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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5245 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5245

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the liability indemnification regime for the commercial space 
                        transportation industry.

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

SECTION 1. INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION.

    Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2004.'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009.''.

SEC. 2. STUDY.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall enter into an arrangement with a 
nonprofit entity for the conduct of an independent comprehensive study 
of the liability risk sharing regime in the United States for 
commercial space transportation under section 70113 of title 49, United 
States Code. To ensure that Congress has a full analysis of the 
liability risk sharing regime, the study shall assess methods by which 
the current system could be eliminated, including an estimate of the 
time required to implement each of the methods assessed. The study 
shall assess whether any alternative steps would be needed to maintain 
a viable and competitive United States space transportation industry if 
the current regime were eliminated. In conducting the assessment under 
this section, input from commercial space transportation insurance 
experts shall be sought. The study also shall examine liability risk 
sharing in other nations with commercial launch capability and evaluate 
the direct and indirect impact that ending this regime would have on 
the competitiveness of the United States commercial space launch 
industry in relation to foreign commercial launch providers and on 
United States assured access to space.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 8, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5245

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend the liability indemnification regime for the commercial space 
                        transportation industry.
```
JAVAN ALLEN CONTINUANCE ORDER

a/k/a Jayson D. Allen”

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Jose R. Ai.monte, Assistant U.S. Attorney,appearing), and defendant Javan Allen(Candace Horn, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, appearing) for an order granting acontinuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a

period of 60 days, and the defendant being aware that he has the

right to have the matter brought to trial within 70 days of the

date of his appearance before a judicial officer of this court

pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3161(c) (1),

and as the defendant has consented to such a continuance, and forgood and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

1. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and both

the United States and the defendant desire additional time tofinalize a plea agreement, which would render trial of this matter

unnecessary;

2. Defendant has consented to the aforementioned

continuance;
WHEREFORE, on this 3 day of June, 2011,

IT IS ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is,

continued for a period of 60 days; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from and including June 13, 2011,

through and including August 12, 2011, shall be excludable in

computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, pursuant to

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7) (a); and it is

further

ORDERED that the calendar for this matter shall be

revised as follows:

Defensemotions 

Opposition 

Motions hearing:

Trial :

ck

I

HON. PETER G. SHERIDANUnited States District Judge

Form and entryconsented to:

J se R. A or.eA istant .S. Attorney

Candace Horn

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Counsel for Javan Allen
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 35288
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 35289
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 531-2 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 35290
#### LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, and Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 2012-1014, 2012-1015.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 15, 2013.

Jonathan T. Suder, David Arthur Skeels, Friedman, Suder & Cooke, Fort Worth, TX, Andrew John Dhuey, Berkeley, CA, Robert P. Greenspoon, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Cross Appellant.

Steven J. Routh, John Randolph Inge, Sten A. Jensen, Timothy Vann Pearce Jr., Diana M. Szego, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiff-Cross Appellant Lighting Ballast Control LLC (“Lighting Ballast”), and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendant-Appellant Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc. (“ULT”).

The petition for rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and briefs of amici curiae were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and the court has decided that the appeal warrants en banc consideration.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition for rehearing en banc of Plaintiff-Cross Appellant Lighting Ballast is granted.

(2) The court’s opinion of January 2, 2013, is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated.

(3) The parties are requested to file new briefs. The briefs should address the following issues:

a. Should this court overrule *Cybor Corp. v. FAB Technologies, Inc.,*138 F.3d 1448 (Fed.Cir.1998)?

*952b. Should this court afford deference to any aspect of a district court’s claim construction?

e. If so, which aspects should be afforded deference?

(4) This appeal will be heard en banc on the basis of the additional briefing ordered herein, and oral argument. An original and thirty copies of new en banc briefs shall be filed, and two copies of each en banc brief shall be served on opposing counsel. ULT’s en bane brief is due 45 days from the date of this order. Lighting Ballast’s en banc response brief is due within 30 days of service of ULT’s new en banc brief, and the reply brief within 15 days of service of the response brief. Briefs shall adhere to the type-volume limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32 and Federal Circuit Rule 32.

(5) Briefing should be limited to claim construction and related issues set forth above.

(6) The court invites the views of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as amicus curiae. Other briefs of ami-ci curiae will be entertained, and any such amicus briefs may be filed without consent and leave of court but otherwise must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Federal Circuit Rule 29.

(7) Oral argument will be held at a time and date to be announced later.
Exhibit 12.2



I, Martin Hollenhorst, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of LION bioscience Aktiengesellschaft;



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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The company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 company 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 company, 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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal controls
over financial reporting.



Date: September 24,
2004



|       |  |                                                       
|------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Martin Hollenhorst                                
|Name:  |  | Martin Hollenhorst                                    
|Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1688

REMI CHIDE NJOKU, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; EMILIO GONZALEZ, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; GREGORY L. COLLETT, District Director, Baltimore District Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; CALVIN MCCORMICK, Field Office Director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement; GEORGE WILLIAM MAUGANS, III, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Remi Chide Njoku, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tyrone Sojourner, Jem Colleen Sponzo, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,Washington, D.C.; George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM: Remi Chide Njoku, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the

Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision declining to grant reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2008). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Njoku (B.I.A. May 20, 2008). With regard to Njoku’s challenge to the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority, we find that we are without jurisdiction to review that aspect of the Board’s decision, and thus dismiss the petition for review with respect to that claim. See Mosere v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
THE MCDANIEL LAW FIRM, PC 

54 Main Street 

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 

(201) 845-3232 

(201) 845-3777 - facsimile 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BASEPROTECT UG, LTD. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOHN DOES 1-X (such persons being 

presently unknown), 

 Defendants. 

 

Civ. Action. No. 2:11-cv-3621(CCC)(JAD) 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

AS TO ALL REMAINING DEFENDANTS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., by its undersigned attorney, hereby voluntarily 

dismisses, without prejudice, the above-captioned matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) as 

to all defendants remaining in the case. No answer or motion for summary judgment has been 

served in this action by any defendant. 

DATED: February 27, 2013 THE MCDANIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 

 By: 

 Jay R. McDaniel, Esq. 

DATED: 

 _________________________________________ 

 Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 182 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1335
#### DIERSSEN v. WOOLEVER.

Civ. No. 1012.

District Court, D. Connecticut.

Jan. 13, 1944.

*343Frederick J. Rundbaken, of Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff.

Julius B. Schatz (of Schatz & Weinstein), of Hartford, Conn., for defendant.

SMITH, District Judge.

Defendant moves to cite in the United States as a party-plaintiff, claiming that the United States has paid compensation and medical expenses to the plaintiff, an employee of the United States at the time of the injury, and is maintaining this action in his name, and that the United States is, therefore, a real party in interest.

It is unnecessary to pass on the question of whether the United States is a real party in interest by analogy with the status of an employer or insurer under state workmen’s compensation acts, as defendant argues, either with or without an assignment from the plaintiff (which the plaintiff denies has been made in this case). The motion cannot be granted, since there is nowhere shown permission by the sovereign to submit to suit in a matter of this nature under the Compensation Act.

While Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, with reference to the real party in interest, may apply to the United States, if statutory authority exists to make the United States a party, the Rules themselves cannot be held to have been intended to broaden the permission given by statute to sue the United States.

The Compensation Act itself, 5 U. S.C.A. §§ 751-798, does not contemplate or provide for suits against the United States by the employee. Dahn v. Davis, 1922, 258 U.S. 421, 42 S.Ct. 320, 66 L.Ed. 696.

The commission may require an employee to assign his right of action to the United States or to prosecute an action on it in his own name, as a condition of receiving compensation. The United States may sue on an assigned claim, the proceeds to go first to repay the compensation fund and any balance to the injured employee. 5 U.S.C.A. § 776.

The United States has no right of action in the absence of an assignment under the statute.

We can hardly spell out from this provision an intention to permit the United States to be made an involuntary party, since the power is specifically reserved, in these cases where the employee is willing to have his claim litigated for the benefit of the compensation fund in order to obtain the benefits of the Act, to require that he conduct the litigation in his own name. See 2 Moore Federal Practice 1942 Cum. Supp., p. 10; compare Kreiger v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1941, 1 F.R.D. 601. (Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.)

The motion to cite in the United States as party-plaintiff is denied.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended                January                31, 2006 (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |                                 |                                     |
|--------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|         |                                 |
|    |                            |                                |
|         |                                 | /s/              RICHARD N. SNYDER  |
|         | Richard              N. Snyder       |
|         | Chief              Executive Officer |
|         | March 14, 2006                  |

----
Case 3:11-mj-02507-DEA   Document 6   Filed 03/01/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 7

Case 3:11-mj-02507-DEA   Document 6   Filed 03/01/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 8
#### LENERTS et al. v. RAPIDOL DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION.

District Court, N. D. New York.

Oct. 21, 1942.

Garey & Garey, of New York City (William R. Rawick and A. J. Nydick, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

John W. Trapp, of New York City, for defendant.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

This is an action for damages resulting to the plaintiffs, husband and wife, as a *43result of the personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the wife when she used Rapidol, a hair dye manufactured and sold by defendant. The complaint charges that Rapidol is inherently dangerous.

Plaintiff served notice on defendant that an examination before trial would be held to take deposition of such officers, directors or managing agents in charge of different phases of defendant’s business.

Plaintiffs heretofore have also propounded interrogatories to be answered by the defendant.

The defendant moves to restrict the scope of the examination before trial and to limit the interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs.

The notice of examination is sufficiently clear under Rule 30(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and need not state the subject matter upon which the examination is sought.

The interrogatories propounded are disposed of as follows: With respect to defendant’s formula, it is improper to require the defendant to reveal a secret formula or a trade secret in a case of this nature. However, to compel defendant to reveal the ingredients of its product is not to force the revelation of secret processes, concealed methods of compounding and the like. The latter would be protected under Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the former not. Therefore, the defendant is directed to tell the plaintiffs merely the ingredients of its product

It is not necessary for the defendant to answer 1(c) of the interrogatories, as this calls for a conclusion on the part of the defendant, and one which Rule 30(b) would not permit.

On the other hand, 1(d), which requires the defendant to detail the manner in which its product should be used, is to stand.

Interrogatory 3 and its subsections are proper subjects of examination and would not be unduly annoying, embarrassing or oppressing to the defendant.

Interrogatory 4 and its subsections, all dealing with Federal Trade Commission proceedings, as well as interrogatories 5, 6 and 7, with their subdivisions are disallowed.

Motion granted to the extent above indicated.
Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB     Document 54     Filed 05/11/11     Page 1 of 1 PageID: 132
Joseph P. La Sala 

MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &

 CARPENTER, LLP

1300 Mount Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 2075

Morristown, NJ 07962-2075 

Tel.: (973) 993-8100

Fax: (973) 425-0161

Jlasala@mdmc-law.com

Attorneys for Defendants Express Scripts, Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc., Aristotle Merger Sub, 

Inc. and Plato Merger Sub, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE:

MEDCO/EXPRESS SCRIPTS MERGER 

LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-4211 (DMC) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joseph P. La Sala, Esq., certify that on April 2, 2012, I served true and accurate copies

of Express Scripts Opposition to Plaintiffs Fee Application, the April 2, 2012 Certification of

Joseph P. La Sala, Esq. in Opposition to Plaintiffs Fee Application, with Exhibits A-II, Proposed Order, Express Scripts Response to New Jersey State Plaintiffs Motion to Intervene

and Application for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Expenses, the April 2, 2012 Certification

of Joseph P. La Sala, Esq. in Response to New Jersey State Plaintiffs Motion to Intervene and

Application for Award of Attorneys Fees and Expenses, with Exhibit A, Proposed Order and 

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 102-4 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4749
2

this Certificate of Service upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the electronic filing rules of the United States District Court, District of New 

Jersey. 

Dated: April 2, 2012 /s/ Joseph P. La Sala

Joseph P. La Sala

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 102-4 Filed 04/02/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4750
DECLARATION OF ANNA BROOK 

EXHIBITS 35, 36, 38 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 112 Filed 12/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 2452
EXHIBIT

D

Case 2:11-cv-04487-KSH-PS Document 1-4 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 61
FNA0000045

Case 2:11-cv-04487-KSH-PS Document 1-4 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 62
FNA0000046

Case 2:11-cv-04487-KSH-PS Document 1-4 Filed 08/02/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 63