alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
New Jersey ∙ Pennsylvania

1878 Marlton Pike East

Society Hill Office Park, Suite 10

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

Tel: (856) 685-7420

Fax: (856) 685-7417

jswidler@swartz-legal.com

March 22, 2013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & ECF

The Honorable Lois H. Goodman, USMJ

402 E. State St. Rm 7050

Trenton, NJ 08608

RE: Charles Murray, et al. v. Gerdau Ameristeel Corp., et al.

Docket No. 11-647

Dear Judge Goodman:

As Your Honor is aware, this Firm represents Plaintiffs in the above-referenced matter. 

On March 1, with the assistance of Your Honor, the Parties reached a preliminary settlement 

which is to be sent to the Court for Your Honor’s approval. The scheduling order entered by this 

Court provides that the joint motion should be filed one week from today, and the preliminary 

settlement approval and class certification hearing will be held on April 9. 

Plaintiffs require certain information from Defendant to complete this process. The 

information required is extremely basic – the most recent hourly rates of class members and their 

hire/separation dates. The data which Plaintiffs need was requested prior to the March 1 

settlement conference, and has been repeatedly requested since then – both in writing and in 

voicemails left to defense counsel. Nevertheless, as of today, Defendant has not provided same, 

and Defendant has been completely out of contact this week despite numerous written requests 

and phone calls being made by Plaintiffs’ counsel to Defendant’s counsel. 

Plaintiffs accordingly seek this Court hold a telephone conference urgently as Plaintiffs 

are very concerned they will be unable to meet the deadlines set by the Court if Defendant does 

not provide the required data imminently. Further, the dates provided by this Court attempting to 

expediently resolve this matter is one of the most important factors in obtaining a significant 

number of class members’ ultimate agreement to the settlement. Hence, if Defendant does not 

provide the data imminently, the entire settlement could be placed in jeopardy.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request a brief and urgent telephone call with Your Honor to 

ensure that Defendant will comply with its obligations. Plaintiffs thank the Court for its 

consideration to this matter.

Case 3:11-cv-00647-LHG Document 411 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1094
New Jersey ∙ Pennsylvania

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Justin L. Swidler

Justin L. Swidler, Esq.

SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC

1878 Marlton Pike East, Ste. 10

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

Phone: (856) 685-7420

Fax: (856) 685-7417

CC: Holly Rich (by ECF)

Gavin Appleby (by electronic mail)

Case 3:11-cv-00647-LHG Document 411 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1095
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blugrass Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Kenney Berscht, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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/ John Kenney BerschtJohn Kenney BerschtChief Executive Officer & Principal Accounting OfficerFebruary 22, 2010 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JASON
INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 26, 1997, AND CONSOLIDATED
INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE TWELVE MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 26, 1997.  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                            4453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    60097
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      38062
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                125770
<PP&E>                                          164403
<DEPRECIATION>                                   78781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  298568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            86652
<BONDS>                                          85631<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         35014
<OTHER-SE>                                       72250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    298568
<SALES>                                         481380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                481380
<CGS>                                           383440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   383440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  20044
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7817
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              12227
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     12227
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
<FN>
<F1>COMPANY PRESENTS RECEIVABLES ON A NET BASIS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 10
REGULATION S-X.
<F2>INCLUDES ALL NON-CURRENT PORTION OF DEBT OBLIGATIONS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1

 [Docket No. 16] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE

RAYNE CROVETTI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, KENNETH 

CONDIT, RAFAEL MUNIZ, STEVEN 

ROLANDO, 

 Defendants. 

 

 Civil Action No. 

 11-cv-1834 RMB/JS 

 ORDER

 THIS MATTER coming before the Court upon Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment; and the Court having considered the 

papers; and the Court having issued an Opinion on the motion; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment 

is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the Opinion; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that this Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over the claims arising under New 

Jersey state law; and it is finally 

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Order and the 

accompanying Opinion upon the parties, and shall close the file. 

 s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 31, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

) PFIZER INC., ) PHARMAC1A & UPJOHN COMPANY, and ) PFIZER HEALTH AB, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 10-3250 (DMC) (JAD)

)

) SANDOZ fNC. )

) Defendant. )

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, and Pfizer Health AB

(collectively, “Pfizer”) filed this action against Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) in connection with

Sandoz’s submission of Abbreviated Drug Application Number (‘ANDA”) No. 90-3 32 to the

Food and Drug Administration, which included certifications pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) (“Paragraph IV”) with respect to United States Patent Nos, 6,630,162 (the

162 patent”) and 6,770,295 (the “295 patent”);

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by Plaintiffs and Sandoz, subject to approval of the

Court, that all claims and counterclaims between Plaintiffs and Sandoz are dismissed without

prejudice; and

Case 2:10-cv-03250-DMC-JAD Document 83 Filed 06/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 927
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED by Plaintiffs and Sandoz, subject to approval

of the Court, that this Stipulation and Order shall not act as an adjudication on the merits.

Dated: June 6,2012

GIBBONS P.C. DUANE MORRIS LLP

/s/ David F. De Lorenzi

David E. De Lorenzi

Sheila F. McShane

One Gateway Center

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 596-4500

OfCounsel:

WHITE & CASE LLP

Dimitrios T. Drivas

Jeffrey J. Oelke

Adam Gahtan

James S. Trainor, Jr.

1155 Avenue ofthe Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 819-8200

Attorneys for Pfizer Inc.,

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC,

and Pfizer Health AB

IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.

Dated:

/s Sheila Rafiery Wiggins

Sheila Rafiery Wiggins

744 Broad Street, Suite 1200

Newark, NJ 07 102-3889

(973) 424-2000

OfCounsel:

COZEN O’CONNOR

Barry Golob

Kerry B. McTigue

W. Blake Coblentz

Aaron Lukas

1627 1 Street, N.W. Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 912-4800

A ttorneys for Defendant Sandoz Inc.

United States District J ge

District OfNew Jersey

Case 2:10-cv-03250-DMC-JAD Document 83 Filed 06/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 928
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Evans DOWD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-35956.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2012.

Filed Dec. 12, 2012.

Tara Elliott, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Palmer A. Hoovestal, Hoovestal Law Firm, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Matthew Evans Dowd appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his jury conviction and 127-month sentence for interstate domestic violence and willful failure to appear for sentencing. Dowd claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to interview and subpoena five witnesses. He also claims that the prosecution violated *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose that the victim’s sister had told an FBI agent that the victim was not credible. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we affirm.

Analyzing Dowd’s ineffective assistance claim under *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), we agree with the district court’s decision following an evidentiary hearing that Dowd has failed to demonstrate that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Dowd has shown neither that trial counsel was deficient for failing to interview and subpoena five defense witnesses, nor that Dowd suffered any prejudice as a result.

Dowd’s *Brady*claim was insufficiently presented in his § 2255 habeas petition before the district court. In any event, *653Dowd would not be entitled to relief even if the claim had been properly raised, because the sister’s affidavit, even if credited, regarding what she told the FBI agent is not sufficient to “undermine confidence in the outcome” of the trial. *United States v. Bagley,*473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3875, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual  Report of Par 3 Services,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Daniel L.  Hodges,
President  of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**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**

|   | (a) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:   | /s/ Ronald                Pipoly                                                                                                                 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |            | Ronald                Pipoly  Chief                Financial Officer*(Principal                Financial and Accounting                Officer)* |

 

----
**EXHIBIT NO. 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

We hereby consent to the incorporation in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-56509 and 333-92817), FormS-4 (File No. 333-46036) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-51459, 33-57183, 33-24169,333-02425, 333-02421, and 333-02423) of our report dated December 26, 2002relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

February 13, 2003
Case 2:11-cv-01654-SDW Document 2 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 8
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





I, Kyle Kennedy, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Seafarer Exploration Corp. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):





(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.





Dated April 10, 2012.





/s/ Kyle KennedyKyle KennedyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and acting Principal Accounting Officer)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1523

In re: GWENDOLYN DIANNE WILKES , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:19

- cv - 00699

- LCB

- LPA)

Submitted : September 24, 2020 Decided: October 8 , 2020

Before KING, NIEMEYER, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Gwendolyn Dianne Wilkes , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gwendolyn Dianne Wilkes petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring prosecution of numerous third parties, removal of officials from public office, injunctions preventing further violations of the law, and damages. We conclude that Wilkes is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir . 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The relief sought by Wilkes is not available by way of mandamus. Accor dingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.
PETITION DENIED
#### United States v. Thompson and another.

*(Circuit Court, D. Oregon.*

November *22,*1886.)

Indictment for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

Deady, J.

This case is similar to the foregoing one in all respects, except that the land in question is the S. W. *í*of section 23, in township L NT., range 20 IS. of the same meridian. The defendant Thompson demurred to the indictment, and the same was argued and submitted with the demurrer in the foregoing ease.

The demurrer is sustained, and the defendant hold to answer as above.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Roger Gordon, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of Pure Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the Company), hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
      period ended March 31, 2010 (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: May 18, 2010

/s/ Roger GordonRoger Gordon
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Susan D, Wigenton
v. : Crim. No. 11-51 (SDW)
WYDOVE BROWN : SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint
application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (Jane H. Yoon, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
appearing), and the defendant Wydove Brown (Scott Krasny, Esq.,
appearing) for a scheduling order in the above-captioned matter,
and counsel for both parties having appeared before the Court for

a telephonic status conference on November 22, 2011, and for good

and sufficient cause shown,
If IS, on this = 1 day of November 2011,

ORDERED that the calendar for this matter shall be
revised as follows:
Pre-trial motions due: January 6, 2012
Opposition due: January 23, 2012
Replies due: January 27, 2012

Motions hearing: February 1, 2012

Trial: February 6, 2012

J)

: IGE
es Disyrick Judge



Form and entry
consented to:

phe A. Yooh /
ssistant UYS. Attorney

aeny,
Scott Arasny, i.
counter for ove Brown
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVERSELLERS ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL** 

## Bonorablo

Oeo..R. ahapoartl comptra.ler

6r mbuu A8oasntr ~AMH.n, Tuar

If0 ,hkg to- aolauw

ur Uld 

## Aot read 88 fob

a 6 

## it eaaotud b y t he

### Lugi8latun a b t h 8 S kt 6 or Bx a 8 I 

## "'s6otlun

1. 86OttOZt

15 Of &W?i1016 

## 3 Of 

## BOUBillX0. 

## 20,&t8, 

## 6fths R6g-r 25668iOn Of th6 47th ~18z0tU2'6, 18 aa6tid6d h62'6?Jy 60 66 to 

## ruad

h62'66ft6r 88 rOiiOW8:

### IiOn.000. 8. Shuppsld, Pag6 

### 2 "u6otioll Ifi. DlapOsitf on Of F668. "a r668 a 6b6~%68 **E6qUiWd w**  **thf.8 &of**  **8Bd ooll#tod**  **argarfloerorag6ntarth6D6-**

**r** -8- **ruetad vlthwt**  dudwt1on m 

### 6suN~~s~hrwkt6theD6p8Ma6at 6tAtutl.n, .%X88,.8?ld 

### l

n 8 M h

f 6 .8

80 OUllUOt8d 8h8n b6 .~-98itU&in p" l)titO fnr8W’J in.8 hupd t6 b6 -88 th@ @W8tW*8 ud 0h8Uf’f6UP ’8 fSoUXl66 FUld.*



## mution II

ef WmAot.. Your8 .wlyFpp)s

A8Pmm-ogm By (a) oat6spur AwtatBnt

APPROVED OPIXiIOR

CObSHI= BY (s) BWB, cm
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00020-CV

The HON Company, a subsidiary of HON Industries Inc., Appellant

v.

Mayfield Paper Company, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. A-04-0117-C, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal advising that they have

entered into a settlement agreement. The appeal is dismissed and costs are assessed against the party

incurring them.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: May 12, 2005