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

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Crim. No. 11-363 (FSH)

v. : O R D E R

GEORGI NIKIFOROV :

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 May 26, 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 24 day of June, 2011, th

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 Counts One and Two of the Information shall be entered. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00363-FSH Document 32 Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 56
EXHIBIT 31.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Charles Driscoll, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viscorp, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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 controls 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: July 12, 2007















/s/ Charles Driscoll





Charles Driscoll









President and Chief Executive Officer
Plaintiff,

ORDER & JUDGMENT

V.

THE COUNTY OF UNION, NEW JERSEY,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt.

No. 40) by plaintiff Tina Renna. United States Magistrate Judge Michael A.

Hammer issued Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 40), awarding Rennaattorneys’ fees in the amount of $39,535.00, plus costs of $550.65. Renna and

the County each filed objections to that report. (Dkt. Nos. 42 and 41,

respectively) I have reviewed the parties’ filings, as well as the entire case

record and considered the matter de riovo without oral argument pursuant to

FED. R. CIV. P. 78. For the reasons stated in an Opinion filed on this date and

for good cause shown:

IT IS this 21st day of April, 2015ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 40) is

ADOPTED insofar as it awards attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. Plaintiff’s

motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. No. 34) is GRANTED and she is AWARDED

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $39,535.00 plus costs of $550.65.

JUDGMENT shall be entered in a total amount of $40,085.65.

Kevin McNulI

United States District Judge
DB Ex 10_35 1st amd master field services agreement


Exhibit 10.35




FIRST AMENDMENT TO
MASTER FIELD SERVICES AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO MASTER FIELD SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of February 21, 2013, by and between DIAMONDBACK E&P LLC (“Operator”) and BISON DRILLING AND FIELD SERVICES LLC (“Contractor”).


RECITALS:


A.    Operator and Contractor are parties to that certain Master Field Services Agreement dated January 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”).


B.    The parties desire to amend the Agreement in the manner hereinafter set forth.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, covenants and conditions herein, and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Operator and Contractor hereby agree as follows:


1.    Compensation.  Exhibit “C” (Rate Schedule - Trailers, Forklifts and Well Spudders Only) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit “C” attached hereto. 


2.    Entire Agreement.  All prior understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment are merged within this Amendment, which alone fully and completely sets forth the understanding of the parties with respect thereto.  This Amendment may not be changed or modified nor may any of its provisions be waived orally or in any manner other than by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, modification or waiver is sought.


3.    Agreement.  Except as herein provided, the Agreement and all off its terms, covenants and conditions remain in full force and effect. 


4.    Execution Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such counterpart hereof shall be deemed to be an original instrument. All such counterparts together shall constitute for all purposes one agreement.


(signature page following)









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Operator and Contractor have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.




	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	OPERATOR:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	DIAMONDBACK E&P LLC
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Travis D. Stice
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Name:
	Travis D. Stice
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	CONTRACTOR:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	BISON DRILLING AND FIELD SERVICES LLC

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Kaes Vanthof
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Name:
	Kaes Vanthof
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer
	 























EXHIBIT “C”


Rate Schedule
(Trailers, Forklifts and Well Spudders Only)


Trailers:


		
	•
	$125 / day




Forklifts:


		
	•
	$100 / day




Well Spudders


		
	•
	$75 / foot


		
	•
	$3,000 / Move in Midland County


		
	•
	$4,000 / Move in Upton County


		
	•
	Note:  Contractor does not currently provide pre-set pricing in any other counties, but there will likely be an agreed-upon move fee for such other counties.


		
	•
	$7,500 / Rathole and Mousehole
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 Quarterly Report of Piedmont Mining Company, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.




Date:  August
      14, 2008By:
      Robert M. Shields,
      Jr.Name:  Robert
      M. Shields, Jr.Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, 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 Piedmont Mining Company, Inc. and will be
retained by Piedmont Mining Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

MARIA LAPADULA, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2616 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF :

CORRECTIONS, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE DEFENDANTS removed this action from state court on May

6, 2011, because the “complaint alleges violations of the

Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United

States Constitution; more specifically, Plaintiff alleges claims

of reckless and deliberate indifference constituting cruel and

unusual punishment”. (Dkt. entry no. 1, Rmv. Not. at 2.) The

plaintiff moved on June 3, 2011, to (1) in effect, withdraw any

claims that may be construed as being asserted pursuant to

federal law, and (2) remand the action. (Dkt. entry no. 3,

Notice of Mot.) If the claims that may be construed as being

asserted pursuant to federal law are withdrawn, then there is no

longer a basis for subject matter jurisdiction here.

THE COURT will decide the motion now without oral argument. 

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). The Court will exercise the discretion

to (1) grant the motion, (2) dismiss any claims that may be 

Case 3:11-cv-02616-MLC-DEA Document 4 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 97
construed as being asserted pursuant to federal law, and (3)

remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court will issue an appropriate

order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 6, 2011

2

Case 3:11-cv-02616-MLC-DEA Document 4 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 98
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 Quarterly Report of Grace 5, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for three month period ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Virginia K.
      Sourlis, 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 results of operations of the Company.




Dated: October
                7, 2008
            
            /s/ Virginia K. SourlisVirginia K. Sourlis
              Chief
                Executive Officer and
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal Executive Officer)
              (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Rafael Villanueva et al., Respondents, v Professional Environmental Systems, Inc., Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 152]

The injured plaintiff allegedly was struck by a sheet of loose plywood while inspecting the roof of his employer’s building. Pursuant to a contract with the injured plaintiffs employer, the defendant had been replacing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units on the roof of the building, and it had left various materials, including plywood, on the roof of the building. The injured plaintiff alleged that heavy wind was blowing on the day of the accident.

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant adequately secured its equipment. Since the defendant never met its initial burden as the movant, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.
S05A1641.

#### DAVIS v. WILSON.

(622 SE2d 325)

SEARS, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Gerald Davis, appeals from the trial court’s ruling that his petition for mandamus relief was moot. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

In April 2004, Davis was indicted for speeding and weaving, and he filed a demand for speedy trial under OCGA § 17-7-170. In December 2004, Davis filed a motion for discharge and acquittal, contending that the State had not complied with his demand for speedy trial. On January 4, 2005, the appellee, Judge Thomas H. Wilson, entered an order of nolle prosequi on Davis’s case. In March 2005, Davis filed the present petition for writ of mandamus in which he prayed that the court issue an order directing Judge Wilson to enter an order on his motion for discharge and acquittal. In June 2005, the trial court ruled that Davis’s petition for writ of mandamus was moot because of the entry of the nolle prosequi.

Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, however, the entry of a nolle prosequi does not render moot a defendant’s motion for discharge and acquittal based on the State’s failure to comply with a demand for speedy trial.1 One reason for this rule is that, after a nolle prosequi, the State may reindict a defendant for the crimes at issue “within the applicable statute of limitation, or within six months after the entry of the nolle pros if that occurs later.”2 Thus, here, the State still has the authority to reindict Davis for speeding and weaving.3

For these reasons, the trial court erred by ruling that the nolle prosequi rendered Davis’s petition for writ of mandamus moot. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for the trial court to consider other issues regarding Davis’s request for *30mandamus relief which have not been developed on the record due to the trial court’s ruling that Davis’s mandamus petition was moot.4

Decided November 21, 2005.

*Herbert Shafer,*for appellant.

*Richard G. Milam, District Attorney, James L. Moss, Jr., Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

*Coker v. State,*181 Ga. App. 559, 560 (353 SE2d 56) (1987); *Ciprotti v. State,*187 Ga. App. 61, 63 (369 SE2d 337) (1988); *Bond v. State,*212 Ga. App. 608, 609-610 (442 SE2d 482) (1994); *Day v. State,*216 Ga. App. 29, 30 (453 SE2d 73) (1994).

2

*Carlisle v. State,*277 Ga. 99, 101 (586 SE2d 240) (2003).

3

 See OCGA§ 17-3-1 (d) (statute of limitation on misdemeanors is two years).

4

 These issues include the appellee’s contention that Davis did not properly serve his demand for speedy trial on the trial judge to whom his criminal case was assigned, as required by OCGA§ 17-7-170 (a).
Andrew J. Miller (amiller@buddlarner.com)

Alan H. Pollack (apollack@buddlarner.com)

Dmitry Shelhoff (dshelhoff@buddlarner.com)

Budd Larner, P.C.

150 John F. Kennedy Parkway

Short Hills, NJ 07078

(973) 379-4800

Attorneys for Defendants

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HORIZON PHARMA, INC. and POZEN

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.

AND DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,

LTD.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:11-02317 (MLC) (DEA)

Civil Action No. 3:13-00091 (MLC) (DEA)

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

MOTION DATE: August 3, 2015

Oral Argument Requested

NOTICE OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,

LTD. AND DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.

FOR THEIR SECOND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,926,907

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 3, 2015, or as soon thereafter as counsel may

be heard, the undersigned attorneys for Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., and Dr. Reddy’s

Laboratories, Inc., (collectively “DRL”) will move before the Honorable Mary L. Cooper, United States District Judge, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1, for an

Order granting DRL summary judgment that none of the claims of United States Patent No.

Case 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA Document 347 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8158
2

6,926,907 has been or can be infringed by the importation, manufacture, use, sale and/or offer for

sale of DRL’s naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium delayed release tablet product as set forth

in DRL’s ANDA No. 204206 and that such importation, manufacture, use, sale and/or offer for

sale of DRL’s naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium delayed release tablet product as set forth

in DRL’s ANDA No. 204206 would not induce or contribute to the infringement of any of the

claims of United States Patent No. 6,926,907. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this motion, DRL will rely

upon its Memorandum of Law, DRL’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts, the

declaration of Ellen T. Lowenthal with its exhibits, and DRL’s reply papers, if any. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 7.1(e) of the Local Rules

of the District of New Jersey, a proposed form of order is being submitted concurrently with this

motion.

DATED: July 9, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alan H. Pollack

Andrew J. Miller (amiller@buddlarner.com)

Alan H. Pollack (apollack@buddlarner.com)

Dmitry Shelhoff (dshelhoff@buddlarner.com)

BUDD LARNER, P.C.

150 John F. Kennedy Parkway

Short Hills, New Jersey 07078

Tel: (973) 379-4800

Attorneys for Defendants and

Counterclaim Plaintiffs

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.

and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc

01050192.w

Case 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA Document 347 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 8159
Exhibit 4

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM Document 469-7 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 19901
Page 1 of 2 pages

Jordan Connors

Partner

Seattle

(206) 516-3814

jconnors@susmangodfrey.com

Overview

Jordan Connors is a commercial litigator with a nationwide practice litigating cases in both state and

federal court. Mr. Connors has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of highstakes commercial cases, including patent infringement, antitrust, bankruptcy, class action, trusts and

estates, securities fraud, and false advertising matters. Law & Politics Magazine, published by Thomson

Reuters, has named Mr. Connors a “Rising Star” every year since 2013; an honor bestowed on 2.5

percent of attorneys in the state of Washington for “demonstrated excellence in the practice of law.”

Education

Stanford University (B.A., Public Policy, 2003)

Columbia Law School (J.D., 2008)

Judicial Clerkship

Law Clerk to The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California (2008-2009)

Honors and Distinctions

Whitney North Seymour Medal for Columbia Law student who shows greatest promise of becoming a

distinguished trial advocate (2007)

Senior Editor, Columbia Law Review (2007-2008)

Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Finalist (2008)

Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar (2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008)

Ann C. Seminara Award in Public Policy (2003)

Articles

“Treating Like Subdecisions Alike: The Scope of Stare Decisis as Applied to Judicial Methodology,”

108Colum. L. Rev. 681 (2008)

“Of All the Arms, of All the Men, of All the Teams That Play,” Seattle Times, July 24, 2009

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM Document 469-7 Filed 06/21/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 19902
Page 2 of 2 pages

Professional Associations and Memberships

Washington State Bar

Federal Bar Association for the Western District of Washington

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM Document 469-7 Filed 06/21/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 19903
Exhibit 13.1



Certification of CEO 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 on Form 20-F of Clicksoftware
Technologies Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Dr. Moshe BenBassat, as Chief Executive Officer of 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, to the best of his
knowledge:

(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/ Dr. Moshe BenBassat
Name:   Dr. Moshe BenBassat
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:   April 10, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.