alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the annual report of Dynegy Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce A. Williamson, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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 Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                            
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: March 28, 2006 |  | By: |  | /S/ BRUCE A. WILLIAMSON                    
|                     |  |     |  | Bruce A. Williamson Chief Executive Officer
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1164 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit black market adoption 

of children, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH (for herself, Mrs. CAPITO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. WICKER, 

and Mr. DAINES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit black 

market adoption of children, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping Infants Do5 mestically Safe Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘KIDS Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 2251A of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1164 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a), in the undesignated mat2 ter following paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘sub3 section (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (d)’’; 

4 (2) in subsection (b), in the undesignated mat5 ter following paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘sub6 section (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (d)’’; 

7 (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub8 section (d); 

9 (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(c)(1) It shall be unlawful for a parent, legal guard12 ian, or other person having custody or control of a minor 

13 to sell, trade, or offer to sell or trade, the minor in ex14 change for money or other consideration, if any of the cir15 cumstances described in subsection (d) exist. 

16 ‘‘(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase 

17 or otherwise obtain custody or control, or offer to purchase 

18 or otherwise obtain custody or control, of a minor in ex19 change for money or other consideration, if any of the cir20 cumstances described in subsection (d) exist. 

21 ‘‘(3) Any person who violates paragraph (1) or (2) 

22 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not less than 

23 30 years or for life, or both. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1164 IS

1 ‘‘(4)(A) This subsection shall not be construed to 

2 apply to any person adopting a minor through a legal 

3 adoption process. 

4 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘legal adoption 

5 process’— 

6 ‘‘(i) means an adoption process conducted in 

7 accordance with State law; and 

8 ‘‘(ii) includes a surrogacy or gestational carrier 

9 agreement conducted in accordance with State law.’’; 

10 and 

11 (5) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, in the 

12 matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘sub13 sections (a) and (b)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (a), 

14 (b), and (c)’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
|   | (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 Company      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |   |                                              |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                                              |   |
| Date:      August 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Yanhua      Liu                          |   |
|                       |   | Yanhua      Liu                                   |   |
|                       |   | Chief      Financial Officer                      |   |
|                       |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                       |   |                                              |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose PINEDA-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4101.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2012.

Robert Snead, Greenville, South Carolina; Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Peter T. Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of The United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Pineda-Gomez pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, money laundering and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. On appeal, counsel for Pineda-Gomez has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Pineda-Gomez’s conviction for possession of a firearm by an illegal alien in his home violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Government asserts that the appeal should be dismissed as barred by Pineda-Gomez’s waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement. Pineda-Gomez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the hearing pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, we conclude that Pineda-Gomez knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Accordingly, because the waiver of appeal is valid and the Government now seeks to enforce it, we dismiss Pineda-Gomez’s appeal as to his Second Amendment challenge to his conviction of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, as it is within the scope of the waiver. We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with *Anders*and have discerned no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as to all is*208sues not encompassed by Pineda-Gomez’s valid waiver of appellate rights.

This court requires that counsel inform Pineda-Gomez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pineda-Go-mez requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Pineda-Gomez. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 1, 2011 

p0525 

Order 

 

June 1, 2011 

142535 

VESTAX SECURITIES CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142535 

 COA: 292062 

Ct of Claims: 07-000065-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 

The evidentiary record does not support the Court of Appeals determination that the 

independent registered representatives were the plaintiff’s agents or that there exists a 

substantial nexus between Michigan and the plaintiff’s business activities sufficient to 

impose Michigan Single Business Tax upon it. We REMAND this case to the Court of 

Claims for reinstatement of the April 27, 2009 order granting summary disposition to the 

plaintiff. 

MARILYN KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Katharine S. Hayden

v. : Crim. No. 10-436 (KSH)

YANEIRA PERDOMO : O R D E R

This matter having come before the Court on the petition of the

United States Probation Office for a hearing regarding the failure of

defendant Yaneira Perdomo to comply with certain conditions of

supervised release imposed on May 17, 2011, Ronnell L. Wilson,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing for the Government, and Carol

Gillen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, appearing for the

defendant; and the defendant having waived the preliminary hearing and

having entered a guilty plea and been adjudged guilty on September 10,

2012 to having violated Condition No. 10 of the Standard Conditions of

Supervised Release, which required that she refrain from excessive use

of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or

administer any narcotic or controlled substance or any paraphernalia

related to such substances, except as prescribed by a physician; and

for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 10 day of September, 2012, th

ORDERED that the term of supervised release is hereby revoked;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is hereby committed to

the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned

for a term of 4 months, with credit given for all time the defendant

has been incarcerated since her arrest on August 22, 2012;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon release from imprisonment,

no term of supervised release shall be imposed upon the

defendant; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Violation 2 of the Violation

Report dated August 21, 2012 is hereby dismissed; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Bureau of Prisons assign the

defendant to a facility near the defendant’s home address. 

 /s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

 KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

 United States District Judge
U) Di it ci it

N Di Di C) C)

o it

0

0

0 it it C) C) C) ci it C) hi it it C) C) U) it CD it CD

0

0 CD it H)

C ci C) C) C) hi hi Di H0 U) it

C CD it it

C

0

0

C

C hi

0

H U) C)

CD C)

H it U)

0 CD CD H- Di DY

it C) C) CD C) C) C) C)

C it H- U) U)

C) it

0 it C) U) ci C) H- ci

H - CD U) U)

0

0

C CD

0 it U) Di it

C

C

<

H

Di CD hi

C U)

0 U)

C Di Di Di it U)

C

C

C C) hi ci C)

C

0 it C) U)

C) it

0 U) it CD C) C) C) it it

0

Di CD hi

H U) C) CD

C CD C)

0

o it

C U) CD Di ci Di C) it C) hi

H U)

hi it C) U) C) it C) hi ci C) CD U)

hi CD U) hi

0 H0 CD it C)

cC CD Di it

C it

C

C CD Di C)

hi C)

C

0

0 Di C)

C C) C)

C

< U)

o C) hi U) hi CD C)

0 C) H- U)

hi CD CC - CD

< Di

C it

DI) it it U) ci it CD

C C) C)

Di (I) C) C) U) IS CD it it hi it U) hi CD

0 U)

C

0 CD DI

H hi

0 CI it hi

C C)

0 U) C) it C) CD it CD Di CD

N

C itH

C

C it C)

C Di

C

C U) CD C) C) IC) H- C) C) it C) C) it it

H Di hi it CD Di U) H- ci

0 C)

it CD hi it

C

0

N

- U) CD 0U)

N C) Di C) C)

C U) it • U) NJ it CD C) Di U)

0

it U) C) C) C) hi

C hi it

Di CD it it CD

C CD it CD U) C) U) U)U)

C C) Di C) Di it C) hi

0

C) C) it it •• hi H- C) it it U) HC

CD CD C) C) HC C) C) C) U)

C • r C ci it C)

C C)

0

0 CD cC U) N)

L U) C) cC

H C) CI Di

0 Di HH C) it C) Hhi H- hi

C ci U)

0 it

0

0

0 C)

C

C C) C)

C C)

C) C) CD • CD

C

— hi CD) HCD Di it -• it hi

N Di C) it it

C

C it CD C) ci

C Di

0 it ci

Di HC Di H- H- ci

C

C U)

0

I)

0 C)

C ci

C H- CD C) CC it

C

HC Di C) ci C) ci

0 U) Ni

ci

C

C it it

C

C U) it U)

O it Di C) Di H- CIit it HC it Di it C)

O it ci it ci it CD it C) U) C)

hi H- C) CD C) it CD

0 CD

• 0 Di hi

C C)

0 C)

CD it Di • U)

C CD

Cc) it H- it U) it

Di Di ci it • Di

0

hi DI C) CD it U) Hhi C) hi C) hi CD ci ci

C)

0 CD ci C) CD

Di <1 hi

C H- CD Di

C) C) C)

C

CD C) C)
OX

00HZFt•

Di

00

Ft

(1)0ItODiHIFtZ(DC!)0)0

z

(1)(DO

0H0030 (110(11H-

<

0)0

FtFt

00H0

0

Ft0C!03

0

(D

0) Ft0 030 Di

(1 HFt

H

0 (1

C! (C03 (1)(D 030

0

(1) (1Ft (0Dl (DC!

O Ft

(1)

0

11 Ft

H- FtFt Di

Ft

0

03

0

Di Cl

Ft

H- Ft

(Ci

(I) Ft

(1 0

Di Di0 (1)

Di

03

0

H Ft

Di

0

0

H

0Di

0

0

0

Di

0 03

Di

0

0

0

Di Ft03DiFj 03

H

Ft

0

FtH

(1) Di

11) 03

Ft

0

HI

H • FtFt

Ft

Di

0C)0H03DiFt0

H

Di0)Ci

C)

C)(IH

LII

N)F!)FtHi(1)Ft

Ft

03

ClHFtHDiC!)

(1)FtClFtFt(I)C)03HFt
Exhibit
32





Certification
Pursuant to


18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officers of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated (the "Company"), hereby
certify to such officers’ knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated:
April 15, 2009





/s/ Laurence MoskowitzName:  Laurence
      MoskowitzTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer/s/ Kenneth TorosianName:  Kenneth
      TorosianTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1751. LAMB v. THE STATE.

This appeal was docketed on May 8, 2015. Appellant’s brief and enumeration

of errors were required to be filed no later than May 28, 2015. See Court of Appeals

Rule 23 (a) (an appellant’s brief and enumeration of error shall be filed within 20

days after the appeal is docketed unless extended by this Court and failure to do so

may result in dismissal of the appeal). As of July 7, 2015, Appellant still had not

submitted a brief and enumeration of errors, nor had Appellant requested an

extension. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for Appellant’sfailure to

file a brief and enumeration of errors in support of his appeal. 

Because Appellant is represented by counsel, he is hereby informed of the

following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This appeal has been dismissed because of your counsel’s failure to file a brief. If

you still wish to appeal, you may petition the trial court for leave to file an out-oftime appeal. If the trial court grants an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days

from the date of the filing date of that order to file a notice of appeal referencing your

conviction. If the trial court enters an order denying your request, you will have 30

days from the filing date of that order to file a notice of appeal referencing the denial

of your request for an out-of-time appeal. If you no longer wish to appeal, you need

not do anything else.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Appellant, as

well as to Appellant’s attorney, who is also directed to send a copy to Appellant. 

July 10, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/10/2015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2021

No. 04-20-00467-CV

IN RE Stephen Patrick BLACK,

Original Mandamus Proceeding

ORDER

Appellant Stephen Patrick Black seeks to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory “Biennial 

Review Order” signed on August 5, 2020 finding that “probable cause does not exist to believe 

that [Black’s] behavioral abnormality has changed to the extent that he is no longer likely to 

engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.” See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§§841.101-.103 (biennial review process for civil commitment). The order did not modify any of 

the requirements of Black’s civil commitment pursuant to Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and 

Safety Code and provided that “[a]ll requirements of the Final Judgment and Order of 

Commitment signed on April 7, 2016 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.” As 

we noted in our previous opinion addressing our jurisdiction over Black’s appeal from his 2018 

biennial review order, the legislature did not specifically authorize an appeal from the trial 

court’s initial probable cause determination and a biennial review order finding no probable 

cause does not constitute a final judgment; therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to conduct an 

appellate review of the order. In re Commitment of Black, 594 S.W.3d 590, 593 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2019, no pet.). We issued a show cause order requesting that Black respond and show 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In his response, Black requests 

that, “this present appeal be converted to a petition for writ of mandamus, to invoke this Court’s 

jurisdiction.” We GRANT the request in the interest of judicial efficiency.

The Clerk of this court is instructed to convert this appeal to an original mandamus 

proceeding. Appellant is ORDERED to file a mandamus petition in compliance with Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 52.3 no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If appellant 

fails to do so, this proceeding will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WARREN HAVENS; SKYBRIDGE 

SPECTRUM FOUNDATION; TELESAURUS 

VPC, LLC; AMTS CONSORTIUM, LLC; 

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION & 

MONITORING, LLC; and TELESAURUS GB, 

LLC,

Plaintiffs, Civ. Action No. 11-993 (KSH) (CLW)

 v.

MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND 

MOBILE, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiffs having filed, on the fifth day of trial, a motion to seal and redact certain portions 

of the trial transcripts [D.E. 269], and

The Court having addressed, on the final trial day, the issue of redaction that had been 

raised in the motion to seal [T9 99:24-100:20], and 

Good cause appearing, 

IT IS on this 2nd day of September, 2014,

ORDERED that consistent with the Court’s ruling, the parties are directed to jointly notify 

the Court, in writing, on or before September 16, 2014, of the specific redactions they seek to have 

made in the trial transcripts. Failure to do so will result in the motion to seal being deemed 

withdrawn. 

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 289 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 6832
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 DoMar Exotic Furnishings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.

Date: March 21, 2007


/s/ Scott Sieck
----------------------------------------
Scott Sieck, Principal Financial Officer
2188598.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

JENNIFER KASILAG, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

v. 

 

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

 

Document Electronically Filed 

Civil No. 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW 

JENNIFER KASILAG, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

v. 

 

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 1:14-cv-01611-RMB-KMW 

JENNIFER KASILAG, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

v. 

 

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 1:15-cv-01876-RMB-KMW 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION TO EMPANEL AN 

ADVISORY JURY 

 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 200 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 10021
2188598.1 

TO: ALL COUNSEL 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs, by and 

through their undersigned counsel, shall move before the Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, 

U.S.D.J., at the Mitchell H. Cohen United States Court House, 4th and Cooper 

Streets, Room 1050, Camden, New Jersey 08101, for an Order Empanelling an 

Advisory Jury. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of their motion, 

Plaintiffs shall rely upon Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 

(1) Strike Plaintiffs’ Demand For a Jury Trial and (2) Preclude Plaintiffs From 

Offering Evidence at Trial, and In Support of Their Cross-Motion to Empanel an 

Advisory Jury. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Plaintiffs submit herewith a 

proposed form of Order. 

Dated: June 6, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Daniel S. Sweetser 

Daniel S. Sweetser, Esq. 

SZAFERMAND LAKIND 

BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, P.C. 

101 Grovers Mill Road, Suite 200 

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 

Tel: (609) 275-0400 

Fax: (609) 275-4511 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 200 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 10022