8LxAA5yq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-132\/\">STS-132<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-132\/embed\/#?secret=Jy8LxAA5yq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-132” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Jy8LxAA5yq\" 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\/2010-2868\/2010-2868~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11

FRANKLIN FINANCE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

Net income for basic income per share are computed by subtracting from the
applicable income the dividend requirements on preferred stock to arrive at
income applicable to common stock and dividing this amount by the weighted
average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Six Months Ended          Three Months Ended
                                                             June 30, 1998               June 30, 1998
                                                            --------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>                       <C>               
INCOME
Net income                                                  $      1,407,336          $          661,719
Less: preferred stock dividend requirements                          900,997                     450,225
                                                            --------------------------------------------
Net income applicable to common stock                                506,339                     211,494

SHARES
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                  22,077                      22,077

NET INCOME PER SHARE                                        $          22.94          $             9.58
</TABLE>
Case 2:15-mj-01835-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01835-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01835-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUNE 30,
2000 QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,562
<SECURITIES>                                   149,512
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,723
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,032
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,946
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,235
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,646
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    97
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    368
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       368
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>