37,323 (Dep’t Commerce June 27, 2011) (final results and final rescission, in part, of the 2008-2009 antidumping duty administrative review); Fresh Garlic from the [PRC], 77 Fed. Reg. 11,486, 11,489 (Dep’t Commerce February 27, 2012) (partial final results and partial final rescission of the 2009-2010 administrative review); Fresh Garlic from the [PRC], 78 Fed. Reg. 36,168, 36,170 (Dep’t Commerce June 17, 3013) (final results of antidumping administrative review; 2010-2011); and, Fresh Garlic from the [PRC], 79 Fed. Reg. 36,721, 36,724 (Dep’t Commerce June 30, 2014) (final results and partial rescission of the 18th antidumping duty administrative review; 2011-2012). 3 . All further citations to the U.S. Code are to the 2012 edition. 4 . See also Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 129 S.Ct. 365 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original) (citing Los Angeles v.
holding that a movant for a preliminary injunction must first demonstrate that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law