alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harrison Case *v.*Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al.

Abandonment — Work Uncompleted.

Where an abandonment of a contract for work to be performed, is shown, if the owner suffers loss thereby, he is entitled to show same as a set-off to the claim of the creditors of the contractor, for the unpaid balance due.

APPEAL EROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

September 22, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

Prom the account current of the work and labor performed by *109Conehan for appellee, and the payments made for the same, it appears that when he abandoned the work of appellee, it owed him $780, the injury and actual loss sustained on account of the-abandonment of the work by Conehan greatly exceeded that amount; but it is insisted for appellant that he had a hard barg’ain. If that be so, there is neither allegation nor proof that he did not. enter it freely and voluntarily. He might have discovered after making it that he would sustain even greater losses by pursuing further than he had done when he abandoned it and for that reason left. It is in evidence that appellee lost more by his failure to comply than the amount it owed him when he left. So that it cannot be a forfeiture in the proper sense; but it is remuneration in part for an actual loss for a breach of contract.

*Bo & Fo, Harrison, for appellant.*

*Noble, for appellee.*

The case in *16 B. Mon.,*refererd to, is not analogous to this case. Here Conehan has received the price agreed upon for his work and labor except $730; he fails to finish the work, and goes to parts unknown, and his employer does not refuse to pay him according to his contract, but claims damages for the breach of the contract on the part of Conehan to the amount it owes him. There is no controversy as to the amount earned under the contract but shall the defaulting contractor have it all and abandon the work and leave appellee to employ others to do what he had contracted to do, at an additional cost of more than twice the amount he owes. That does not seem equitable or just. Wherefore, we feel constrained to *affirm*the judgment.
EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inland Real Estate Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Brett A. Brown certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:   February 27, 2008 By:  /s/ Brett A .Brown Name:  Brett A. Brown Title:  Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roslyn Mac Isaac,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03935-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse LLC

(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 10/26/2017, 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 8558 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 8558 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8573-1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8573-1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION ON EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,272
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,165
<PP&E>                                           2,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 141,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,817
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2
<PREFERRED>                                      1,122
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141,209
<SALES>                                         33,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,224
<CGS>                                           30,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (7)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (68)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       151
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (6,189)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (51,800)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,208)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.93)


</TABLE>
#### W. H. Calvert *v.*John F. Morse.

New Trial — Weight of Evidence — Newly Discovered Evidence.

The verdict of a jury will not be set aside unless it is palpably against the weight of the evidence. Newly discovered evidence, which is merely cumulative, is not sufficient.

APPEAL FROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

December 8, 1871.

*612Calvert, *for appellant.*

*Marble &*Son, *for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

Appellant makes no objection to tbe instructions given by tbe court to tbe jury. Tbe verdict cannot be said to be palpably against tbe weight of tbe evidence. It was tbe province of tbe jury to weigh all tbe facts and circumstances detaile'd by tbe proof and their finding will not be disturbed except in cases in which it is palpably wrong. Tbe newly discovered testimony is merely cumulative and we are not prepared to decide that in case it bad been before tbe jury a different result would have been produced. .We concur with tbe circuit court in its action in overruling tbe motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Tiernan P. Doyle","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/tdoyle1\/","title":"NASA to Select Lunar Terrain Vehicle for Artemis Missions","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lbRdWoRxI3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-to-select-lunar-terrain-vehicle-for-artemis-missions\/\">NASA to Select Lunar Terrain Vehicle for Artemis Missions<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-to-select-lunar-terrain-vehicle-for-artemis-missions\/embed\/#?secret=lbRdWoRxI3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA to Select Lunar Terrain Vehicle for Artemis Missions” — NASA\" data-secret=\"lbRdWoRxI3\" 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\/2024\/03\/ltv-climbinghill-cropped.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":510}
#### J. A. J. Lee *v.*Wm. Butts:

Adverse Possession — Estate in Hands of Executor Pending Litigation Over Will.

An estate in the hands of an executor will not he held adversely to the heirs or devisees of testator, hut for the benefit of those who prove successful in the pending litigation over the will.

Same — Assignment of Interest in Estate — Legitimate Subject of Bargain and Sale.

The claim of Amos Wool to a portion of Katy Wool’s estate which he was seeking to establish by impeaching her will, was a legitimate subject of bargain and sale.

APPEAL PROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

April 13, 1871.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

The estate of Katy Wool, deceased, in the hands of her executor in 1863, at the time Lee bought from Amos Wool, .was not held adversely to the heirs or devisees of the testator, but for the-benefit of such of the litigants as might prove successful in the pending litigation. The claim of Amos Wool to a portion of Katy Wool’s estate which he was seeking to establish by impeaching her will, was a legtimate subject of bargain and sale, hence the note sued on can not be said to have been given without consideration. The proof wholly fails to sustain the defense bond upon the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations as to the quantity of estate claimed by Amos Wool, but rather tends to establish that Lee knew more about this matter than the party from whom he bought.

The court did not err in excluding from the jury the power of attorney from Daniel Wool. There is nothing in the record connecting Amos with that writing, or even showing that he was aware of its existence. The court did not err to the prejudice of appellant by failing to explain to the jury the legal signification of the term “chancing bargain.” The instruction as to it is written to mislead the jury in favor of Lee, hy inducing them to conclude *268that it was necessary for appellee to prove that the note was executed upon some consideration, where, in law, the note itself imported a consideration, and the appellant had wholly failed to rebut this legal presumption.

Hurt, *Apperson, for appellant.*

Young, Turner, Reid, *for appellee.*

' Both the law and facts as presented by the record sustain the judgment, and as the court committed no error by which appellant could possibly have been prejudiced, the same is hereby 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, 

vs.

Samuel William Fletcher, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-16-00103-PHX-DJH

ORDER OF DETENTION

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 or danger to any other person or to the community 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.

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

danger and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure

the safety of the community.
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

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2018
Exhibit 10.3


      Certification of Robert F. McCullough Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1850, as
       Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
       -----------------------------------------------------------------

     In connection with the Annual Report of AMVESCAP PLC (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert F.
McCullough, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/      Robert F. McCullough
-----------------------------
Robert F. McCullough
Chief Financial Officer
IIA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 824

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison

Place, NW., in the District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Howard

T. Markey National Courts Building’’.

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

HR 824 RFS

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 717 Madison Place,

3 NW., in the District of Columbia and known as the Na4 tional Courts Building shall be known and designated as

5 the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National Courts Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

10 a reference to the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National Courts

11 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 23,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By JEFF TRANDAHL,

Deputy Clerk.
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 824

To redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison Place, NW.,

in the District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National Courts

Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 25, 1997

Mr. HYDE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison

Place, NW., in the District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Howard

T. Markey National Courts Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 717 Madison Place,

5 NW., in the District of Columbia, and known as the Na6 tional Courts Building, shall be known and designated as

7 the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National Courts Building’’.
2

•HR 824 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Howard T. Markey National Courts

6 Building’’.

Æ
9787.

#### Mackle *v.*Anthony.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Beid. April 16, 1918.

*Norman I. Miller,*for plaintiff in error.

*Virlyn B. Moore,*contra.

Luke, J.

.The petition as amended (which was a suit on a promissory note) was not subject to the demurrers urged, and the court did not err in overruling the general or the special demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and. Jenhins, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**Written Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
The undersigned, the President of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the“Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:
(a) the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended September 30,2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15dof the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.     /s/ William T. Bromage   William T. Bromage, President Principal Executive Officer November 5, 2004
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Webster Preferred Capital Corporation and will be retained byWebster Preferred Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
19
IV

House Calendar No. 14

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 107

[Report No. 105–45]

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 8, 1997

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

1 Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on

2 Wednesday, April 9, 1997, or on Thursday, April 10,

3 1997, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House

4 suspend the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall con5 sult with the minority leader or his designee on the des6 ignation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this

7 resolution.
House Calendar No. 14

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 107

[Report No. 105–45]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend

the rules.

APRIL 8, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
H. Res. 109

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 15, 1997.

Whereas American families currently pay too much of their

hard-earned money in taxes;

Whereas every American will work for at least 120 days in

1997 to pay his or her share of taxes;

Whereas Americans should be allowed to keep more of their

money to invest in their childrens’ futures, purchase

homes, or start businesses; and

Whereas the American family will be strengthened by providing tax relief: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges that

the Congress and the President work together to enact permanent tax relief for our Nation’s families.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit
32.2





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 Imagin Molecular Corporation (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Corey N. Conn, as Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, 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), as
applicable 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
Registrant.







Dated:
      August 19, 2008
            /s/ Corey N.
      ConnCorey
      N. ConnChief
      Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Imagin Molecular Corporation and will be retained by Imagin Molecular
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.