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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DIANA ROHRER, Individually and )

DIANA ROHRER and DAWN )

CUBBERNUSS as co-Administrators of )

The ESTATE OF DANIEL RICHARD )

ROHRER, Deceased, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:12-cv-00749-JTM-CAN

)

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING )

PHARMACY, INC., aka NEW ENGLAND )

COMPOUNDING CENTER, AMERIDOSE)

LLC, ALAUNUS PHARMACEUTICAL )

LLC, BARRY CADDEN, individually, )

LISA CADDEN, individually, and )

GREGORY CONIGLIARO, individually, )

)

Defendants. )

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1, Defendants, Ameridose, LLC; Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC; Barry 

Cadden; Lisa Cadden; and Gregory Conigliaro (hereinafter “Defendants”), by counsel hereby 

move this Court for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, up to an including 

February 25, 2013. Defendants’ Answer is currently due January 25, 2013.

Plaintiffs’ counsel has been consulted and has no objection to the requested extension. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, pray for an Order allowing Defendants up to and 

including February 25, 2013 to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and for all other relief just and 

proper in the premises. 

case 3:12-cv-00749-JTM-CAN document 14 filed 01/14/13 page 1 of 2
2

LEWIS WAGNER LLP

 /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

DINA M. COX, #18590-49

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49

JANELLE P. KILIES, #30708-49

Attorneys for Defendants Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC; 

Barry Cadden; Lisa Cadden; and Gregory Conigliaro 

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

 /s/ Knight S. Anderson

KNIGHT S. ANDERSON, #17216-53

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on January 14, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Richard W. Crowder

211 S. Third Street 

Goshen, IN 46526

/s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202-6150

Telephone: (317) 237-0500

Facsimile: (317) 630-2790

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com

Q:\NECC\9 - Rohrer\Federal Court Pleadings\MET.doc

case 3:12-cv-00749-JTM-CAN document 14 filed 01/14/13 page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1408 

To provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in India, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. LEACH, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. 

LANTOS, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Mr. ACKERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

A BILL 

To provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in India, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN INDIA. 

4 Section 1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the State Department 

5 Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 

6 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)) is amended by inserting ‘‘India,’’ 

7 after ‘‘Haiti,’’. 

8 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

9 In addition to any amounts otherwise available for 

10 such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
2 

•HR 1408 IH 

1 the President such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 

2 years 2006 through 2008 to provide assistance to India 

3 pursuant to the United States Leadership Against HIV/ 

4 AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 

5 7601 et seq.) and the amendments made by that Act. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1999
<CASH>                                           5,189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                       641
<INVENTORY>                                     48,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,438
<PP&E>                                          40,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,618
<SALES>                                        157,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,029
<CGS>                                          125,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,206
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,892)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (393)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.58)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:12-CR-87

)

BRENTON ENNIS )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on May 8, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and counsel

for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the 2-count Indictment,

and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 8th day of May, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 10.4  


 
 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
  2001 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN OF
  WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.    
    


        This Second Amendment (this "Amendment") to the 2001 Incentive Award Plan of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as amended (the "Plan"), of Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is hereby adopted by Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), effective as of May 19, 2003. 


RECITALS


        A.    The
Plan was originally adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on February 12, 2001 and by the stockholders of the Company on May 7, 2001. 


        B.    The
Plan authorized the issuance of up to 7,500,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock (as defined in the Plan) for grants of non-qualified and incentive
stock options. 


        C.    On
May 19, 2003, the stockholders of the Company approved a proposal to authorize 6,500,000 additional shares of the Company's Common Stock for future awards under
the Plan. 


        D.    On
May 19, 2003, the following Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company: 


THE AMENDMENT  


        1.     Shares Subject to Plan. Section 2.1(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following
language: 



        "(a)    The
shares of stock subject to Awards shall be Common Stock, initially shares of the Company's Common Stock. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 8.3,
the aggregate number of such shares which may be issued upon exercise of such Options or rights or upon any such Awards under the Plan shall not exceed 14,000,000. The shares of Common Stock issuable
upon exercise of such Options or rights or upon any such awards may be either previously authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares. 




        The
undersigned, David A. Buchen, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Company, hereby certifies that the Board of Directors approved this Amendment. 


*
* * * 


1





 

        Executed
at Corona, California, this    27th day of    June            , 2003. 



	 	 	WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

a Nevada corporation
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  DAVID A. BUCHEN      
 David A. Buchen

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary




2









QuickLinks


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 2001 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN OF WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
#### Paula J. HUNTER, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellee.

No. 03-2552.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 26, 2004.

Decided May 7, 2004.

Paula J. Hunter, Bentonville, AR, pro se.

Thomas H. Lawrence, John Russell, Lawrence & Russell, Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellee.

*438Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Paula Hunter appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to defendant Wal-Mart in Hunter’s action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213(ADA), and dismissal without prejudice of Hunter’s state-law claim that she was wrongfully denied medical insurance benefits. Having carefully reviewed the record, *see Dropinski v. Douglas County,*298 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir.2002) (de novo review of summary judgment); *Garfield ex rel. Elkins v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co.,*907 F.2d 841, 842 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (abuse of discretion review of dismissal without prejudice), we affirm.

As to her ADA claim, Hunter alleged that Wal-Mart failed to accommodate her need for a position that limits the amount of time she spends on her feet. Assuming that Hunter’s genetic blood-clot disorder qualifies as a disability under the ADA, we agree with the district court that Hunter did not create a trialworthy issue as to whether Wal-Mart failed to make a good faith effort to accommodate her. The undisputed evidence showed that Wal-Mart was first put on notice of Hunter’s request for an accommodation no earlier than January 15, 2002. Hunter was granted medical leave from January 30 through March 25, and from April 3 to 22. Upon her return, in response to a request from Hunter’s doctor dated April 15, Wal-Mart transferred her to a position that would require less standing, and when the demands of that position proved unsatisfactory for Hunter’s condition, Wal-Mart transferred her again, to a position that has proved satisfactory. *See*29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2003) (appropriate reasonable accommodation determined through informal, interactive process between employer and employee); *Ballard v. Rubin,*284 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir.2002) (employee must show that employer did not make good faith effort to assist employee in seeking accommodation, and but for employer’s lack of good faith, employee could have been accommodated).

We affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Hunter’s medical-insurance claim, as it is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (ERISA). We note that Hunter is free to pursue this claim by filing an action under ERISA.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET - APRIL 27, 1997 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED APRIL 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-27-1997
<CASH>                                           2,786
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,534
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,879
<PP&E>                                          17,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,906
<BONDS>                                          3,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231  
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,641
<SALES>                                         38,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,369
<CGS>                                           32,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,097)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,097)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20

                                VCA ANTECH, INC.
                          12401 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
                       LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1022

                                                                   March 9, 2004

Robert L. Antin
C/o VCA Antech, Inc.
12401 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90064-1022

Dear Bob:

         Reference is made to the employment agreement between you and VCA
Antech, Inc. ("VCA") dated September 20, 2000 (the "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT"). In
accordance with the loan prohibitions of Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, you and VCA hereby agree that the terms of Section 4.3 of the
Employment Agreement which permit you to exercise options by the delivery of a
promissory note in the amount of the exercise price are hereby deleted.

                                            VCA Antech, Inc.

                                            By:    /s/ Tomas W. Fuller
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Tomas W. Fuller
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

Acknowledged and Agreed
to this 9th day of March, 2004
/s/ Robert L. Antin
---------------------------
Robert L. Antin
Douglas Wayne ERWIN, petitioner, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden.

No. 12-9638.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

Hammond Division

NINA BOROM,

Plaintiff,

 

v. Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-22 JVB

MENARD INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Paul R. Cherry entered on December 10, 2014 (DE 39). For reasons fully explained in the

report, Judge Cherry recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s motion for sanctions under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

The parties were notified that they had fourteen days within which to file objections to

the recommendation. More than fourteen days have passed without any objections having been

filed. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Cherry’s report and recommendation and DENIES

Defendant’s motion (DE 27). 

SO ORDERED on January 6, 2015.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CR-128-JTM-JEM

 )

OCTAVIO CASAS-GARCIA, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT OCTAVIO CASAS-GARCIA

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge

John E. Martin, on January 23, 2014, with the consent of Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia, counsel

for Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with

Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the

record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia

under oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia understands the nature of the charge against him

to which the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in
his plea of not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse

witnesses, and his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia understands what the maximum possible sentence

is, including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia

understands that the sentencing guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines

under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia has been knowingly and

voluntarily made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia understands that his answers may later be used

against him in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Octavio Casas-Garcia’s plea of guilty to the offense

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and that Defendant Octavio Casas-Garcia be adjudged guilty

of the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence

Report has been ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Octavio CasasGarcia be adjudged guilty, sentencing before Senior Judge James T. Moody will be set at a later date

by separate order. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and

served within fourteen (14) days. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

So ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2014.

s/John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable James T. Moody
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

        Critical Path Initiative

Critical Path Reports Home
          Science & Research
          Science and Research Special Topics
          Critical Path Initiative
          Critical Path ReportsCritical Path Initiative Critical Path Reports
  	
        Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintPast Critical Path Opportunities Reports can be found in the FDA.gov Archive.

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      03/12/2018Critical Path Reports
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop