alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1812V

UNPUBLISHED

DARRELL W. MORGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: January 10, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Anne Carrion Toale, Maglio Christopher & T oale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.

Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 26, 2018, Darrell W. Morgan filed a petition for c ompensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S. C. §300aa-10, et

seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petition er alleges that he suffered Guil lain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenz a (“flu”) vaccine he received on November 17, 2017.
Petition at 1-2. The case was a ssigned to the Special Processi ng Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 10, 2020, Respondent fil ed his Rule 4(c) report in w hich he
concedes that Petitioner is entit led to compensation in this ca se. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states “that petitioner has satisf ied the

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanatio n for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claim s' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (F ederal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be av ailable to anyone with access t o the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to
redact medical or other informa tion, the disclosure of which wo uld constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this defin ition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine In jury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” refe rences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 criteria set forth in the rec ently revised Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Ai ds to Interpretation (QAI), which afford p etitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS oc curs between three and forty-tw o days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 8.

In view of Respondent’s positi on and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Rayfield, Appellant, v. Ernest Mosheim et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

There was competent substantial evidence that the fire originated in the “sleeping area”, this from the testimony and report of a fire department battalion chief; and that claimant went to sleep while lying on his bed and smoking a cigarette, this from admissions which the board was entitled to credit. Thereupon it was properly found, in essence, that the fire and claimant’s resultant injuries, were caused solely by a personal act, unrelated to the employment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.19.1
                                    AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                                ALBERTSON'S, INC.
                      EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION TRUST

         This Amendment to the ALBERTSON'S, INC. EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION
TRUST  (the  "Trust"  or "Trust  Agreement")  is made by  Albertson's,  Inc.,  a
Delaware  corporation  (the  "Employer"),  pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Trust
Agreement.

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Employer desires  to change the Recordkeeper (as that term
is defined in the Trust Agreement) for the Trust;

         WHEREAS,  pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Trust Agreement, the Employer
may amend the  Trust  Agreement  by  executing  an  instrument  in  writing  and
delivering it to the Trustee (as defined in the Trust Agreement),  provided that
the Trust has not become irrevocable,  and, pursuant to Sections 4.14(f) and (g)
of the Trust  Agreement,  the Employer may remove the  Recordkeeper  at any time
prior to a Change in Control (as defined in the Trust Agreement) and may appoint
a  successor  Recordkeeper  meeting  the  requirements  of  Section  4.14(g)  by
delivering to the successor  Recordkeeper  a written  instrument  appointing the
successor Recordkeeper; and

         WHEREAS, the Trust has  not become  irrevocable and a Change of Control
has not occurred;

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  the  Employer  hereby  amends the Trust  Agreement as
follows:

1.   TOWERS,  PERRIN,  FORSTER & CROSBY,  INC., a Pennsylvania  corporation,  is
     hereby removed as the Recordkeeper of the Trust and MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION
     GROUP,  NORTHWEST,  LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,  which meets
     the requirements of Section 4.14(g) of the Trust is hereby appointed as the
     Recordkeeper  of the  Trust and  Section  2.03 of the  Trust  Agreement  is
     amended to reflect this change.

2.   Section 7.07 of the Trust  Agreement is hereby  amended to read with regard
     to  the  address  for   communications  to  the  Recordkeeper:   Management
     Compensation Group, Northwest, LLC, 205 SE Spokane Street, Portland, Oregon
     97202, Attention:  David J. Taylor (or his successor regarding Albertson's,
     Inc.).

The Employer hereby certifies that the Trust has not become irrevocable and that
a Change of Control has not occurred.


                                     Page 1

<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Employer has executed this amendment this 24th
day of July,  1998 and has caused it to be  delivered  to the Trustee and to the
successor Recordkeeper.

                           EMPLOYER:

                           ALBERTSON'S, INC.



                           By:  /s/  Thomas R. Saldin
                                ---------------------------------------------
                                     Thomas R. Saldin
                                     Executive Vice President, Administration
                                     and General Counsel



                                     Page 2
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8
v. NO. 31,329 9 RAY VIVIER, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 12 John W. Pope, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Michael R. Demarco 17 McIntosh, NM 18 for Appellant 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 WECHSLER, Judge. 21 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 22 proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has been filed, 232 and the time for doing so has expired. 1 Affirmed. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

______________________________ 4 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6

_______________________________ 7 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 8

_______________________________ 9 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 10
#### 1516.603 Letter Contracts.
#### Young *v.*Flournoy.

March 13, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Felton. Bibb superior court. April 30, 1912.

*Hardeman, Jones, Park & Johnston,*for plaintiff.

*John P. Boss,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

An equitable petition was filed, seeking to obtain a decree-of specific performance on the following agreement: “Macon, G-a., May 17, 1911. Received of W. H. Young five dollars ($5.00) as part payment on property facing Forsyth Road two hundred and thirty feet and running alongside road that divides Idle Hour Nursery property from above the number of feet required to make nine and one half acres or more, with exception of fifty feet facing side road on extreme rear and next to Owsley property. The purchase-price for all being Four Thousand Dollars to be paid half cash and half in three years at six per cent. [Signed] J. A. Flournoy. I agree to build and reside in nice residence on above property within twelve months. [Signed] W. H. Young.” *Held,*that there was no error in dismissing such petition on general demurrer. The writing does not locate or describe any particular parcel of land with sufficient definiteness to authorize a decree of specific performance. Moreover, an agreement to build and reside “in nice residence on above property,” fails to set up the contract with sufficient clearness to furnish a basis for such a decree. See People v. Jacobs, 35 Mich. 36, 38.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



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

     In connection with the Annual Report of Winthrop Residential Associates
III, A Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), on Form 10-KSB for the annual
period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

Date: April 10, 2003                         /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Michael L. Ashner
                                             Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 10, 2003                         /s/ Thomas Staples
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Thomas Staples
                                             Chief Financial Officer





                                       43
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

     THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION of RATIO of EARNINGS to FIXED CHARGES
                      (In Millions, Except Ratio Amounts)
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Three Months  Ended
                                                                                     March  31,
                                                                        -----------------------------------
                                                                              2001                 2000
                                                                        -------------        --------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                  <C>
Earnings:

  Pre-tax income                                                                $ 315                 $ 428

  Add:
    Interest and fixed charges,
      excluding capitalized interest                                               66                    78

    Portion of rent under long-term
      operating leases representative
      of an interest factor                                                        48                    43

    Distributed income of investees
      accounted for under the equity method                                         2                    43

    Amortization of capitalized interest                                            2                     1

  Less:  Undistributed equity in earnings
             of investments accounted for
             under the equity method                                                7                     3
                                                                        -------------        --------------


  Total earnings available for fixed charges                                    $ 426                 $ 590
                                                                        =============        ==============

Fixed charges:

  Interest and fixed charges                                                    $  69                 $  80

  Portion of rent under long-term operating
    leases representative of an interest factor                                    48                    43
                                                                        -------------        --------------

  Total fixed charges                                                           $ 117                 $ 123
                                                                        =============        ==============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                              3.64x                 4.80x
</TABLE>
Fiscal Year 2014 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

FY 2014 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4300030 Puerto Rico 434,695,037

4399999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2014 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
LAWTON CALVIN ADKINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4391

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County.

Julian E. Collins, Judge.

Lawton Calvin Adkins, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Perrone, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahaassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
Transport Transports Canada Canada TP 7245E



# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your na me. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD ma y invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued b y the Continuin g Airworthiness Division ( AARDG ) , National Aircraft Certification Branch, Trans p ort Canada, Ottawa, tele p hone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communicat ions Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8 , or 1-800-305-2059 , or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp
2 4-0022 ( 01-2005 ) 1/1 No

. CF-2012-14R1 Issue Date 9 May 2012

Number: CF-2012-14R1 Subject: Crosstubes – Life Limitation
Effective: 22 May 2012 Revision: Supersedes Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-14 Applicability: Dart Aerospace Ltd. high gear aft crosstube part number D412-664-203 approved under Transport Canada Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SH01-9 and installed on Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (BHTI) helicopter models 412, 412EP or 412CF. Note: The above crosstubes are also known to be approved under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) STC SR01298NY and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) STC IM.R.S.01304. Compliance: Within 30 days from the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished. Background: Five failures of the Dart Aerospace high gear aft crosstube have been reported. These failures could lead to an unsafe condition during landing. Based on in-service reports, it has been deter mined that Dart Aerospace Limited’s high gear aft crosstube part number (P/N) D412- 664-203 requires a life limitation of 10 000 landings. This revision was issued to clarify the applicabilit y section of the original issue of this AD. Corrective Actions: Airworthiness Limitation Amendment Amend “Chapter 4 – Airworthiness Limitation” of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) ICA-D212-664 by insert ing Revision 8 dated 20 October 2011. This Revision introduces a life limit of 10 000 landings for crosstube P/N D412-664-203. Remove from service the affected crosstubes with more than 10 000 landings.
Authorization: For the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities 

### ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Derek Ferguson Chief, Continuing Airworthiness Contact: Bogdan Gajewski, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, facsimile 613-996-9178 or e-mail ADs@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Debowes, Mike" 

Date: February 24, 2014 at 11:05:37 AM EST

To: "Gregory, Dennis E."

Subject: RE: February 24-25, 2014 VAWA Committee Second Session Agenda, Proposed Regulatory 

Language, and Draft Screen Shots for Reporting VAWA Crimes

A few quick thoughts to consider sharing today/tomorrow:

Based on pages 20 and 22, it seems that a decision has been made that incidents of DVDVS are NOT subject to 

the hierarchy rule – is that also your understanding? “In institution must compile the crime statistics required 

under paragraphs (C)(1) (i) and (II) of this section...” Those sections refer to “Primary Crimes” and “Hate 

Crimes,” respectively.

What is the definition of “official intervention” as it relates to determining whether two independent stalking 

offenses have occurred? Draft regs use this language page 21 but there is no corresponding definition.

Regarding the exception to the hierarchy rule for sexual assaults – does this mean if a victim was drinking 

underage and was assaulted we might count the liquor law violation referral and the assault? As you know the 

DOE liberally interprets “referred for disciplinary action” to include even a review of names submitted to an 

official, as well as amnesty and safe harbor policies – so I think the answer is “yes” here, which is a change 

from past practice, but that clarification could be helpful.

Advisors on page 35 – the regs say “An institution may not limit the choice of advisor for either party.” This 

means that even if lawyers have been prohibited from participating in the student conduct process, these regs 

will override that institutional prohibition. However, if limits have been set on what role advisors may play 

(i.e., they can’t speak) then VAWA Amendments to Clery would still permit institutions to maintain these 

restrictions – do I have that right? Sounds reasonable to me, though I wonder if/how that regulatory addition 

will impact initiatives to allow attorneys to actively be involved in conduct processes.

Page 35 “At a minimum, comply with guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil 

Rights.” Is this codifying the DCL in its entirety (and any subsequent guidance we receive), or just those 

aspects that pertain to “disciplinary proceedings” that are discussed on pages 33-35? And how are institutions 

expected to resolve any “perceived conflict of interest or bias for or against the accused or the accuser”?

Seems to me a savvy student just keeps alleging bias to stymie the process. What is the threshold here? Will 

institutions have a mechanism (or permission!) to independently evaluate such perceptions and determine 

whether the officials involved are sufficiently free of any bias or conflict of interest that the proceedings may 

continue with the assigned officials? I think some guidance is necessary in the regs. I would not want to 

permit spurious allegations of bias and COI (not made in good faith) by any party that serves only to delay the 

process.

Kindest Regards,

Mike
#### Nicole Macri, Appellant, v. John Curry, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 23, 1962 after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case on the ground that he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. Under the facts of this case as viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, it appears that he crossed the avenue in question at a crosswalk; that he made an observation of traffic but that his view to the right was obstructed by a double-parked ear and possibly by supporting pillars of the elevated subway; and that it was dark. There is no proof that the headlights on the defendant’s automobile were lighted. Under all the circumstances it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent if he did not see the defendant’s automobile. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 208.7006 Coordinated acquisition assignments.

See PGI 208.7006 for coordinated acquisition assignments.

[71 FR 39005, July 11, 2006]
#### 1815.404-471 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.