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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5276

To require that a conversion to contractor performance of an activity or 

function of the Federal Government may not result in the loss of employment of any Federal worker with a severe disability employed in that 

activity or function. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BACA, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. 

DELAHUNT, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FARR, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. 

FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. FROST, Mr. GORDON, Mr. GREEN of 

Texas, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, 

Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. KIND, Ms. LEE, Ms. 

MCCARTHY of Missouri, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. 

NADLER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. 

PAYNE, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. 

RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SERRANO, 

Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To require that a conversion to contractor performance of 

an activity or function of the Federal Government may 

not result in the loss of employment of any Federal 

worker with a severe disability employed in that activity 

or function.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5276 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disabled Federal Em3 ployees Protection Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TERMINATING EMPLOYMENT OF 

5 FEDERAL WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES EM6 PLOYED IN ACTIVITY OR FUNCTION CON7 VERTED TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—In the case of a conversion to 

9 contractor performance of any activity or function of an 

10 executive agency under Office of Management and Budget 

11 Circular A–76 or any other policy, directive, or regulation, 

12 including any Most Efficient Organization plan, the head 

13 of the executive agency may not terminate the employment 

14 of any employee in that activity or function if—

15 (1) the employee is an individual with a dis16 ability (as defined in section 7(20)(A) of the Reha17 bilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(20)(A)); and 

18 (2) the employee was hired under a plan or pro19 gram designated for hiring individuals with such dis20 ability. 

21 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

22 an activity or function that is planned to be changed to 

23 performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind 

24 or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other severely handi25 capped persons in accordance with the Javits-Wagner26 O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c), if each employee covered 
3

•HR 5276 IH 

1 by subsection (a) is offered another position with the Fed2 eral Government, or with the nonprofit agency that will 

3 perform the activity or function, that is equivalent to the 

4 position previously held by the employee before the change 

5 to performance by the nonprofit agency.

Æ
John E. Flaherty

Partner 

T. 973.639.7903 

F. 973.297.3971 

jflaherty@mccarter.com 

McCarter & English, LLP 

Four Gateway Center 

100 Mulberry Street 

Newark, NJ 07102-4056 

T. 973.622.4444 

F. 973.624.7070 

www.mccarter.com 

BOSTON

HARTFORD 

NEW YORK 

NEWARK 

PHILADELPHIA 

STAMFORD 

WILMINGTON 

July 3, 2012 

VIA ECF 

The Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. 

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey 

Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse 

402 East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08608 

Re: AstraZeneca AB, et al. v. Hanmi USA, Inc. et al.

Civ. Action No. 11-0760 (JAP)(TJB) 

Dear Magistrate Judge Bongiovanni: 

We, along with Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto and Covington & Burling LLP 

represent the Plaintiffs in this action. As discussed during yesterday’s telephone 

conference with Your Honor, we write on behalf of all parties requesting the Court to 

order the following schedule: 

Event Proposed Schedule

Parties’ Disclosure of Reliance on 

Advice of Counsel (L.Pat.R. 3.8) 10/15/2012 

Close of Fact Discovery 11/20/2012 

Opening Expert Reports 12/7/2012 

Responsive Expert Reports 1/11/2013 

Rebuttal Expert Reports 2/1/2013 

Expert Depositions Commence 2/4/2013 

Expert Depositions End 3/4/2013 

Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures Subject to the Court’s 

preferences 

Rule 26(a)(3) Objections Subject to the Court’s 

preferences 

Deadline for Pretrial Motions Subject to the Court’s 

preferences 

Response to Pretrial Motions Subject to the Court’s 

preferences 

Pretrial Conference/Pretrial Motions 

Hearing 

Subject to the Court’s 

preferences 

Trial April 2013 (Dates to be 

determined) 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 229 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8689
Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. 

Page 2 

All parties in this action agree to this schedule and it also reflects the same dates 

proposed in AstraZeneca et al. v. Mylan et al., Civil Action No. 12-01378 through the 

end of expert discovery (March 4, 2013). 

If the proposed dates are agreeable to the Court, the parties request that Your 

Honor so order this letter and have it entered on the docket.

Respectfully submitted, 

s/John E. Flaherty

John E. Flaherty 

cc (via ECF): 

 mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com 

 mboland@sughrue.com 

jscherling@sughrue.com 

rrathinam@sughrue.com 

keetos@skgf.com 

ryoo@sughrue.com 

 

SO ORDERED this _____ day of July 2012 

_______________________________________ 

 Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. 

FCHS_WS 7899086v4.doc 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 229 Filed 07/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 8690
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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













In
      connection with the Annual Report of CTT International Distributors Inc. (“CTT”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amit
      Sankhala, President and Chief Executive Officer of CTT and a member of the
      Board
      of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of the Company.










*/s/
      Amit Sankhala*





Amit
      Sankhala


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      30,
      2006




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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













In
      connection with the Annual Report of CTT International Distributors Inc. (“CTT”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amit
      Sankhala, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of CTT, certify,
      pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
        condition and result of operations of the Company.
  
 
 */s/
        Amit Sankhala*
 
 Amit
        Sankhala
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 March
        30,
        2006
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 28, 2015

NO. 03-14-00468-CR

Mitchell Hollis Wright, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the trial court. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in the 

court’s judgment requiring reversal. However, there was error in the judgment that requires 

correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the “Statute 

for Offense” is “31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) Penal Code.” The judgment, as modified, is affirmed. 

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Case 3:06-cr-00935-PGS Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 320
Case 3:06-cr-00935-PGS Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 321
#### In the Matter of Luis A.-S. Gabriel Rolando A., Appellant; Margarita S. et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 198]

In a proceeding for the guardianship of a minor pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered December 21, 2005, which dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The child who is the subject of this proceeding is a Guatemalan national who entered the United States illegally when he was 17 years old. The petitioner, a New York State resident with whom the child now resides, is his uncle. The petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking appointment as the child’s guardian, alleging that the child’s parents, who remain in Guatemala, neglected, abandoned, and abused the child. The Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the child had entered the United States illegally, and that any remedy he might seek must be pursued in federal court. Two days after the Family Court’s ruling, the child reached the age of 18 years.

The Family Court had jurisdiction to consider the petition, since the child was domiciled in Orange County or had “sojourned therein immediately preceding the application” (SCPA 1702 [1]; *see*Family Ct Act § 661; *Matter of Kummer,*93 AD2d 135, 167-169 [1983]; *cf. Matter of Moncrieffe,*121 Misc 2d 395 [1983]), and thus it incorrectly concluded that the child’s immigration status presented an impediment to the exercise of *794that jurisdiction *(see*8 USC § 1101 [a] [27] [J] [i], [ii]; 8 CFR 204.11 [c] [l]-[6]; *Gao v Jenifer,*185 F3d 548, 554 [1999]; *Matter of Juvenile,*148 NH 743, 747-748, 813 A2d 1197, 1201-1202 [2002]; *F.L.M. v Department of Children & Families, State of Fla.,*912 So 2d 1264, 1267-1268 [2005]; *cf. Matter of Adoption of Peggy,*436 Mass 690, 699, 767 NE2d 29, 37-38 [2002], *cert denied sub nom. S.T. v Massachusetts Dept, of Social Servs.,*537 US 1020 [2002]; *Matter of Rummer, supra).*However, the authority of the Family Court to appoint a guardian extends only to the person or property of a “minor,” defined as a person not yet 18 years of age *(see*Family Ct Act § 119 [c]; § 661). As a general rule, the appointment of a guardian for a minor expires when the subject child reaches the age of majority *(see*SCPA 1707 [2]; Family Ct Act § 661; *Matter of Mede,*177 Misc 2d 974, 979-980 [1998]). This appeal was therefore rendered academic when the child reached 18 years of age, and must be dismissed as such, since there is no basis upon which the relief requested in the petition can now be granted.

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Crirn. No. 11-282 (DMC)

v.

HONORABLE DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.

ALFRED HERNANDEZ,

CONSENT ORDERTO

Defendant. : AMEND PRETRIAL

RELEASE CONDITIONS

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the application of Defendant Alfred

Hernandez (Candace Horn, Assistant Federal Public Defender, appearing) for an order modifying

bail conditions in this matter, and the Government (Kathleen O’Leary, Assistant United States

Attorney, appearing), and U.S. Pretrial Services having no objection to Mr. Hernandez’s request;

and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this /J day of May 2012,

HEREBY ORDERED that the bail conditions previously imposed upon Mr. Hernandez

are modified as follows: U.S. Pretrial Services is ordered to release Mr. Hernandez’s passport to

him for the limited purpose ofrenewing his state-issued identification card, and Mr. Hernandez is

to return the passport to U.S. Pretrial Services as soon as his identification card is renewed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other bail conditions remain the same.

HONORABLE DENNIS . ANAUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00282-SDW Document 21 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 56
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00846-CR

David Villarreal, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3031484, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant’s brief was originally due July 3, 2006. The time for filing was extended

three times on counsel’s motion. On September 20, in granting the third extension, the Court

ordered appellant’s appointed attorney, Mr. Walter C. Prentice, to file a brief on appellant’s behalf

no later than October 2, 2006. Counsel did not file a brief as ordered.

The appeal is abated. The district court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether

the attorney it appointed to represent appellant has abandoned the appeal. Tex. R. App. P.

38.8(b)(2). The court shall make appropriate findings, recommendations, and orders. If necessary,

the court shall appoint substitute counsel who will effectively represent appellant on appeal. A

record from this hearing, including copies of all findings and orders and a transcription of the court
2

reporter’s notes, shall be forwarded to the Clerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental record no

later than November 17, 2006. Rule 38.8(b)(3).

____________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: October 18, 2006

Do Not Publish
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 11724 Filed 05/19/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 171421 Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 05/19/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 11724 Filed 05/19/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 171422 Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 05/19/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 11724 Filed 05/19/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 171423 Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 05/19/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 3
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 11724 Filed 05/19/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 171424 Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 05/19/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 4
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 11724 Filed 05/19/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 171425 Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 05/19/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 5
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 11724 Filed 05/19/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 171426 Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 1 Filed 05/19/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 6
Case 3:11-mj-02503-DEA   Document 9   Filed 04/29/11   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 14

Case 3:11-mj-02503-DEA   Document 9   Filed 04/29/11   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 15

Case 3:11-mj-02503-DEA   Document 9   Filed 04/29/11   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 16
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5053 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5053

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 1475 Western Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New York, as the 
                ``Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2004

 Mr. McNulty introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 1475 Western Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New York, as the 
                ``Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT JOHN F. FINN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1475 Western Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Lieutenant 
John F. Finn Post Office.
                                 <all>
```
# 2010-17 Comparable Categories

# Older Comparable Categories
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SAN FRANCISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

PFIZER INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 10-5597 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

TRANSFER

Docket 16 

Plaintiff San Francisco Technology, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) brings the instant action as a 

qui tam relator against Defendant Pfizer Inc. (“Defendant”) for false marking under the 

Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 292(a). In particular, Plaintiff claims that, in violation of section 

292(a), Defendant falsely marked certain Advil Ibuprofen Caplets (“Advil Products”) with 

an expired patent number with the intent to deceive the public. Defendant’s wholly-owned 

subsidiary Wyeth LLC (“Wyeth”) is responsible for marking the Advil Products. 

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, Alternatively, to Transfer 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The gravamen of Defendant’s motion to dismiss is that 

Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 

failed to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b). As an alternative motion, 

Defendant requests that the Court transfer the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the 

District of New Jersey, where Wyeth is headquartered and the relevant witnesses and 

Case 2:11-cv-03865-JLL-MAH Document 29 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 385
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

documents are located. Plaintiff counters that its Complaint is sufficiently pled, but in any 

event, it should be allowed leave to amend to cure any deficiencies found by the Court. 

However, Plaintiff responds that it “does not oppose Pfizer’s request to transfer the case to 

the District of New Jersey.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 2. In consideration of Plaintiff’s non-opposition 

to Defendant’s motion to transfer this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and finding good 

cause to grant Defendant’s alternative motion to transfer venue, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s alternative motion to transfer venue 

to the District of New Jersey is GRANTED. The Court declines to reach Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss, which is denied without prejudice to renewal in the transferee court. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 20, 2011 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:11-cv-03865-JLL-MAH Document 29 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 386
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1


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

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended October 31, 2002 (the "Report") by Forgent Networks, Inc.
("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.  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
         Registrant.


                                 /s/ RICHARD N. SNYDER
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Richard N. Snyder
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 December 16, 2002


                                 /s/ JAY C. PETERSON
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Jay C. Peterson
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 December 16, 2002



                                       25
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 17-1653

_________________

JENNIFER L. KASILAG; LOUIS MELLINGER; JUDITH M. MENENDEZ; 

JACQUELINE M. ROBINSON; COURTNEY RUSSELL; DENNIS RUSSELL; DARIN 

DUDEK; THE KONRAD D. KOHL TRUST by Konrad D. Kohl, III, as Trustee, on 

behalf of and for the benefit of the Hartford Healthcare Fund; The Hartford Conservative 

Allocation Fund; The Hartford Inflation Plus Fund; The Hartford Balanced Fund; The 

Hartford Capital Appreciation Fund; The Hartford Floating Rate Fund

v.

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC;

HARTFORD FUNDS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

 Jennifer Kasilag; Louis Melliger: Judith Menendez;

 Jacqueline Robinson; Courtney Russell; Dennis Russell;

 and K.D. Kohl Trust, on behalf of the Hartford Healthcare Fund;

 Hartford Inflation Plus Fund; Hartford Balanced Fund; Hartford

 Capital Appreciation Fund; Hartford Growth Opportunities Fund;

 and the Hartford Floating Rate Fund,

 Appellants

 _________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 1-11-cv-01083, No. 1-14-cv-01611, and No. 1-15-cv-01876)

District Judge: Hon. Renee M. Bumb

_________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 8, 2018

Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 267 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 12743
_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

This cause came to be considered from the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey and was submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 8, 

2018. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this 

Court that the order of the District Court entered on February 28, 2017 dismissing the 

Petitioner’s case is AFFIRMED. Costs shall be taxed against the Appellant. All of the 

above in accordance with the Opinion of this Court. 

Attest:

s/Patricia S. Dodszuweit

Clerk

DATED: August 14, 2018

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 267 Filed 08/15/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 12744
Case 2:11-cr-00429-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/23/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 45
Case 2:11-cv-04073-JLL -MAH   Document 36    Filed 02/17/12   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 235

Case 2:11-cv-04073-JLL -MAH   Document 36    Filed 02/17/12   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 236
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

OFFICE: TRENTON DATE: November 9, 2015

JUDGE MARY L. COOPER 

COURT REPORTER: n/a

TITLE OF CASE: CV11-3962(MLC) 

HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. 

v.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD., et al. 

 

APPEARANCES:

Charles Lizza, Esq., for plaintiffs

Mayra Tarantino, Esq., for defendant TEVA

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Status conference via telephone held in chambers. (Off the record.)

TIME COMMENCED: 2:00pm 

TIME ADJOURNED: 2:20pm 

TOTAL TIME: 20 minutes 

s/Elizabeth Heffner

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA Document 356 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 21344