alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N THE CO U R T OF CR I M I N A L A PPE A LS OF T E X AS NO . PD-0945- 09
ERI C LEE DI AZ , Appe l l ant

v . THE ST AT E OF TE XAS ON APP ELLANT’ S PE TI TI ON FOR DISCRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE SEVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

RAN DALL CO UNTY
P e rCu r ia m. O P I N I O N A p p el lan t w as con v ic te d o f agg ravat ed assau ltand the cou rtassessed p u n ishmen t a t c onf i ne me ntf

orf our t e e n y e a r s . The Cour tof Appea l s di s mi s s ed the ap p eal f orwantof ju ri s d ict io n afte r d ec id in g th at A p p ell an t’ s n o tic e o f ap p ea l w as u n tim ely. D ia z v. S ta te , No. 0 7 - 0 9 - 0 0 1 4 7 - CR( T e x . App-Ama r i l l o, de l i ve r e d J une 2, 2009) . On A ugus t3, 2009, Appel l a nt t i m e l yf i l e d h i s pe t i t i on f

ordi s c r e t i on a ry r e vi e w i n the Cou r tof Appe a l s . Se e Te x. R. App. P. 68. 2. On Se pt e mbe r 18, 2009, the Cour tof Appea l s wi thdr e w i t s opi ni on, butf a i l e d t o i s s ueERI C LEE DIAZ-2

ano th er o p in io n in it s p la ce. O n A u g u st 17 , 2 0 1 0 , the C o u rto f A p p eal s issued ano ther
o p in io n an d affir m ed th e c o n v ict io n . D ia zv . S ta te , No. 07- 09- 001 4 7 -C R (A mari ll o , d el ivere d A u g u s t 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ). T h e C o u rt o f A p p eals’s o p in io n iss u ed o n A u g u st 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 , w as u n timelyu n d er ru le 5 0 o f the Tex as R u le s o f

A p p el la te P roced u re becau se i t w as i ssu ed mo re th an 6 0 d ay s af te r Appel l a nt ’ s pe t i t i on f

ordi s c r e t i ona ryr e vi e w had be e n f i l e d. Acc or di ngl y , the c our tha d no juri sd ic ti o n to issue that op inion . S ee Mill er v. S ta te , 2 6 7 S .W .3 d 3 2 (Tex . C r. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); Jo n es v. S ta te , 2 8 0 S .W .3 d 8 4 7 (T ex .C r.A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); B eller v. S ta te , 191 S. W . 3d 718 (T ex .C r.A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); P a rs o n s v. S ta te , 187 S. W . 3d 385 ( Te x. Cr . App. 2005) ; Ex p a rte B r a s h e ar , 9 8 5 S .W .2 d 4 6 0 (T ex .C r.A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); G a rza v. S ta te , 896 S. W . 2d 192 ( Te x. Cr . App. 1995) . The r e f or e , the Cour t of Appea l s ’ s opi ni on i s s ue d on August17, 2010, is ord ere d w ithd raw n , and the origin al jud g ment and o p inion o f the C o u rto f

A p p eal s that is s u ed o n J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 9 , ar e r ein s tat ed . In h is i n it ia l pet it ion f

o r discre ti o n aryrevie w A p p ellan t co n te n d ed, amon g o ther thi ngs , tha tthe C o u rt of Appea l s e rr e d t o di s mi s s hi s appe a l be c a us e i tdi d notc ons i de ror ap p l yth e m a i l b o x ru l e c o n t a i n e d i n th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e , ru l e 9 . 2 . We
a gr e e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n tg r o u n d o n e o f Ap p e l l a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rd i s c r e t i o n a ryr e v i e w, va c a t e the j udgme ntof

the Cour t of Appea l s da t e d J une 2, 2009, a nd r e mand the c a s e t o the Cour tof Appea l s t o pr ope r l yc ons i de rappl i c a t i on of rul e 9. 2. Del i ve r e d Novem be r10, 2010 Do not publ i s h
No. 46082.

#### Protest 973311-G of Universal Carloading & Distributing Co. (New York).

*225Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
#### The Atlanta National Bank *vs.*Fletcher *et al.*

An injunction does not issue as a matter of course, but as a matter of necessity, either to restrain a meditated wrong, or in a case where no adequate compensation in damages can be obtained. Where a bill was filed by one creditor of a common debtor, to enjoin other creditors from proceeding to foreclose a mortgage on personalty, and from proceeding to collect a debt secured by a conveyance of realty with bond to reconvey, and there was no allegation of insolvency on the part of the creditors thus sought to be enjoined, there was no error in refusing to grant an injunction.

March 2, 1888.

Debtor and creditor. Injunction. Insolvency. Béfore Judge Brown. Cobb superior court. November term, 1887.

The bill filed by plaintiff was a creditors’ bill, filed for the benefit of it and such other creditors of Fletcher & Co. as might be made parties complainant. The indebtedness which it alleged to be due it by Fletcher & Co. was upon open account. It made divers allegations of fraud against Burnap, the Merchants’ Bank and other defendants, and of conspiracies between the defendants to defeat the claims of the general creditors of Fletcher *& Co.*These charges were denied by the answers filed in the case.

*328Abbott & Smith and Phillips & Foster, for plaintiff.

G. A. Howell and Clay & Blair, for defendants.

Blandford, Justice.

The plaintiff in error filed its bill against A. A. Fletcher and C. R. Boyd, individually and as partners under the name of A. A. Fletcher *&*Co., and against G. C. Burnap, the Merchants’ Bank and others, praying an injunction to restrain Burnap from proceeding to foreclose a mortgage upon certain personal property, which he held against A. A. Fletcher, and to restrain the Merchants’ Bank from proceeding to collect a debt which Fletcher owed it, and for which the bank was secured by a deed of conveyance from Fletcher *&*Co. to certain real property, the bank having given Fletcher *&*Co. a bond for titles back.

In this case there does not appear from the record to be any necessity for an injunction. There is no allegation as to the insolvency of the bank or as to the insolvency of Burnap. For aught that appears, the plaintiff in error is in as good condition without the injunction as it would be with it. An injunction does not issue as a matter.of course, but as a matter of necessity, either to restrain a meditated wrong or in a case where no adequate compensation in damages could be obtained. So we think that the court was right in refusing to grant the injunction..

Judgment affirmed.
# sec6_rsnc_2020

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-15	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2020
### SERVED: JUNE 26, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC INTHEMATTER OF AVIATIONREPAIR SOLUTIONS, INC. FAADOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil PenaltyAction) FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0474 

### NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OFPROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011WP910331) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment - ServiceListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 · Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 1 ONE COPY Robert L. Toms, Jr., Respondent's Counsel Gibson Rivera & Toms LLP 527 South Lake A venue, Suite 105 Pasadena, CA 9110 1 TEL: 626-405-1122 FAX: 626-405-8966Michael F. McKinley, Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office of the Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-7100 FAX: 202-267-5106

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 "c U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0474 (Civil Penalty Action) 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Sqj.te 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. -2-
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00347 - CV

IN RE DERICK DUNCAN RELATOR

---------- ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. 0713 718D 0402719D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Tarrant County District Clerk Tom Wilder to transmit copies of Relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, the convicting court’s finding, and any related filings to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in accordan ce with article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim inal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(c)

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

(West 2015). The intermediate courts of appeals have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless the clerk is in terfering with the court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004) (providing that intermediate courts of appeals may only issue writs of mandamus against district and county judges or as necessary to enforce their jurisdiction); In re Brooks , No. 02

- 11

- 00192

- CV, 2011 WL 2436751, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 15, 2011, orig. proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction over matters related to article 11.07 applications for writs of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5; In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Cou rt of Criminal Appeals.”). As Relator does not raise a complaint that the district clerk is interfering with this court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. See In re Guajardo , No. 03

- 11

- 00821

- CV, 2012 W L 254675, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Jan. 25, 2012, orig. proceeding) (dismissing relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction when relator sought to compel district clerk to transmit habeas application and related filings to Court of Crim inal Appeals); In re Brooks , 2011 WL 2436751, at *1 (same). Because we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction, we likewise dismiss his motion concerning Rule 2 of the Texas Rules3

of Appellate Procedure and his motion conce rning the appointment of appellate counsel.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, GARDNER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: November 12, 2015
(Reap. Dec. 8653)

Entry No. 791265, etc.

#### S. E. Laszlo *v.*United States

(Decided September 19, 1956)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of fact entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as set forth in said schedule *“A.”*Judgment will be entered accordingly.



*511
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 1 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 2 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 3 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 4 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 5 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 6 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 7 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 8 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 9 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 10 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 11 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 12 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 13 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 14 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 15 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 16 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 17 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 18 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 19 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 20 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 21 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 22 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 23 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 24 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 25 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 19 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 26 of 26
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY TAYLOR,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 778 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 16th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
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 the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of a Proposed New Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service and the University of Utah announce the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of a Proposed New Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah, Salt Lake County, Utah. 

# DATES:

The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Information will be available for public inspection online at                         *http://www.umnh.utah.edu*, (click on About UMNH, New Building Updates, Environmental Impact Statement), at the Utah Museum of Natural History, 1390 E. President's Circle, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, phone 801-581-4889, and at Salt Lake City Public Libraries.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ralph Becker, 1584 South 500 West, Suite 201, Woods Cross, Utah 84010, 801-355-8816, e-mail                         *rbecker@bearwest.com*.                     

Dated: December 5, 2006. 

Michael D. Snyder, 

Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.

 [FR Doc. E7-3159 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-5 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 10 of 10
(Reap. Dec. 8156)

#### J. E. Bernard *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 778757; 765476.

(Decided August 1, 1952)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge;

These appeals have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel fdr the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel subject to the approval of the Court, that the value or price at the time of ex portation of the merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Belgium, for consumption in Belgium, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States was the invoice unit prices, including carriage to Antwerp, cartons and packing and labor in packing, plus 4)4% transmission tax, and that there was no higher export value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

*464On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit prices, including carriage to Antwerp, cartons and packing and labor in packing, plus per centum transmission tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
August 20, 1945

No. 50418.

#### Protest 95581-K of Robert E. Miller & Co., Inc.

C. D. 940. Plaintiff's application for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>




                                                                 EXHIBIT 99

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

     The  undersigned  hereby  certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2002 filed by I.D. Systems, Inc. with the Securities
and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in
the report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the issuer.



                                By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Jagid
                                    -------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Jeffrey M. Jagid
                                      Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                Date:  March 24, 2003


                                By:  /s/ Ned Mavrommatis
                                     ------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Ned Mavrommatis
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer


                                Date: March 24, 2003








<PAGE>
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




TRANSFER AND ACCEPTANCE OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST




     KNOW ALL MEN, by the presents that the undersigned John D. Oil and Gas Company (the
“Assignor”), for good, valuable and sufficient consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, does hereby transfer, assign and set over unto Geis Coyne Oil & Gas, LLC
(the “Assignee”) a portion of Assignor’s right, title and interest, to-wit: twenty-five (25)
membership units/twenty-five percent (25%) ownership interest in and to Kukuit Resources, LLC, an
Ohio limited liability company, including without limitation, capital accounts, and undistributed
profits and losses attributable thereto;



     AND, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that in consideration of the foregoing assignment,
transfer and conveyance Assignee does hereby accept said transfer, assignment and conveyance, and
that the said Assignee does agree to be bound by and to observe all terms and conditions of the
Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Kykuit Resources, LLC of even date herewith.



     WITNESS THE SIGNATURES of Assignor and Assignee as of this 29th day of May, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	ASSIGNOR:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	John D. Oil and Gas Company	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Gregory J. Osborne
 

Gregory J. Osborne
	 	 
	 

	 	Its:
	 	President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	ASSIGNEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Geis Coyne Oil & Gas, LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Alfred I. Geis
 

Alfred I. Geis
	 	 
	 

	 	Its:
	 	Member
**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 Welwind Energy International Corp.
        (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Tammy-Lynn McNabb, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to ss. 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.
  /s/ 
                  Tammy Lynn McNabbTammy
                  Lynn McNabb
                Principal
                  Executive Officer
                August
                  14, 2007
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS INC., FERRING 

INTERNATIONAL CENTER SA,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2017-2399

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:15-cv-00173-RGA, Judge 

Richard G. Andrews.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MARY W. BOURKE, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, 

Wilmington, DE, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also 

represented by DANIEL M. ATTAWAY, DANA KATHRYN 

SEVERANCE; JOHN W. COX, Atlanta, GA.

 RICHARD J. BERMAN, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by 

TANIEL ERMANO ANDERSON, JANINE A. CARLAN. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 June 8, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Clerk of Court