Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): had any role in the content provided on Virginia Tile’s website — in fact, Blanke Germany was not even listed on the website, which weakens the argument further. See Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (explaining that the defendant himself must create the contact with the forum state). Second, Tile Unlimited provided Virginia Tile’s website information from January 15, 2014, the date counsel “last visited” the website. See R. 253 at n.3. Whatever information was on the website in 2014 has no bearing on Blanke Germany’s contacts with Illinois in 2008 when Tile Unlimited allegedly purchased Uni-Mat from Virginia Tile and when the product was installed. See Robinson v. Automa, S.p.A., No. 2:13-cv-02305-GMN-PAL, 2014 WL-, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *32 (D.Nev. Apr. 17, 2014) (<HOLDING>). If that was the totality of Blanke Germany’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a felony of criminal recklessness was not a crime of violence under  16b because it does not require any purposeful conduct and does not necessarily create a risk that force may be used as a means to an end during the commission of the offense (B) holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant (C) holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction by clearly alleging facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (D) holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction (E) holding that postincident conduct does not establish the purposeful availment necessary to exercise personal jurisdiction
Output (English): holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction by clearly alleging facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction