alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32   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
Gulf & Orient Steamship Company, Ltd. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Michael Vardakis,
President, and Melissa Ladakis, Secretary and Treasurer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quartelry 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date: May 12, 2009By: /s/Michael Vardakis Michael Vardakis, President and Director  Date: May 12, 2009By:
/s/Melissa Ladakis Melissa Ladakis, Secretary, Treasurer and
Director
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 

January 9, 2013 

VIA ECF 

Hon. 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-cv-00760 (JAP)(TJB) 

Dear Judge Bongiovanni, 

We, along with Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, represent the AstraZeneca 

Plaintiffs in this case. We are in receipt of yesterday’s letter to the Court on behalf 

of Hanmi. We are available, at the Court’s convenience, to discuss the scheduling 

issues raised in that letter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/John E. Flaherty 

John E. Flaherty 

cc: Counsel of record (via email) 

 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 265 Filed 01/09/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 9839
Exhibit 21

                              List of Subsidiaries


      Subsidiary                        State of Incorporation         D/B/A
      ----------                        ----------------------         -----

1. PBM Technology, Inc.                         Delaware

2. Interchange PMP, Inc.                        Oklahoma

3. Pharmacy Associates, Inc.                    Arkansas

4. Specialty Pharmacy Care, Inc.                New York

5. Centrus Corporation                          Delaware

6. NMHCRX Contracts, Inc.                       Delaware

7. NMHC Funding, LLC                            Delaware

8. National Medical Health Card IPA, Inc.       New York             NMHCRX IPA

9. NMHCRX, Inc.                                 Delaware

10. NMHCRX Mail Order, Inc.                     Delaware             NMHC Mail

11. Integrail Inc.                              Delaware

12. Ascend Specialty Pharmacy Services, Inc.    Delaware

13. Portland Professional Pharmacy              Maine

14. Portland Professional Pharmacy Associates   Maine
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 28, 2015

d0518 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2015

149854(85)

VIRGINIA DIANE HASKELL,

Plaintiff/Counter

- Defendant

- Appellee,

v SC: 149854

COA: 314043

Newaygo CC: 11

- 019670

- CZ

PAUL P. TUROWSKI and SHARON L.

TUROWSKI,

Defendants/Counter

- Plaintiffs/Third

- Party

Plaintiffs/Cross Defendants

- Appellants,

and

NEWAYGO COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,

Defendant,

v

JOSEPH SELLA,

Third

- Party Defendant/

Cross Plaintiff

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 28,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously

.
20. Persons at work 1 to 34 hours in all and in nonagricultural industries by reason for working less than 35 hours

and usual full- or part-time status

(Numbers in thousands)

Reason for working less than 35 hours

2005

All industries Nonagricultural industries

Total

Usually

 work

full time

Usually

 work

part time

Total

Usually

 work

full time

Usually

 work

part time

 Total, 16 years and over ................................................................... 32,268 9,983 22,285 31,717 9,818 21,900

Economic reasons ................................................................................ 4,350 1,556 2,794 4,271 1,504 2,766

 Slack work or business conditions ...................................................... 2,684 1,294 1,390 2,636 1,260 1,376

 Could only find part-time work ............................................................ 1,341 – 1,341 1,330 – 1,330

 Seasonal work .................................................................................... 188 125 63 169 109 60

 Job started or ended during week ...................................................... 137 137 – 136 136 –

Noneconomic reasons .......................................................................... 27,918 8,427 19,491 27,447 8,313 19,134

 Child-care problems ........................................................................... 791 72 719 787 72 715

 Other family or personal obligations ................................................... 5,558 745 4,813 5,469 734 4,735

 Health or medical limitations ............................................................... 806 – 806 784 – 784

 In school or training ............................................................................ 6,237 98 6,138 6,180 97 6,083

 Retired or Social Security limit on earnings ........................................ 2,095 – 2,095 1,980 – 1,980

 Vacation or personal day .................................................................... 3,431 3,431 – 3,395 3,395 –

 Holiday, legal or religious ................................................................... 901 901 – 895 895 –

 Weather-related curtailment ............................................................... 513 513 – 485 485 –

 All other reasons ................................................................................. 7,588 2,668 4,920 7,472 2,635 4,837

Average hours:

Economic reasons .............................................................................. 23.0 23.8 22.5 23.0 23.8 22.5

 Other reasons ..................................................................................... 21.5 25.2 19.8 21.5 25.3 19.9

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2005, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet

publication criteria.

239
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# mniteb**~tate5** 

# <!Court of**~eaI5** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberaI <!Circuit

TECSEC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, AND 

### CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., SAS INSTITUTE, INC., SAPAMERICA, INC., SAP, AG, SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., ORACLE CORPORATION,

SYBASE, INC., SOFTWARE AG, SOFTWAREAG,

INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., EBAY INC., AND 

### PAYPAL, INC., Defendants.

2011-1303 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia in case no. 10-CV-0115, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.
TECSEC, INC.,TECSEC v. INTL BUSINESS MACHINES 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

### v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, AND 

### CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., SAS INSTITUTE, INC., SAPAMERICA, INC., SAP, AG, SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., ORACLE CORPORATION,

SYBASE, INC., SOFTWARE AG, SOFTWAREAG,

INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., EBAY INC., AND 

### PAYPAL, INC., Defendants.

2011-1345 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia in case no. 10-CV-0115, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.


### ONMOTION
ORDER International Business Machines Corporation moves to dismiss its cross-appeal. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDEREDTHAT: (1) The motion to dismiss 2011-1345 is granted. Each side shallbearits own costs in 2011-1345.3 TECSEC v. INTL BUSINESS MACHINES (2) The revised official caption for 2011-1303 is reflected above.


### ,Jut 

## 25 2011 Date

cc: BrianM. Buroker, Esq. John M. Desmarais, Esq. s21 FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

IssuedAs A Mandate (As To 2011-1345 Only): 

## .Dn 25 2011

-FILED II.S. COURTOFAPPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

### JUL 25 2011

JANHOR8AI.Y 

### CLERK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 10) 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

___________________________________

:

H&R BLOCK BANK, :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil No. 11-3358 (RBK/KMW)

:

v. : ORDER

:

JBW HOLDINGS, LLC, JAMES B. :

WILSON, and JOANN L. CABALLERO, :

:

Defendant. :

___________________________________ :

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the motion of H&R Block Bank

(“Plaintiff”) for entry of final judgment by default against JBW Holdings, LLC, James B.

Wilson, and Joann L. Caballero (“Defendants”), and the Court having considered the Plaintiff’s

unopposed moving papers; and

IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that Plaintiff has filed for entry of final judgment

of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2); and

IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that default as to Defendants was

entered by the Clerk on August 10, 2011; and

IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that some of the Defendants are

individuals; and

THE COURT NOTING that, “[w]here the defaulting defendant is an individual, the

plaintiff must satisfy the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by submitting an affidavit of

Case 1:11-cv-03358-RBK-KMW Document 14 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 127
nonmilitary service,” New Jersey Federal Civil Procedure 17-3:3.1 (eds. Robert E. Bartkus and

Elizabeth J. Sher, 2011); and

THE COURT NOTING that Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that

Defendants are not members of the military;

THE COURT FINDING that Plaintiff’s allegation is insufficient to satisfy the

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 501 et seq. ;

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for entry of final judgment by

default is DENIED.

Dated: 2/23/12 /s/ Robert B. Kugler 

ROBERT B. KUGLER

 United States District Judge

For an affidavit to be sufficient, movant must contact “the various military services . . . 1

and [obtain] a certificate . . . from each of them confirming a defendant’s nonmilitary service.”

New Jersey Federal Civil Procedure 17-3:3.1 (eds. Robert E. Bartkus and Elizabeth J. Sher,

2011). 

Case 1:11-cv-03358-RBK-KMW Document 14 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 128
#### Dilberto *v.*Harris.

Simmons, J. — The proprietor of a barber-shop kept for public patronage is liable to a customer for the value of his hat, which was deposited on a hat-rack in the shop and which, while the customer was being shaved, disappeared from the shop and was thus lost, such proprietor being, under these facts, a bailee'for hire as to the customer’s hat.

Bleckley, O. J., dissenting. — It hath never happened from the earliest times to the present, that barbers, who are an ancient order of small craftsmen serving their customers for a small fee, and entertaining them the while with the small gossip of the town oí*572village, have been held responsible for a mistake made by one customer whereby he taketh the hat of another from the common rack or hanging place appointed for all customers to hang their hats, this rack or place being in the same room in which customers sit to be shaved. The reason is, that there is no complete bailment of the hat; the barber hath no exclusive custody thereof, and the fee for shaving is too small to compensate him for keeping a servant to watch it. He himself could not watch it and at the same time shave the owner. Moreover, the value of an ordinary gentleman’s hat is so much in proportion to the fee for shaving, that to make the barber an insurer against such mistakes of his customers would be unreasonable. The loss of one hat would absorb his earnings for a whole day, perhaps for many days. The barber is a craftsman laboring for wages, not a capitalist conducting a business of trade, or trust.

*571
      *Judgment affirmed.*

*572October 15, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Bartlett. Bibb superior court. November term, 1893.

The suit was on an account for “ one black derby hat of the value of $5.” Plaintiff testified, that he entered defendant’s barber-shop to be shaved, and gave his coat and hat to a little boy who placed them on the rack with coats and hats of other men being shaved. After being shaved, plaintiff' discovered that his hat had been taken and another like it but of different size left in its place. On defendant’s attention being called, he stated that he would use every effort to recover the hat taken. Some days afterward, plaintiff' called on defendant, and finding that his own hat had not been recovered, and that the other was still in defendant’s possession, demanded that defendant either get him another hat or pay him the value of it; which was refused. Plaintiff' paid $5 for a hat he bought to replace the one he lost. Defendant testified, that he had no control of the missing hat, and that it was not delivered to him nor to the boy (who was not in the shop when plaintiff' came in), but was put on the rack by plaintiff'. Defendant and his employees were then engaged in shaving customers, all the chairs being occupied. As soon as one was va*573cated, plaintiff took it and was shaved, and upon leaving'it, claimed that his hat was not among those left on the rack.

.Verdict for plaintiff".was sustained on *certiorari.*

Freeman & Griswold, for plaintiff" in error.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF CLARKSON S. FISHER U.S. COURTHOUSE

DOUGLAS E. ARPERT 402 E. STATE STREET, ROOM 6000

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TRENTON, NJ 08608

609-989-2144

July 2, 2013

Elina Slavin, Esquire Alan H. Pollack, Esquire

John E. Flaherty, Esquire Budd Larner, PC

McCarter & English, L.L.P. 150 John F. Kennedy Parkway

100 Mulberry Street CN 1000

Four Gateway Center Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999

Newark, NJ 07102

RE: Astrazenenca AB, et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., et al.

Civil Action No. 11-2317 (JAP)

Dear Counsel,

I have discussed the substance of your recent correspondence dated June 26 and 

28, 2013, with Judge Pisano. He has asked me to have you direct your dispute concerning his

claim construction in this matter to his attention. To that end, I suggest that you resubmit

your letters directly to Judge Pisano. Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

s/ Douglas E. Arpert 

DOUGLAS E. ARPERT

United States Magistrate Judge

DEA:rjh

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 153 Filed 07/02/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 5601
-2-

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 153 Filed 07/02/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 5602
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5005

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2004, for additional disaster assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

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

Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

Considered under suspension of the rules and passed 

A BILL

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2004, for additional disaster 

assistance.

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

3 That the following sums are appropriated, out of any 

4 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 

5 fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, to provide emer6 gency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster 

7 assistance, namely: 
2

HR 5005 CPH 

1 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

2 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE 

3 DISASTER RELIEF

4 For an additional amount for ‘‘Disaster Relief’’, 

5 $2,000,000,000, to remain available until expended, of 

6 which up to $30,000,000 may be transferred to ‘‘SMALL

7 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION—SALARIES AND EX8 PENSES’’, for administrative expenses to carry out the dis9 aster loans program authorized by section 7(b) of the 

10 Small Business Act: Provided, That the amounts provided 

11 herein are designated as an emergency requirement pursu12 ant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), 

13 as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. 

14 Res. 649 (108th Congress) and applicable to the Senate 

15 by section 14007 of Public Law 108–287. 

16 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Supple17 mental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2004’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Brown, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 753]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 26, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Those portions of the prosecutor’s summation that defendant characterizes as vouching generally constituted fair comment on the evidence made in response to defense arguments *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Defendant’s remaining contentions regarding the prosecutor’s summation and the court’s charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal *(see People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv*
      *387
      *denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
#### SUNG ILL KIM; Jung Suk Kim, a.k.a. Jung Suk Chun; Young Woo Kim, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-71554.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Claire Kim, Esquire, Law Offices of Claire H. Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sung Ill Kim and family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen is time- and number-barred and that they do not qualify for equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Mejiar-Hernandez v. Holder,*633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are rejected.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1140 

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the treatment 

under section 351(k)(7) of such Act (relating to exclusivity for reference 

products) of certain products deemed to have a biological product license 

pursuant to section 7002 of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Ms. SMITH (for herself and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 

the treatment under section 351(k)(7) of such Act (relating to exclusivity for reference products) of certain products deemed to have a biological product license pursuant 

to section 7002 of the Biologics Price Competition and 

Innovation Act of 2009. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Access to 

5 Biosimilars Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1140 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS DEEMED 

2 LICENSED. 

3 Section 351(k)(7) of the Public Health Service Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 262(k)(7)) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) DEEMED LICENSES.— 

7 ‘‘(i) NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIVITY

8 THROUGH DEEMING.—An approved appli9 cation that is deemed to be a license for a 

10 biological product under this section pursu11 ant to section 7002(e)(4) of the Biologics 

12 Price Competition and Innovation Act of 

13 2009 shall not be treated as having been 

14 first licensed under subsection (a) for pur15 poses of subparagraphs (A) and (B). 

16 ‘‘(ii) LIMITATION ON EXCLUSIVITY AP17 PLIES TO ANY REFERENCE PRODUCT.— 

18 Subparagraph (C) shall apply to any ref19 erence product, without regard to wheth20 er— 

21 ‘‘(I) such product was first li22 censed under subsection (a); or 

23 ‘‘(II) the approved application for 

24 such product was deemed to be a liVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:36 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1140.IS S1140

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1140 IS

1 cense for a biological product as de2 scribed in clause (i).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS