alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"NASA Research Pilot David Zahn","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Ox5ZwU1VHl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-research-pilot-david-zahn\/\">NASA Research Pilot David Zahn<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-research-pilot-david-zahn\/embed\/#?secret=Ox5ZwU1VHl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Research Pilot David Zahn” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Ox5ZwU1VHl\" 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\/acd22-0036-011orig-2.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
Case 2:15-cr-01381-SMM Document 4 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01381-SMM Document 4 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01381-SMM Document 4 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3
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 

Alfonso Antillon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00035-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal of Bank of 

America, N.A. with prejudice, (Doc. 47), and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, 

against Defendant Bank of America, N.A., each side to bear its own attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

 Dated this 27th day of April, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00035-DLR Document 48 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:16-mj-01066-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01066-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01066-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 3
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. 

Erik Lucas Larson, 

Defendant.

No. CR16-08012-002-PCT-PGR

TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDER 

FOR INTAKE ASSESSMENT 

 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '3141 et seq. a 

detention hearing was held. Upon recommendation of Pretrial Services, the defendant is 

ordered detained pending an intake assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, 

Arizona or other facility as designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for 

such placement, defendant shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including 

pretrial residency at said facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonably assure 

the safety of others and the appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so 

qualify, the release conditions set by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be 

detained pending trial as there are no conditions or combination of conditions which 

would reasonably assure the safety of others or the appearance of the defendant. 

If Defendant is accepted into a facility and successfully completes the program 

and is otherwise in compliance with his pretrial release conditions, the Defendant may be 

transitioned into the community including back to the Yavapai-Apache Nation, but not 

Case 3:16-cr-08012-PGR Document 16 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

within the vicinity of or in same community as where the alleged victim resides absent 

further order of this Court. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day O=Connor Courthouse for 

defendant. 

 Dated this 4th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cr-08012-PGR Document 16 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2
Sherry Radack •

Chief Justice

Terry Jennings

Evelyn Keyes

Laura Carter Higley

Jane Bland

Michael Massengale

Harvey Brown

Rebeca Huddle

Russell Lloyd

Justices

Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

January 22,2015

Lydell Elliott Grant

TDCJ #01835671

Alfred HughesJJnit

Route 2 Box 4400

Gatesville, TN 76597

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01-12-01173-CR Trial Court Case Number: 1288802

Style: Lydell Grant v. The State ofTexas

We are forwarding the following via United States Postal):

A copy ofthe Opinion in your appeal

Please sign below and return to show receipt.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Prine

Clerk ofthe Court

Janet Williams

Chief Staff Attorney

Phone: 713-274-2700

Fax: 713-755-8131

www.txcoarts.gov/lstcoa.aspx

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk ofthe Court

By Jesse Rodriguez, Deputy Clerk IV

RETURN RECEIPT

Received by_jfjj^fdtMMmL Date Received ,(• kmtMlljlfifi
)L\

\L\M GlW^OfiffiWII mcoSS?

IW.2.i)O*440Q FEB 12 20,5

(M&46tain/ , ./

6Wk: Widl IWi/til &M, t$4n&

^b(li)rt(/feffi^OWioA) iWd <L RfA do Metik, WAssist Arid A«terf*iE '1^4

J
At^dlltaS\k<

ftr.l fta^OD

RECEIVED

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

FEB 1 2 2015

CHhiS.o. nuc, A. PRINF.

CLERK ___

RIO GRANDE DISTRICT

rES 2015 PM 3 L

liWs jiLtA,^S;11D0l-2i)lob

ii'i"'!'!!'!'1"' i»'lHlilili|li'Ml'l,nili|lilil,il»'|iH'
I

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.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Wildlife Refuge

5 Authorization Act’’.
2

•HR 512 IH

1 SEC. 2. NEW REFUGES.

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds

3 may be expended from the Land and Water Conservation

4 Fund established by Public Law 88–578, for the creation

5 of a new refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge Sys6 tem without specific authorization from Congress pursu7 ant to recommendation from the United States Fish and

8 Wildlife Service, to create that new refuge.

Æ
#### Newton Dickerson *v.*H. B. Alverson, &c.

Homestead Exemptions.

Debts created before law went into effect.

APPEAL EROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 20 1870.

Bronaugh, *for appellant.*

Opinion oe.the Court by

Judge Hardin:

Although the note to Willis was paid and the judgment of Hayes was paid and transferred after the homestead law went into effect, as both of those debts were created and the appellant became bound thereon as the surety of appellee, Alverson, before that time, both debts were as between the plaintiff and Alverson, liabilities prior in date to the homestead exemption law, although afterwards changed in form, and so far as Alevrson was concerned, they were debts which he owed before as well as after-wards. We are of 'opinion, therefore, that the court erred in allowing the defendant the benefit of the homestead exemption as to these debts.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### Brandies & Crawford *v.*Brynt's Admr.

Principal and Surety — Payment of Interest on Note.

The payment of interest on a note, in advance or after due, does not imply novation or indulgence without thei consent of the sureties. An agreement for prolongation of credit does not suspend the right or obstruct the remedies of sureties, when the consideration is illegal and void.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 15, 1869.

*Harwood, Dembitz, for appellant.*

*Lindseys, for appellee..*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The answer leaves it doubtful whether the legal interest endorsed on the note as paid for the year succeeding the date the of the note was so paid and endorsed at that time and post-dated so as to import payment at the end of the year or was advanced contemporaneously with the execution of the note.

If not paid before the end of the year when that much would have been legally due, this indulgence for that year was according to the implied contract of the sureties, and therefore beneficial to them.

And if the payment was advanced the same presumption arises. This payment therefore implied no novation or indulgence without the consent of the sureties.

And the agreement for prolongation of credit for another year, even if not made at the same time, did not suspend the rights or obstruct the remedies of the sureties, because the consideration, being usurious, was illegal, and void. And, as the court has never recognized any other doctrine, the judgment of the circuit court in unison therewith is *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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carlos Navarro-Cuevas, 

Defendant. 

NO. CR-15-01377-001-PHX-DGC

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING 

DISPOSITION (PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. § 3143) 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3143, a detention hearing was 

submitted on 6/8/2017. Defendant was present and was represented by counsel. The 

defendant has not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee if 

released. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

I find by a preponderance of the evidence that: 

☒ The defendant is not a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence. 

☒ The defendant, at the time of the charged offense, was in the United States 

illegally. 

☒ The defendant has a prior criminal history. 

☒ The defendant has been ordered detained on the underlying 8 USC 1326(a)&(b)(1) 

charged in Case No: 17-1405MJ. 

The Court incorporates by reference the material findings of the Pretrial Services Agency 

which were reviewed by the Court at the time of the hearing in this matter, except as 

noted in the record. 
- 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 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. There is a serious risk that the defendant will flee. 

2. No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the defendant as required. 

DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his/her designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court 

proceeding. 

APPEALS AND THIRD PARTY RELEASE 

 IT IS ORDERED that should an appeal of this detention order be filed with the 

District Court, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion for 

review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing set before 

the District Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and 

investigate the potential third party custodian. 

DATE: 6/8/2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laurie McMillan,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03888-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Paglialunga & Harris, PS

(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 8508 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 8508 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
#### R. H. Lansdale, &c. *v.*Charles G. Wintersmith.

Contract — Parol Agreement Different from Note.

Without an allegation of mistake or fraud, a contract or agreement in parol different from that expressed in the note, cannot be relied on and proved.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 23, 1869.

*A. H.*Field, *for appellant.*

Wintersmith, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The answer did not present a good defense to the action, if the facts as stated be admitted as is done by the demurrer, it would seem that the services which appellee undertook to render, had been performed, as the case has been tried in the circuit court, and in this court.

There is neither fraud nor mistake alleged, and without an allegation of the one or the other, a contract or agreement in parol different from that expressed in the note cannot be relied on and proved.

Wkerefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IMAD ABOUD; et al.,

Petitioners,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 14-71199

Agency Nos. A098-515-824

A098-150-502

A098-150-503

A098-150-504

A098-150-505

A098-150-506

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8, 2017** 

San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and HUMETEWA,*** District

Judge.

 

FILED

DEC 12 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Diane J. Humetewa, United States District Judge for

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Imad, Rodina, Hanin, Shirin, Nadin, and Maron Aboud (collectively, the

Abouds) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order

denying their second motion to reopen removal proceedings and to reissue its prior

decision denying certification.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Mata

v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2154–55 (2015).

The BIA denied the Abouds’ second motion to reopen on the ground that it

was time- and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2). The Abouds challenge this ruling solely on the ground that the

BIA should have equitably tolled those limitations. We lack jurisdiction to

consider this argument, however, because the Abouds failed to exhaust it before

the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The Abouds

did not expressly ask the BIA to exercise its equitable powers to excuse the

applicable time and number bars, nor did their motion implicitly raise this

argument by putting “precisely those [facts] needed to support an equitable tolling

argument” before the BIA. Socop–Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.

2001) (en banc). Nor did the BIA address or even mention equitable tolling,

1

 The BIA’s order also dismissed the Abouds’ appeal of the Immigration

Judge’s denial of their first motion to reopen removal proceedings. The Abouds

have waived any challenge to that ruling by failing to raise an argument in their

opening brief. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919

(9th Cir. 2001).

2
further making it clear that the Abouds’ motion failed to put the issue “before the

BIA such that it had the opportunity to correct its error.” Garcia v. Lynch, 786

F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 492

(9th Cir. 2008)).2

PETITION DENIED.

2

 Since we lack jurisdiction to consider equitable tolling, and the Abouds’

second motion to reopen is time- and number-barred, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), we do not address the BIA’s

alternative conclusion that the Abouds failed to comply with the requirements of

Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988).

3
Exhibit 99.2


                    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 PSB Bancorp, Inc..
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and change Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony DiSandro, Co-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 in material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.



/s/Anthony DiSandro
--------------------------
Anthony DiSandro
Co-Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002