of [the defendant’s] business.” Id. (quoting Armco Steel Co., L.P. v. CSX Corp., 790 F.Supp. 311, 320 (D.D.C.1991)). However, physical presence in the District is not a prerequisite to finding that a defendant transacted business here “if the defendant’s conduct is aimed at or has an effect in the forum state.” GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343, 1349 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1321 (9th Cir.1998)). But, the Circuit Court held in GTE that conclusory allegations by the plaintiff that it lost revenue as a consequence of the defendant’s actions that occurred outside the District of Columbia are insufficient to show an effect in the District. Id.; see also United States v. Ferrara, 847 F.Supp. 964, 967-68 (D.D.C.1993) (<HOLDING>). In order for the plaintiffs’ claims to arise
holding that impact in the district resulting from the defendants conduct that occurred outside the district must be deliberate not incidental holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence holding that only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district holding that special damages must be shown to be reasonable and necessarily resulting from accident holding that the district court was permitted to find conduct that had been acquitted by the jury when determining the defendants sentence