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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Samuel D. Black,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03461-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 8564 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 8564 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2
{"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 Commercial Crew Partner SpaceX Achieves Pad Abort Milestone Approval","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fDu1aY5CMl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-achieves-pad-abort-milestone-approval\/\">NASA Commercial Crew Partner SpaceX Achieves Pad Abort Milestone Approval<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-achieves-pad-abort-milestone-approval\/embed\/#?secret=fDu1aY5CMl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Commercial Crew Partner SpaceX Achieves Pad Abort Milestone Approval” — NASA\" data-secret=\"fDu1aY5CMl\" 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\/2015\/08\/m15-117.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":401}
#### L. F. and J. Sanders *v.*John W. Ross.

Adverse Possession — Instructions—Quieting Title — Ejectment.

In an action for possession of land, an instruction that if the jury believed from the evidence that the. appellants and those under whom they claimed, had been in the continuous possession since 1819, of the land embraced in the deed to S., claiming to the boundary of said land, and that the land in controversy was included by said boundary the law1 was for appellant, held erroneous, in that the converse of the proposition -would be that if the possession had not been continuous since 1819, the law was not for appellants, and was misleading.

Same.

The jury should have been instructed that fifteen years uninterrupted adverse possession of land gave a perfect right of entry and would prevail in ejectment against an outstanding elder patent.

APPEAL EROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 11, 1870.

*313
      *Scott, for appellants.*

*Landram, Trabue, for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Lindsay :

Tbe motion, of appellants for judgment in tbeir favor, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury against them, was properly overruled. The answer denied their ownership, or their right to the possession of the land in controversy, and presented a good defense to the action.

We also think the conflict of evidence warranted the court in refusing them a new trial on the ground that the verdict was ■'against the testimony. Instruction No. 1 asked for by them fails to set out clearly the fact that their possession must have been not only actual and adverse, but *continuous,*for the period of fifteen years before their title would become perfect by reason of possession alone, and was therefore properly refused. But we think” they were entitled to an instruction upon this proposition, and we do not agree that the law was correctly given the jury by instruction No. 1 given by the court upon its own motion.

By said instruction the jury were in effect told that if they believed from the evidence that appellants and those under whom they claimed had been in the continuous possession since 1819 of the land embraced in the deed to James .Sanders, claiming to the boundary of said land, and that the land in controversy was included by said boundary, then the law was for the appellants. The objection to this instruction is that the converse of the proposition is that if the possession had not been continuous since 1819, the law was not for appellants, and in this we regard it as misleading. Before the adoption of the Eevised Statutes, twenty years uninterrupted adverse possession of land gave a perfect right of entry, and would prevail in ejectment against an outstanding elder patent. 4 Dana, 483. Since their adoption, fifteen years gives the same right, and the jury should have been so instructed.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
EXHIBIT -32.1



Certification Required Under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the quarterly report of Ambient Corporation (the Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") the undersigned hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.



|                         |     |                                                                                                   
|------------------------ | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |     |                                                                                                   
|Dated: November 10, 2006 |     |                                                                                                   
|                         |     |                                                                                                   
|                         | By: | /s/ John J. Joyce                                                                                 
|                         |     | JOHN J. JOYCE                                                                                     
|                         |     | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER(PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Abbey A. Donaldson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/aadonald\/","title":"NASA Selects Axiom Space for Another Private Space Mission in 2024","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZrE3Oz1gYB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-selects-axiom-space-for-another-private-space-mission-in-2024\/\">NASA Selects Axiom Space for Another Private Space Mission in 2024<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-selects-axiom-space-for-another-private-space-mission-in-2024\/embed\/#?secret=ZrE3Oz1gYB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Selects Axiom Space for Another Private Space Mission in 2024” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ZrE3Oz1gYB\" 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\/08\/iss069e014837large.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 Crew Returns to Houston","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5KagJjTKyJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-13-crew-returns-to-houston\/\">50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 Crew Returns to Houston<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-13-crew-returns-to-houston\/embed\/#?secret=5KagJjTKyJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 Crew Returns to Houston” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5KagJjTKyJ\" 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\/2020\/04\/as13-855_s70-15767_cake_aboard_iwo_jima_4.17.70.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":473}
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

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chester Wayne Wilson,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 15-2231-TUC-CKJ (LCK)

ORDER

On September 7 , 2016, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 69) in which she recommended the Motion to Suppress Defendant’s

Statements (Doc. 29) and the Motion to Suppress Fruits of Illegal Seizure (Doc. 30) be

denied. The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that they had 14 days from the

date of service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections. No objections

have been filed. 

The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation is dependent upon whether a party files objections – the Court need not

review portions of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

150 (1985). However, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 4:15-cr-02231-CKJ-LCK Document 72 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

Nonetheless, “while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no

objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or

at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

The Court has reviewed and considered the pending motions, the transcripts of the

hearings before the magistrate judge, and the related exhibits.

 Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69) is ADOPTED. 

2. The Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Statements (Doc. 29) is DENIED.

3. The Motion to Suppress Fruits of Illegal Seizure (Doc. 30) is DENIED.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2016.

Case 4:15-cr-02231-CKJ-LCK Document 72 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001067701
<NAME> UNITED RENTALS INC. /DE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          33,192
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  556,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,758
<INVENTORY>                                    156,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,759,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                 594,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,080,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,613,621
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          300,000
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                           703
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,430,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,080,622
<SALES>                                      1,308,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,308,908
<CGS>                                          275,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  831,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (312)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,286
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,834
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,610
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,610
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

# AGENCY:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), intends to grant to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego, California, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 7,289,907, “SYSTEM FOR REPORTING HIGH RESOLUTION OCEAN PRESSURES IN NEAR REALTIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TSUNAMI REPORTING” issued on October 30, 2007.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2014.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to NOAA Technology Partnerships Office, SSMC4 Room 7605, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Derek Parks, NOAA Technology Transfer Program Manager, at:                         *derek.parks@noaa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. It is in the public interest to so license this invention, as SAIC of San Diego, California, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the NOAA Technology Partnerships Office receives written evidence and argument which establishes the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Dated: October 28, 2014.

Jason Donaldson,

Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 2014-26085 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the (i) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126420), as amended, pertaining to the Xerium Technologies, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, (ii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155340), as amended,pertaining to the Xerium Technologies, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, and (iii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-167195) pertaining to the Xerium Technologies, Inc. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan of our reports datedMarch 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Xerium Technologies, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Xerium Technologies, Inc. included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 11, 2011