alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank Simon, appellant, v. Frank K. Reilly, trading as Frank K. Reilly & Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,367.

Action in trover to recover value of bonds alleged to have been converted by the defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for one cent damages. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Reversed and judgment here.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Rehearing denied May 13, 1925.

Freeman, Mason & Igoe, for appellant.

K. B. Czarneeki, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
No. 89-6796.

#### Lodhi *v.*State Board of Law Examiners et al.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.
#### Priscilla M. Laranjo, an Infant, by her Guardian ad Litem, Julio Laranjo, Appellant, v. Paul W. Malik, Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from the verdict of a jury rendered in the Rensselaer County Court on the sole grounds of inadequacy of the damages. Plaintiff, 17 years old, while riding as a passenger in an automobile on August 24, 1958, sustained personal injuries, primarily to her back. The medical testimony offered by the plaintiff was undisputed. The doctor testified she lost four days from her work and had some partial disability for several weeks thereafter. He also suggested there might be some further difficulty. After hearing this and additional testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff passenger for $500 and in the derivative action $144.74, the amount of special damages. While it might be speculated that some other jury might have been more liberal in assessing damages, the test is whether the amount, either excessive or inadequate, is such as to shock the conscience of the court. A motion was made before the Judge who tried the case and was denied. Under the circumstances, we *864can see no fair basis for interfering with his discretion. *(Málaspina*v. *Gilbert,*9 A D 2d 842.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### § 840.15 Public participation.

Each State program shall provide for public participation in enforcement of the State program consistent with that provided by 30 CFR parts 842, 843 and 845 and 43 CFR part 4.
§ 933.842 Federal inspections. ( a ) Part 842 of this chapter, *Federal Inspections,* shall apply to all exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
( b ) OSM will furnish a copy of any inspection report written pursuant to this part to the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development upon request.
January 10, 2011

Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents Page 45 

Appendix B, Table 4. Characteristics of Integrase Inhibitor (Updated January 10, 2011)

Generic Name 

(abbreviation)/ 

Trade Name

Formulations Dosing Recommendations

(For dosage adjustment in hepatic 

insufficiency, see Appendix, Table 7.)

Serum

half-life

Route of 

Metabolism

Adverse Events

(Also see Table 13)

Raltegravir 

(RAL)/ 

Isentress

400 mg tablets 400 mg BID

With rifampin:

800 mg BID

Take without regard to meals

~9 hrs UGT1A1-

mediated 

glucuronidation

• Nausea

• Headache

• Diarrhea

• Pyrexia

• CPK elevation, muscle weakness and 

rhabdomyolysis

Appendix B, Table 5. Characteristics of Fusion Inhibitor (Updated January 29, 2008)

Generic Name 

(abbreviation)/ 

Trade Name

Formulations Dosing Recommendation Serum

half-life Elimination Storage Adverse Events

(Also see Table 13)

Enfuvirtide 

(T20)/ 

Fuzeon

• Injectable—

supplied as 

lyophilized 

powder

• Each vial 

contains 108 

mg of T20; 

reconstitute 

with 1.1mL of 

sterile water for 

injection for 

delivery of 

approximately 

90mg/1mL.

90 mg (1mL) 

subcutaneously BID

3.8 hrs Expected to 

undergo 

catabolism to 

its 

constituent 

amino acids, 

with 

subsequent 

recycling of 

the amino 

acids in the 

body pool

Store at 

room 

temperature 

(up to 25oC 

or 77oF).

Reconstituted 

solution 

should be 

refrigerated 

at 2oC–8oC 

(36oF–46Fo) 

and used 

within 24 

hours.

• Local injection site reactions in almost 

100% of patients (pain, erythema, 

induration, nodules and cysts, pruritus, 

ecchymosis)

• Increased bacterial pneumonia

• Hypersensitivity reaction (<1%): 

Symptoms may include rash, fever, 

nausea, vomiting, chills, rigors, 

hypotension, or elevated serum 

transaminases. Rechallenge is not 

recommended.

Appendix B, Table 6. Characteristics of CCR5 Antagonist (Updated January 29, 2008)

Generic Name 

(abbreviation)/ 

Trade Name

Formulation Dosing Recommendations

(For dosage adjustment in hepatic 

insufficiency, see Appendix, Table 7.)

Serum

Half-life Elimination Adverse Events

(Also see Table 13)

Maraviroc 

(MVC)/ 

Selzentry

150-, 300-mg 

tablets

• 150 mg BID when given with strong 

CYP3A inhibitors (with or without 

CYP3A inducers) including PIs 

(except TPV/r)

• 300 mg BID when given with NRTIs, 

T-20, TPV/r, NVP, RAL, and other 

drugs that are not strong CYP3A 

inhibitors or inducers

• 600 mg BID when given with 

CYP3A inducers, including EFV, 

ETR, etc. (without a CYP3A 

inhibitor)

Take without regard to meals

14–18 hrs CYP3A4 

substrate

• Abdominal pain

• Cough

• Dizziness

• Musculoskeletal symptoms

• Pyrexia

• Rash

• Upper respiratory tract infections

• Hepatotoxicity

• Orthostatic hypotension
### §101934. Capital improvements

A person or entity awarded a contract under this subchapter shall receive no leasehold surrender interest, as defined in section 101915, in capital improvements constructed under the terms of the contract.

(Added Pub. L. 114–289, title VII, §701, Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1493.)
### §2304. Prohibited personnel practices affecting the Transportation Security Administration

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any individual holding or applying for a position within the Transportation Security Administration shall be covered by—

(1) the provisions of section 2302(b)(1), (8), and (9);

(2) any provision of law implementing section 2302(b)(1), (8), or (9) by providing any right or remedy available to an employee or applicant for employment in the civil service; and

(3) any rule or regulation prescribed under any provision of law referred to in paragraph (1) or (2).

(b) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any rights, apart from those described in subsection (a), to which an individual described in subsection (a) might otherwise be entitled under law.

(Added Pub. L. 112–199, title I, §109(a)(2), Nov. 27, 2012, 126 Stat. 1470.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2304 was renumbered section 2305 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 112–199, title I, §109(c), Nov. 27, 2012, 126 Stat. 1471, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [enacting this section and renumbering sections 2304 and 2305 of this title as sections 2305 and 2306, respectively, of this title] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this section [Nov. 27, 2012]."
### §5735. Travel, transportation, and relocation expenses of employees transferring to the United States Postal Service

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, employees of the Department of Defense described in subsection (b) may be authorized travel, transportation, and relocation expenses and allowances in connection with appointments referred to in such subsection under the same conditions and to the same extent authorized by this subchapter for transferred employees.

(b) Covered Employees.—Subsection (a) applies to any employee of the Department of Defense who—

(1) is scheduled for separation from the Department, other than for cause;

(2) is selected for appointment to a continuing position with the United States Postal Service; and

(3) accepts the appointment.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title III, §345(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2723.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title III, §345(b), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2724, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall apply to persons separated from employment with the Department of Defense on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 1994]."
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE LEN DEL L. CO NLE Y v. JO AN N C ONL EY Appeal f romthe G eneral Sessions Court for Bledsoe Coun ty No. 1082 Howard L . Upchurch, Jud ge

No. E2004-01309-COA- R3-CV - F ILED MAY 9, 2005

C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R . , co n cu rr i n g. I write sepa

rate ly to further

addre ss the trial cou rt ’s judg ment with respec t to the jurisdictional issue raised by Wife. I ag ree with the maj o ri t y ’s o b s er v at i o n t h at , wh en t h e p ar t i es fi l ed co m p et i n g af fi d av i t s whi ch wer e later

considere d by

the t ri al co u rt , Wife’s motion was converted into one for summary judgme nt. See Te nn . R. Civ . P. 12 .0 3. It is arg ua ble , a s th e ma

jority fo un d, that th e tria l c ou rt

c ho se to hold an “evide ntiary

hearing on the matter.” The trial c ourt appea rs to have a cce pted all

of the aff idavits as true, e ven thoug h they contain compe ting facts and a ssertions as to wher e Husba nd was domiciled (1) whe n he filed his complaint for divorce , and (2) during the period of time prec eding that f ili ng . It sh ou ld b e no te d th a t th e pa rt ie s e nte re d into a st ipulatio n, wh ic h th e tria l c ou rt a lso considere d. I ag ree with the majority

that the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the trial court’s decision to deny

Wife’s motion to di s m iss. However , I suppose the trial c ourt’s disposition of Wif e ’s mot ionc ou ld b e c on str ue d a s a jud g me nt m a deon theiss ue of wh e the r Wife wa s e nti tle d to summary judgme nt on her de fense of lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. Even if we view the trial court’s de cision as one d en y i n g summary judgme nt on the jurisdictional defe nse bec ause of the exis tence of g enuine issues of materia l fac t, such an interpre tation is of no particular be nefit to Wife. This is be cause the re cord doe s not refle ct that Wife ag g ressively soug ht to pursue this defense by putting on evide nce to support it at the divorc e hea ring

. Thus, reg ardle ss of whethe r the trial c ourt’s pr e -d ivo rc e he ari ng wa s, a s f ou nd bythema

jority , a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng , o r s imp ly

a de c isi on to denys u m m ar y

j u d gm en tb ec au s e o f c o n fl i ct i n g fa ct u al as s er t i o n s , t h e r ec o rd b ef o re u s d o es not show that Wife is entitled to relief fr om us with respec t to her lac k of jurisdiction defe nse.-2- _______________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, J R., J UDGE
### §4801. Nonapplicability of chapter 47

Chapter 47 shall not apply to this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 107–123, §8(a), Jan. 16, 2002, 115 Stat. 2398.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2001, see section 11 of Pub. L. 107–123, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment note under section 78ee of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

INCEPT LLC,

Appellant

v.

HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2018-2041

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01836.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

ROBERT FRANCIS ALTHERR, JR., Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., 

Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by PAUL MICHAEL RIVARD, CHRISTOPHER LEWIS MCKEE; 

JOHN P. IWANICKI, Boston, MA; JASON STEVEN SHULL, Chicago, IL. 

 ORION ARMON, Cooley LLP, Broomfield, CO, argued for 

appellee. Also represented by JONATHAN GRAVES, JOSEPH 

VAN TASSEL, Reston, VA; ADAM PIVOVAR, San Diego, CA. 

______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 July 15, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 2 0

- 1782 V

UNPUBLISHED

COURTNEY and CHRISTOPHER COUNTS, on behalf of their minor child, M.C.

,

Petitione r s

,
v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: August 23 , 2021

Withdrawal of petition ; Order concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On December 7 , 2020

, Courtney and Christopher Counts filed a petition for compensation on b ehalf of their minor child, M.C., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

— 1 0 through 34

. 2 Petitioner s allege d that
M.C

. suffered injuries after receiving a human papillomavirus vaccination on June 21

, 2017

. ECF no. 1.

Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “ that the petitioner may withdraw the petition

under section 300aa

— 21(b) of this title or the petitioner ma y choose under section

300aa

— 21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master. ” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

— 12 (g ). O n August 20 , 2021

, Petitioner s timely filed a notice to

withdraw their petition pursuant to 42 U

. S

. C

. § 300aa

— 21(b).

In light of Petitioner s ’ election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U

. S

. C

. §

300aa

— 21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioner s ’ request to withdraw the petition is GRANTED . Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that proceedings “ on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment “on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case

, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 February 23, 2017

jam

Order 

Clerk

February 23, 2017

155339 (24)

TERAH LEE STAMPS,

a/k/a TERAH LEE STAMPS BEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 155339

COA: 334483

MACOMB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $42.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$333.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6958

THEBOYETTE JEFFERIES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JAMES B. FRENCH, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-647-5-BO) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theboyette Jefferies, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Theboyette Jefferies seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jefferies v. French , No. CA-98-647-5-BO (E.D.N.C. July 7, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Steven G. Larson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:




(i)         
the Quarterly Report of LaserCard Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and




(ii)        the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of LaserCard
Corporation.


Date:
          August 11, 2009/s/Steven
      G. LarsonSteven
      G. LarsonChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
### SUBCHAPTER I—EXAMINATION, CERTIFICATION, AND APPOINTMENT
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1121

TRACY THORNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; WILLIAM

J. PERRY, Secretary of Defense; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; JOHN H. DALTON,

Secretary of the Navy,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-95-369)

Submitted: March 31, 1998 Decided: April 9, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Roy Hawkens, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lieutenant Tracy Thorne appeals an order of the district court

upholding his involuntary discharge from the United States Navy on

account of his acknowledged homosexuality. 916 F. Supp. 1358 (E.D.

Va. 1996). He contends that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" plan, see

10 U.S.C. § 654 (1994), and implementing regulations, under which

he was discharged are unconstitutional. We have held to the contrary. See Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir.) (en banc),

cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3305, 65 U.S.L.W. 3309

(U.S. Oct. 21, 1996) (No. 96-1). We have considered and rejected

Thorne's remaining claims on appeal. The judgment of the district

court is therefore affirmed. We deny Thorne's motion for oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 912.955 Certification of blasters.

Part 955 of this chapter, *Certification of Blasters in Federal Program States and on Indian Lands,* shall apply to the training, examination and certification of blasters for surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

[51 FR 19462, May 29, 1986]
### **CHAPTER 3023—STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS**

Sec.
302301.
Regulations.
302302.
Program evaluation.
302303.
Responsibilities of State Historic Preservation Officer.
302304.
Contracts and cooperative agreements.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                             -----------------------

                                    FORM 8-K

                             -----------------------

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

        Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): March 20, 2003

                            MS Structured Asset Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 Delaware                          333-64879                   13-4026700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (State or Other Jurisdiction   (Commission File             (IRS Employer
     of Incorporation)               Number)                 Identification No.)

  1585 Broadway, New York, New York                                10036
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                        (Zip Code)

                  Registrant's telephone number, including area
                               code: 212-761-2520

                                 Not Applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)


<PAGE>


Item 7.       Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits

Exhibit 4.1   Trust Agreement

Exhibit 5.1   Validity Opinion of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Exhibit 23.1  Consent of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
              (included in Exhibit 5.1)



<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.

Date: March 31, 2003

                                         MS STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
                                         (Registrant)


                                         By: /s/ John Kehoe
                                             ----------------------
                                         Name:  John Kehoe
                                         Title: Vice President


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement

Exhibit 5.1       Validity Opinion of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Exhibit 23.1      Consent of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
                  (included in Exhibit 5.1)