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

v. 

STUDIOS, INC. 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

Hon. Jose L. Linares 

Civil Action No. 11-427 (JLL) 

COURISTAN, INC., 

Defendant. 

ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to the October 11, 2011, letter 

from the defendant [ECF No. 26]; and the Court having held a telephone conference with the 

parties on the record on October 14,2011; and for the reasons set forth on the record during the 

October 14,2011, telephone conference; and for good cause shown: 

IT IS on this 14th day of October 2011, 

ORDERED THAT: 

1. 	 Plaintiff shall provide complete responses to defendant's written discovery 

demands on or before October 19,2011, at 5:00 p.m. Failure to do so may result 

in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(1) and/or Fed. R. Civ. 

P.41. 

2. 	 The parties shall submit their confidential settlement memoranda to the Court 

pursuant to paragraph 8 ofthe Court's September 14,2011, Pretrial Scheduling 

Order [ECF No. 25] on or before November 3, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. 

All other provisions ofthe Court's September 14,2011, Pretrial Scheduling Order remain 

in full effect. 

sfMichael A. Hammer 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 


Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL -MAH Document 28 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 138
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL**

**OFFICEROF HILAND HOLDINGS GP, LP**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Matthew S. Harrison, Chief Financial Officer, VicePresident-Finance and Secretary of Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC, thegeneral partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP (the “Company”), hereby certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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 ofthe Company.

 
| Date: May 9, 2008 |   | /s/ Matthew S. Harrison                                        |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Matthew S. Harrison                                            |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance  and Secretary |

 

----
#### APOTEX INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CEPHALON, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and Barr Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants.

No. 2012-1417.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 8, 2013.

Robert B. Breisblatt, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Brian J. Sodikoff, Martin S. Masar, III and Christine E. Bestor; Howard R. Rubin and Christopher D. Jackson, of Washington, DC.

William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Mark C. Fleming, Gregory P. Teran, Daniel M. Esrick, and Andrew J. Danford; William G. McElwain, and Carolyn Jacobs Chachkin, of Washington, DC; Robert J. Gunther, Jr. and Omar Khan, of New York, New York.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments of invalidity and unenforceability with respect to Cephalon, Inc.’s (“Cephalon”) U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,516. We do so with the understanding that the court’s inequitable conduct finding was based on the conduct of Dr. Peter Grebow and Mr. Richard Burgoon, while acting within the course and scope of their employment or as officers and/or employees of Cephalon. No pleading asserted that Mr. Paul T. Clark committed inequitable conduct, and we do not read the opinion below as finding that he personally committed inequitable conduct.

AFFIRMED
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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

          - [Docket ID USAF-2009-0043]

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice to delete a system of records.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

# DATES:

This proposed action will be effective without further notice on August 10, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCPPI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ben Swilley at (703) 696-6648.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Department of the Air Force systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                

The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Dated: July 7, 2009.

Morgan E. Frazier,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

## F036 AFMC B

### System Name:

Systems Acquisition Schools Student Records (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793)

### Reason:

The system is no longer in use.

[FR Doc. E9-16374 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 1
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 21 PageID: 2
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 3 of 21 PageID: 3
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 4 of 21 PageID: 4
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 5 of 21 PageID: 5
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 6 of 21 PageID: 6
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 7 of 21 PageID: 7
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 8 of 21 PageID: 8
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 9 of 21 PageID: 9
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 10 of 21 PageID: 10
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 11 of 21 PageID: 11
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 12 of 21 PageID: 12
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 13 of 21 PageID: 13
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 14 of 21 PageID: 14
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 15 of 21 PageID: 15
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 16 of 21 PageID: 16
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 17 of 21 PageID: 17
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 18 of 21 PageID: 18
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 19 of 21 PageID: 19
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 20 of 21 PageID: 20
Case 1:11-cv-01177-JHR-AMD Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 21 of 21 PageID: 21
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part II, Item 7. of this Form 10KSB and is qualified in its
entirety to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1993
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,400
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   445
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (17)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (17)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
Table 2.  Average annual wages for 2001 and 2002 for all covered workers(1) by Consolidated
    Metropolitan Statistical Area
								   Average annual wages(3)     
		   Consolidated Metropolitan                                                   
		      Statistical Area(2)                                            Percent   
								2001      2002       change,   
										     2001-02   
      Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas(4)........  $43,441   $43,687        0.6     
    Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH........   45,766    45,685       -0.2     
    Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI..........................   41,813    42,370        1.3     
    Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN...........................   35,569    36,626        3.0     
    Cleveland-Akron, OH.....................................   34,948    35,640        2.0     
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX...................................   40,923    41,343        1.0     
    Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO..............................   41,988    41,770       -0.5     
    Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI.............................   41,698    42,332        1.5     
    Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX...........................   42,087    42,068        0.0     
    Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA.................   39,054    39,867        2.1     
    Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL...............................   34,301    35,198        2.6     
    Milwaukee-Racine, WI....................................   35,423    36,340        2.6     
    New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA...   51,217    50,817       -0.8     
    Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD......   39,719    40,640        2.3     
    Portland-Salem, OR-WA...................................   36,127    36,529        1.1     
    Sacramento-Yolo, CA.....................................   37,736    38,966        3.3     
    San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA......................   54,139    52,441       -3.1     
    Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA............................   42,229    43,053        2.0     
    Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.......................   44,245    45,218        2.2     
    San Juan-Caguas-Arecibo, PR.............................   20,541    21,546        4.9     
      1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation
    for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
      2 Includes data for Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA) as defined by OMB
    Bulletin No. 99-04.  In the New England areas, the New England County Metropolitan Area
    (NECMA) definitions were used.
      3 Each year's total is based on the CMSA definition for the specific year.  Annual
    changes include differences resulting from changes in CMSA definitions.
      4 Totals do not include the San Juan-Caguas-Arecibo CMSA within Puerto Rico.
1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3076

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Alfredo Silva, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 24, 2006

Filed: July 27, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alfredo Silva appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon his guilty

plea to reentering the United States illegally after having been deported following a

conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). 
-2-

Counsel argues the sentence is unreasonable because of several mitigating

factors which call for a sentence below the 41-month prison sentence imposed by the

district court. We disagree. First, the district court discussed Silva’s criminal history

and the need to provide adequate deterrence. Both of these factors are listed in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) as relevant sentencing considerations, and they support the

reasonableness of the district court’s sentence. See United States v. Long Soldier, 431

F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is whether district court considered

§ 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads to

conclusion that they support reasonableness of sentencing decision).

Second, the sentence was within the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, and

Silva has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United

States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005). Silva argues that he should

be granted leniency based on the disadvantages he may suffer in prison as an illegal

alien, and based on sentencing disparities for illegal-reentry cases within different

judicial districts. He did not raise these matters to the district court at sentencing, and

in any event, they do not make his sentence unreasonable. See United States v.

Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentencing disparity resulting from

fact that “fast-track” programs were available for those convicted of immigration

offenses in certain judicial districts, but not to defendant, did not render his sentence

unreasonable); cf. United States v. Cardosa-Rodriguez, 241 F.3d 613, 613-614 (8th

Cir. 2001) (deportable aliens’ ineligibility for Bureau of Prisons benefits does not

provide basis for downward departure in illegal-reentry cases). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________
Second Department,

March, 2008

(March 4, 2008)

#### Crystal Agnew, Respondent, v Corner Stone Baptist Church, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[851 NYS2d 893]

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment *(see*CPLR 3212; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
#### SANO PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. SHELL OIL CO., Inc.

*No.*2871.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Dec. 21, 1942.

Silberman & Steinfeld, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Louis F. Huttenlocher, of New York City, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on two motions.

1. A motion by defendant for an order amending the fourth separate and complete affirmative defense alleged in the answer herein.

2. A motion on behalf of the plaintiff to strike out the first, second, third and fourth separate defenses alleged in the answer.

The motion for leave to amend is granted.

Motions to strike under Rule 12(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. *182C.A. following section 723c, are not favored, and usually will be granted only when the allegations have no relation to the controversy, and a failure to strike will unduly prejudice the adverse party. Sinaiko Bros. Coal & Oil Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 305; United States v. Rowley Const. Co., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 6.

Of course, if the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff is wholly unconnected with the litigation, the clean hands doctrine is not applicable, but it is applicable if the alleged misconduct is connected with the litigation, or it in some measure affects the equitable relation subsisting between the parties, and it is clearly applicable in the case at bar.

It would unduly limit the liability of the plaintiff, and unreasonably increase the damage of the defendant, if the showing as to unclean hands should be confined to cases in which plaintiff succeeded in taking away customers of the defendant, and not be held to include unsuccessful efforts directed to the same purpose.

The separate defenses in question are all directed to the matter generally in controversy, although not all are limited to specific transactions of which plaintiff complains, and if they are broad enough to cover more than the matter generally in controversy, the proof will undoubtedly be so limited on the trial, as to confine it to the matters generally in controversy.

Certainly if the plaintiff has by the means alleged been attempting to take away defendant’s customers it does not come into equity with clean hands when it seeks to prevent the alleged actions of the defendant directed against it with the same purpose.

It seems to me to be unnecessary to analyze the cases cited on behalf of the plaintiff, because in the holding of none of them do I find anything contrary to my holding here. The amendment to the fourth separate defense, which I have allowed, still further clarifies that defense and makes its applicability more definite and certain.

The motion of the defendant for leave to amend is granted.

The motion of the plaintiff to strike is denied.

Settle orders on notice.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oscar Rivadeneira, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 882]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Ritter and Garni, JJ., concur.
#### Incorporated Village of North Hills, Appellant, v Avr Links Development Corp. et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 300]

In an action to recover upon a maintenance bond, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated August 11, 2005, as, in effect, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of determining that it was required to make a claim under the bond during the term of the bond as a condition precedent to the prosecution of the action and directing a trial on the issue of whether it made a timely claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied in its entirety.

“Performance bonds are governed by the usual rules of construction of adhesion contracts, and contractual time limitations contained therein are to be strictly construed against the surety *(Comey v United Sur. Co.,*217 NY 268 [1916])” *(Menorah Nursing Home v Zukov,*153 AD2d 13, 20 [1989]; *see Johnson City Cent. School Dist. v Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.,*226 AD2d 990, 993 [1996]). Thus, where such a bond contains no express provision requiring an obligee to declare a default, make a claim under the bond, or provide notice to either the surety or the principal, the making or giving of such a declaration, claim, or notice is not a condition precedent to the commencement of an action to recover upon the bond *(see Menorah Nursing Home v Zukov, supra*at 21; *see also Walter Concrete Constr. Corp. v Lederle Labs.,*288 AD2d 377 [2001], *affd*99 NY2d 603, 605 [2003]; *Zacher v Oakdale Islandia Ltd. Partnership,*271 AD2d 441, 442 [2000]; *Babylon Assoc. v County of Suffolk,*101 AD2d 207, 217-218 [1984]; *cf. Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v Campcore, Inc.,*81 NY2d 138, 144 [1993]; *State of New York v Peerless*Ins. *Co.,*108 AD2d 385, 390-391 [1985], *affd*67 NY2d 845 [1986]).

The maintenance bond at issue in the instant action, which is a form of performance bond, contains no requirement that the plaintiff make a claim upon the defendants during the two-year term of the bond, or at any time for that matter, and does not otherwise require the plaintiff to declare or give notice of a default under the bond. Accordingly, there was no basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was required to make a claim under the bond during the term of the bond as *589a condition precedent to the prosecution of the action and directing a trial on the issue of whether the plaintiff timely made a claim *(cf.*CPLR 213; *Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v Campcore, Inc., supra*at 144). Crane, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.