alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

Stephen M. Orlofsky 

Nicholas C. Harbist 

David C. Kistler 

New Jersey Resident Partners 

BLANK ROME LLP 

A Pennsylvania LLP 

301 Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor 

Princeton, NJ 08540 

Telephone: (609)750-7700 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.

)

)

MICHAEL SODINI, and on behalf of the 

STATES of CALIFORNIA, 

COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, 

DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, 

HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, 

LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, 

MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 

MINNESOTA, MONTANA, NEVADA, 

NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW 

YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, 

OKLAHOMA, RHODE ISLAND, 

TENNESSEE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, 

WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN and the 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Hon. Cathy L. Waldor 

Civil Action No. 10-cv-3331 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

OF PLAINTIFF-RELATOR MICHAEL 

SODINI 

) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

 v. ) 

) 

TOPCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., 

TOPCON AMERICA CORPORATION, 

 and TOPCON CORPORATION, 

)

)

)

) 

 Defendants. )

)

Case 2:10-cv-03331-WHW-CLW Document 20 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 218
Plaintiff-Relator Michael Sodini hereby enters this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without 

Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Defendants have not served an answer or a motion 

to dismiss in the action. 

Government counsel has indicated that: (1) the United States consents to Plaintiff-Relator’s 

voluntary dismissal so long as it is without prejudice to the United States; and (2) the government 

has indicated it plans to file a separate notice of consent to Plaintiff-Relator’s voluntary dismissal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: January 31, 2017 

/s/ Stephen M. Orlofsky 

 Stephen M. Orlofsky 

Nicholas C. Harbist 

New Jersey Resident Partners 

David C. Kistler 

BLANK ROME LLP 

A Pennsylvania LLP 

301 Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor 

Princeton, NJ 08540 

Telephone: 609-750-7700 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff/Relator 

Relator Michael Sodini 

 

 

Case 2:10-cv-03331-WHW-CLW Document 20 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 219
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on January 31, 2017, I served the foregoing Plaintiff-Relator’s 

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal using the Clerk’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of this 

filing to the counsel of record. 

Dated: January 31, 2017 

/s/ Stephen M. Orlofsky 

 Stephen M. Orlofsky 

Nicholas C. Harbist 

New Jersey Resident Partners 

David C. Kistler 

BLANK ROME LLP 

A Pennsylvania LLP 

301 Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor 

Princeton, NJ 08540 

Telephone: 609-750-7700 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff/Relator 

Relator Michael Sodini 

Case 2:10-cv-03331-WHW-CLW Document 20 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 220
#### In the Matter of Frank Manfredo, Respondent, v Nerissa Manfredo, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 714]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated March 26, 2006, as denied that branch of her motion which was to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*Family Ct Act § 1112); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing to determine whether personal jurisdiction over the mother was obtained in the proceeding, and for a new determination of that branch of the mother’s motion which was to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Under the particular facts of this case, a hearing is necessary to determine whether the mother was served with the order to show cause and petition *(see Kingsland Group v Pose,*296 AD2d 440 [2002]; *Campbell v Johnson,*264 AD2d 461 [1999]). Miller, J.P, Santucci, Goldstein, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Case 2:11-cv-02380-SDW-MCA Document 23 Filed 11/16/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 332
Case 2:11-cv-02380-SDW-MCA Document 23 Filed 11/16/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 333
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 77th District Court of Limestone County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on April 13,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Teddie Davenport v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00281-CR Trial Court Number: 13,188-A

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 13, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on July 7, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite 

Michael E. Patunas 

Mayra V. Tarantino 

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

Telephone: (973) 623-3000 

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872 

alite@litedepalma.com 

mpatunas@litedepalma.com 

mtarantino@litedepalma.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi 

Holdings Co., Ltd. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC., 

 Plaintiffs and 

 Counterclaim Defendants, 

 v. 

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD., 

 Defendants and 

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00760-JAP-TJB 

DECLARATION OF RENITA S. RATHINAM IN SUPPORT OF 

HANMI'S OPENING MARKMAN SUBMISSION 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 132-3 Filed 11/07/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4354
2 

I, Renita S. Rathinam, state and declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney at law in the District of Columbia and an associate of Sughrue 

Mion, PLLC, attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively “Hanmi”). 

2. I submit this declaration in support of Hanmi’s Opening Markman Submission. 

3. True and accurate copies of the exhibits listed in the following table are being 

filed in support of Hanmi’s Opening Markman Submission. 

Exhibit No. Description 

1 Certified copy of U.S. 5,693,818 (HAN0038809-38816) 

2 U.S. 6,875,872 (HAN0027430-27438) 

3 MPEP 2111.03 (HAN0062105-62106) 

4 November 4, 2011 Correspondence Between Renita Rathinam and Joshua 

Rothman re: compromise constructions 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 7th day of November, 2011. 

 _____________________________________ 

 Renita S. Rathinam 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 132-3 Filed 11/07/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4355
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-162969, No. 333-159560, No. 333-151249, No. 333-147607, No. 333-143376,
No. 333-135403, No. 333-125511, No. 333-117651, No. 333-106503 and No. 333-42996) of OmniVision
Technologies, Inc. of our report dated June 29, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Jose, California
June 29, 2011

---



QuickLinks
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ivanhoe Energy Inc.;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 officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a  15(f) and 15d  15(f)) 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.) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c.) 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; andd.) 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 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 officers 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:
 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; andb.) 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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Gerald D. SchiefelbeinGerald D. SchiefelbeinChief Financial Officer
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 56 Filed 01/24/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1223
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 56 Filed 01/24/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1224
#### Latifah El, Appellant, v Isadore Schertz, Defendant, and Mark Klutsman, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 465]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J), dated December 7, 2004, which denied her motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance dated December 12, 2003, and to restore the action to the trial calendar with respect to the defendant Mark Klutsman.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to make a sufficient showing to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance based on unilateral mistake *(see Matter of Frutiger,*29 NY2d 143, 150; *G&S Clam Bar v Melillo,*302 AD2d 492 [2003]; *Karapetyan v Underwood,*287 AD2d 547 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion. Adams, J.P, Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00247 - CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N.A.O. , A CHILD On Appeal from the 64th District Court

Hale County , Texas Trial Court No . A42858 - 1908 , Honorable Danah L. Zirpoli , Presiding



### November 15, 2021 ORDER Before QUINN , C.J. , and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. In its order of termination , t he trial court terminated the parental rights of mother to N.A.O. , a child ; appointed father as possessory conservator of N.A.O. ; and appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as permanent managing conservator of N.A.O. 1 Mother , the Department , and an intervening maternal grandmother , M.S. , filed separate appeal s from the order

. M.S. , however , failed to pay the requisite filing fee.

1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.8. (b) (protection of minor ’ s identity in parental
- rights termination cases).2

By letter of October 14 , 2021 , the c ourt notified M.S. that the filing fee was overdue and that unless she was excused from paying court costs under Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1 , failure to pay the filing fee by October 25 would result in dismissal of the appeal. To date , M.S. has not paid the filing fee or sought leave to proceed without payment of court costs. Because M.S. ha s failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and a notice from the clerk requiring action within a specified time , we dismiss her appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 25.1(b) , 42.3(c). Mother ’ s and the Department ’ s appeals shall continue to disposition.

Per Curiam
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.2

                  (Letterhead of Timothy M. Griffiths, C.P.A.)

Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
450  Fifth  Street,  N.W.

Washington,  D.C.  20549

Re:     Resolve  Staffing,  Inc.
        Form  10-KSB

Gentlemen:

I consent to the incorporation on my report as independent auditor  accompanying
the  audited  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Resolve  Staffing,  Inc.,
formerly Columbialum  Staffing,  Inc., as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for
the years then ended, issued in connection with Resolve Staffing,  Inc.'s annual
report filed with the Securities Act of 1934 under cover of Form 10-KSB

Very  truly  yours,

/s/  Timothy  M.  Griffiths, CPA

Timothy M. Griffiths
Certified Public Accountant
Tampa, Florida

May 20, 2003


<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Edell, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 896]

The County Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 643) (hereinafter the 2005 DLRA). Since the defendant was, at the time of his motion, less than three years from being eligible for release on parole *(see*L 2005, ch 643, § 1; Correction Law § 851 [2]), he did not qualify for resentencing *(see People v Dathan,*48 AD3d 591 [2008]; *People v McCurdy,*46 AD3d 843 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; *People v Corley,*45 AD3d 857 [2007]; *People v Nolasco,*37 AD3d 622 [2007]; *People v Parris,*35 AD3d 891 [2006]; *People v Bautista,*26 AD3d 230 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, the 2005 DLRA does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The statute’s disparate treatment of inmates with different parole eligibility dates “is rationally related to the achievement of the valid state objective of ameliorating the conditions of those A-II offenders facing the longest prison time” *(People v Bautista,*26 AD3d at 230; see *People v Smith,*45 AD3d 1478, 1480 [2007]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) OF THE
                    SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C.1350

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63
of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of Lotus
Bancorp, Inc., that, to his or her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Lotus
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such reports fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of Lotus Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary. This written statement is being
furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form
10-QSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Lotus Bancorp,
Inc. and will be retained by Lotus Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: May 15, 2007


/s/ Satish B. Jasti
-------------------------------------
Satish B. Jasti
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Richard E. Bauer
-------------------------------------
Richard E. Bauer
Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
**EXHIBIT      23.1**

| BAGELL, JOSEPHS               |   |                                             |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
| & COMPANY, L.L.C.         |   |                                             |
| Certified Public Accountants  |   |                                             |
|                               |   | High Ridge Commons                          |
|                               |   | Suites 400-403                              |
|                               |   | 200 Haddonfield Berlin                Road  |
|                               |   | Gibbsboro, New Jersey                08026  |
|                               |   | P: 856-346-2828                             |
|                               |   | F:                856-346-2882              |

| Ref: | Consent                to use of financial statements |
|------|-------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Brian Loughlin et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 122]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered August 30, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ common-law negligence claims for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, police officers who were on restricted duty due to line-of-duty injuries and assigned to a criminal part, were injured during scuffles with violent prisoners. They allege that defendant City was negligent in assigning them to a dangerous duty involving prisoner contact that they were deemed medically unfit to perform, and argue that the firefighter’s rule *(see Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn.,*85 NY2d 423, 438-440 [1995]) does not apply in these circumstances to bar their *400claims of negligence (citing, by way of analogy, inter alia, *Martell v City of Utica,*184 AD2d 1009 [4th Dept 1992] [municipality can be held liable to firefighters for furnishing defective safety equipment]; *but see*General Obligations Law § 11-106 [1] [eff 1996] [police officer can recover for line-of-duty injuries caused by neglect of any person or entity “other than that police officer’s . . . employer or co-employee”]). However, as the motion court found, although plaintiffs were on restricted duty, there is no evidence that such duty precluded prisoner contact; the Police Department surgeons’ reports specifically prohibiting prisoner contact (by only two of the plaintiffs) are dated after the incidents in which plaintiffs were injured. Thus, it does not appear that plaintiffs were deprived of any protections to which they were entitled *(cf. McCormack v City of New York,*80 NY2d 808, 810 [1992] [employer has no duty to furnish state of the art equipment, only equipment that is reasonably safe and suitable for its intended use]). At worst, the assignment was an exercise of poor professional judgment for which the City cannot be held liable *(see id.*at 811; *Flynn v City of New York,*258 AD2d 129, 136-137 [1999]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
#### BRITTING v. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, Inc.

Civ. No. 26177.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

March 24, 1950.

Willard Barry, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Donald M. Marshman, Qeveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury action in which plaintiff served 29 interrogatories upon defendant. Defendant objects to several of the interrogatories on the ground that they request that copies of certain statements and records be attached to the answers to the interrogatories.

These objections are valid even though in most instances the reasons assigned for sustaining them are not.

In effect, plaintiff has attempted to combine Rule 33, Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., which provides for discovery by use of written interrogatories, with Rule 34 which provides for discovery and production of documents. While it may be more convenient to do this, the rules of discovery provide no such procedure. Rule 33 may be used only to discover the existence of documents and things but, before their production can be compelled, the more stringent requirements of Rule 34 must be observed. This has been the consistent policy of this branch of the court. Linko v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 615; Dellameo v. Great Lakes Steamship Co., D.C, 9 F.R.D. 30; Schultz v. Bessemer & L. E. R. Co.1

The objections will be sustained.

1

. No opinion for publication.
#### Phillips *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J. — 1. Under the facts disclosed by the record, there was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

2. ’Where one, by the use of his capital or credit, aids in procuring and furnishing whisky to another for the purpose of being unlawfully sold by. the latter, and it is so sold, and the former, by the agreement for conducting the business, is to receive, and does actually receive, a given per cent, on the cost of all the whisky so furnished and sold, they are both guilty of selling the liquor unlawfully, whether under the terms of such agreement a technical partnership between them existed or not.

3. Where, in sentencing one convicted of a misdemeanor, the court imposes the maximum fine authorized by law for that offense, the punishment is not rendered excessive because the court adjudges that the accused shall also pay, in addition to the fine, the costs of the prosecution.

4. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

October 15,1894.

Indictment for unlawful sale of liquor. Before Judge Cobb. City court of Clarke county. June term, 1894.

G. O. Thomas and J. J. Strickland, for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Case 2:11-cr-00165-KSH Document 56 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 214
Case 2:11-cr-00165-KSH Document 56 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 215