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

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Crim. No. 11-295 (FSH)

v. : O R D E R

CARLOS QUIJADA :

Defendant. :

This matter having come before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge filed in this matter, which was submitted as a result of this Court having

referred this cause to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a plea proceeding under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; and the defendant having consented to the Magistrate Judge conducting the

guilty plea proceeding; and the Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as

the transcript of the proceedings on April 27, 2011 and there being no objection to the Report and

Recommendation timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b); and the Court finding the Report and

Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law; and the Court hereby finding that

the Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted and the defendant’s guilty plea

accepted,

IT IS ON THIS 2 day of June, 2011, nd

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is

approved and adopted; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea is accepted and a judgment

of guilt to Count One of the Information shall be entered. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00295-GEB Document 57 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 60
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony CHERRY, a/k/a Pops, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7297.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Michael Anthony Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Cherry appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court found Cherry was not eligible for a reduction under the recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines because his sentence was based, not on a quantity of crack cocaine, but on his career offender status. We conclude that the district court did not *223abuse its discretion in denying Cherry’s motion for a sentence reduction. *United States v. Goines,*357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Cherry’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: November 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Edward J. GildeaEdward J. GildeaChief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)
Case 3:11-cv-02654-AET-DEA   Document 2   Filed 05/19/11   Page 1 of 4 PageID: 18

Case 3:11-cv-02654-AET-DEA   Document 2   Filed 05/19/11   Page 2 of 4 PageID: 19

Case 3:11-cv-02654-AET-DEA   Document 2   Filed 05/19/11   Page 3 of 4 PageID: 20

Case 3:11-cv-02654-AET-DEA   Document 2   Filed 05/19/11   Page 4 of 4 PageID: 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS 

OFFICE: TRENTON DATE: January 12, 2017 

JUDGE MARY L. COOPER 

COURT REPORTERS: Carrol Farrell, 

Karen Friedlander, Regina Tell 

TITLE OF CASE: CV11-2317(MLC) 

HORIZON PHARMA, INC. 

v. 

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

John Flaherty, Esq., James Monroe, Esq., Stephen Hash, Esq., Ellen Scordino, Esq., 

Jeff Gritton, Esq., Danielle Pfifferling, Esq., and Susan Krumplitsch, Esq., for plaintiffs 

Shannon Bloodworth, Esq., Autumn Nero, Esq., Gregory Miller, Esq., 

and Brian Beel, Esq., for MYLAN 

Allan Pollack, Esq., Stuart Sender, Esq., and Hank Heckel, Esq., for DR. REDDY’S 

 

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Trial without jury commenced before the Honorable Mary L. Cooper. 

John Plachetka SWORN for plaintiff. 

Ordered trial adjourned until 1/13/2017 at 9:00am. 

Lunch Recess: 12:45pm-1:45pm 

TIME COMMENCED: 9:30am 

TIME ADJOURNED: 4:15pm 

TOTAL TIME: 5 hours, 45 minutes 

 s/Elizabeth Beres 

 Deputy Clerk

Case 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA Document 457 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 14916
[891 NYS2d 221]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James J. Condon, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 22, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*James J. Condon,*appellant pro se. *Stecich Murphy & hammers, LLP,*Tarrytown *(Brian D. Murphy*of counsel), for respondent.

*5OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 (1) (a), in that he was driving a Ford pickup truck, which was towing a “wood chipper” that had no brake lights, on Broadway in Hastings-on-Hudson on November 6, 2007 at 5:09 p.m. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 (1) (a) provides that it is unlawful to drive a “vehicle” on any public highway or street at any time during the day or night unless such vehicle is equipped with signaling devices in good working condition. The Vehicle and Traffic Law defines a “vehicle” as “[e]very device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 159). Both at trial and on appeal, defendant raises the legal defense that he was not required to have brake lights on the wood chipper since it should not be considered a “vehicle” within the meaning of section 159 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Upon the record before us, which includes a videotape depicting defendant’s wood chipper, we find no basis to disturb the express determination of the Justice Court that the wood chipper is “clearly capable of transporting property on a street or highway” *(see generally People v Guilianti,*10 NY2d 433 [1962]). Since defendant’s wood chipper had that capability, it came within the definition of a “vehicle” set forth in the statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 159).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, EJ., Tanenbaum and Molía, JJ., concur.
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 1 of 19 PageID: 8537

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 2 of 19 PageID: 8538

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 3 of 19 PageID: 8539

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 4 of 19 PageID: 8540

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 5 of 19 PageID: 8541

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 6 of 19 PageID: 8542

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 7 of 19 PageID: 8543

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 8 of 19 PageID: 8544

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 9 of 19 PageID: 8545

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 10 of 19 PageID: 8546

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 11 of 19 PageID: 8547

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 12 of 19 PageID: 8548

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 13 of 19 PageID: 8549

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 14 of 19 PageID: 8550

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 15 of 19 PageID: 8551

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 16 of 19 PageID: 8552

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 17 of 19 PageID: 8553

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 18 of 19 PageID: 8554

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1115   Filed 12/11/09   Page 19 of 19 PageID: 8555
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 MattMar Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean
Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of January, 2007.


/s/ Sean Mitchell
------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise

v. : Crim. No. 11-132(DRD)

CARLOS E. ALMONTE : SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the

application of defendant CARLOS E. ALMONTE (James Patton, Esq.,

appearing) and the government (Paul J. Fishman, United States

Attorney, counsel for the United States, L. Judson Welle and

Andrew Kogan, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing), for a

scheduling order in this matter; and for good cause shown,

It is on this 3L day of March 2012

ORDERED that:

1. On or before April 17, 2012, defendant shall disclose

to the United States any reports and/or summaries of anticipated

testimony of the following who have been noticed as potential

expert witnesses on behalf of defendant: (a) Marc Sageman; and

(b) Yasir Qadhi.

2. The United States shall disclose to defendant its

responsive reports and/or summaries in this matter on a date to

be determined by the Court, which date shall be set following

defendant’s disclosures stated in Paragraph One of this Order.

1
3. The parties, within two business days of the issuance

of the final Presentence Report, shall contact the Court to

schedule a status conference, During the status conference, the

parties shall submit proposed dates concerning the: (a)

submission of sentencing memoranda; (b) provision of notice

regarding the intent to call witnesses during the sentencing

hearing; and Cc) sentencing hearing.

t \/,—

15

HON. DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE

United States Senior District Judge

2
#### SMITH, KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. LANNETT CO., Inc., et al.

No. 2737.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 5, 1943.

*52George J. Harding, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

A. D. Caesar, of Caesar & Revise, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

BARD, District Judge.

This matter was previously before me on defendants’ objections to interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff. 2 F.R.D. 561. Defendants have filed a petition for ■ re-argument on the order which was entered directing them to answer one of the interrogatories in question, which sought to have defendants disclose the names and addresses of their customers within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to whom they had sold a product manufactured by them known as “Amphetamine Sulfate” within six months prior to this suit.

The suit is for infringement of plaintiff’s patent for “Amphetamine Sulfate” and for unfair competition. The unfair competition alleged is that defendants’ product is so deceptively similar to that of plaintiff that retailers and their dispensers are enabled to, and did, substitute it for plaintiff’s product.

Defendants have supported their petition for reargument by affidavits designed to show bad faith on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the information which would be disclosed by their answer to this interrogatory. These affidavits set forth that plaintiff has harassed defendants’ customers by threatening them with litigation and otherwise. Defendants further argue that the economic power of the plaintiff in the pharmaceutical field is such that small retailers are obliged to respect its threats. Plaintiff has filed counter-affidavits designed to show that it has made no threats to anyone other than the legitimate one that it intends to enforce its patent against all direct or contributory infringers thereof. It urges that it is entitled to the discovery of the names of dispensers to whom the defendants sell their allegedly deceptively similar product, in order to discover evidence of its substitution for plaintiff’s product.

While I am in no way convinced of the charges of bad faith made against plaintiff by defendants, I think that some protection will be afforded to defendants, without material injury to the rights of the plaintiff, if the defendants be required to name Gnly the five customers in the Eastern Disk .at o? Pennsylvania to whom they sold -.e largest quantities of “Amphetamine . fate” during the six months prior to the institution of this suit.

It is so ordered.
Case 2:11-cv-02379-JLL-CCC Document 5 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 15
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS





I, Jeffrey D. Abbey, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Argos Therapeutics,
Inc.; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





|                  |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 1, 2017 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey D. Abbey                 
|                  |  |     |  | Jeffrey D. Abbey                     
|                  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1   
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
  SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Striker Energy Corp. for
the quarter ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Joseph Carusone, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
   1.
              The
      Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
   2.
              The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Striker
      Energy Corp.
   October
15, 2008
  /s/
      Joseph CarusoneBy:
      Joseph CarusonePresident,
      CEO and director(Principal
      Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
      Officer)
    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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Striker Energy Corp. and will be
retained by Striker Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40224 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS CORONA

- ROJAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 821

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Corona

- Rojas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Corona

- Rojas has filed a response

. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Corona

- Rojas ’s
claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 19, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40224 Document: 00514038146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2017No. 16

- 40224

2 claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Corona

- Rojas ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 16-40224 Document: 00514038146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2017
EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a))

I, Eric E. Rhodes, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Bank of the Carolinas Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter business that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                                           
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Eric E. Rhodes                        
|                   |  | Eric E. Rhodes                            
|                   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5099

To reinstate the repealed criminal provisions relating to assault weapons 

and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To reinstate the repealed criminal provisions relating to assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding 

devices.

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

3 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF REPEALED CRIMINAL 

4 PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAP5 ONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION 

6 FEEDING DEVICES. 

7 (a) REINSTATEMENT OF PROVISIONS WHOLLY RE8 PEALED.—Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), 

9 subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, 

10 and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, 
2

•HR 5099 IH 

1 United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal 

2 made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control 

3 and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted 

4 into law. 

5 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF PROVISIONS PARTIALLY RE6 PEALED.—Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended—

8 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subpara9 graph (B) and inserting the following: 

10 ‘‘(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), 

11 (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;’’; and 

12 (2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause 

13 (i) and inserting the following: 

14 ‘‘(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled 

15 shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the per16 son shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 

17 not less than 10 years; or’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT





ClickSoftware, Inc., a California corporation

ClickSoftware Europe, Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of the
United Kingdom

ClickSoftware Belgium, N.V., a company incorporated on November 14, 2001 under
the laws of Belgium

ClickSoftware Central Europe GmbH, a company incorporated on January 17, 2002
under the laws of Germany

ClickSoftware Australia Pty Limited, incorporated on January 21, 2002 under the
laws of Australia. (Subsidiary of Clicksoftware, Inc.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-K CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.                                     PAGE 60
905 A.2d 871

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN M. GOLDEN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 4, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).