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UNPUBLISHED 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 & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner. 

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

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

 On November 26, 2018, Darrell W. Morgan filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et 

seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome 

(“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on November 17, 2017. 

Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters. 

On January 10, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he 

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states “that petitioner has satisfied the 

                                                            

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling 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 information, 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. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

criteria set forth in the recently revised Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the 

Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which afford petitioner a presumption of 

causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal 

flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 8. 

 In view of Respondent’s position 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
209.406-2 Causes for debarment. ( 1 ) Any person shall be considered for debarment if criminally convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing a “Made in America” inscription to any product sold in or shipped to the United States or its outlying areas that was not made in the United States or its outlying areas (10 U.S.C. 4658). ( i ) The debarring official will make a determination concerning debarment not later than 90 days after determining that a person has been so convicted.
( ii ) In cases where the debarring official decides not to debar, the debarring official will report that decision to the Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy, who will notify Congress within 30 days after the decision is made.
( 2 ) Any contractor that knowingly provides compensation to a former DoD official in violation of section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 may face suspension and debarment proceedings in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 2105(c)(1)(C).
[58 FR 28464, May 13, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 7439, Feb. 14, 2003; 70 FR 35544, June 21, 2005; 74 FR 2409, Jan. 15, 2009; 76 FR 58136, Sept. 20, 2011; 87 FR 76991, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 73236, Oct. 25, 2023; 89 FR 60831, July 29, 2024]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Howard A. Smith, Appellant.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Motion for an extension of time within which to perfect appeal. Motion granted and time is extended to August 20, 1960. Motion, in all other respects, denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, J J.
#### 1832.908-70 Submission of vouchers/invoices.

Insert clause 1852.232-80, Submission of Vouchers/Invoices for Payment, in all solicitations and contracts.

[83 FR 13115, Mar. 27, 2018]
#### In the Matter of the Application of Robert L. Barry, for Admission to the Bar.

Application for admission to practice as an attorney and counselor at law. Application denied upon the ground that the proof fails to establish, as required by the applicable rule (CPLR 9406, subd. 3), that the applicant is an actual resident of the State of New York and that he has been such resident for six months prior to the filing of his application. The applicant may renew his application after he shall have established such residence, and upon furnishing satisfactory proof thereof. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6373-6374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01362]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30am, Tuesday, February 9, 2021.

PLACE: Virtual.

STATUS: The one item may be viewed by the public through webcast only.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 
66515 Aviation Investigation Report: Rapid Descent into Terrain, Island 
Express Helicopters Inc., Sikorsky S-76B, N72EX, Calabasas, California, 
January 26, 2020

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Candi Bing at (202) 590-8384 or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#04666d6a6367446a7077662a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fede6e1e8eccfe1fbfceda1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 6374]]

    Media Information Contact: Keith Holloway by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9929c908d91d791969595968e9880b9978d8a9bd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="147f717d607c3a7c7b78787b63756d547a6067763a737b62">[email protected]</span></a> or at (202) 314-6100 and Eric Weiss by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d283f242e633a28243e3e0d23393e2f632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80e5f2e9e3aef7e5e9f3f3c0eef4f3e2aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a> or at (202) 314-6100.
    This meeting will take place virtually. The public may view it 
through a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under ``Webcast 
of Events'' on the NTSB home page at www.ntsb.gov.
    There may be changes to this event due to the evolving situation 
concerning the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Schedule updates, 
including weather-related cancellations, are also available at 
www.ntsb.gov.
    The National Transportation Safety Board is holding this meeting 
under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

    Dated: Friday, January 15, 2021.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-01362 Filed 1-15-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### 16.603-1 Description.

A letter contract is a written preliminary contractual instrument that authorizes the contractor to begin immediately manufacturing supplies or performing services.
#### 17.601 Definition.

*Management and operating contract* means an agreement under which the Government contracts for the operation, maintenance, or support, on its behalf, of a Government-owned or -controlled research, development, special production, or testing establishment wholly or principally devoted to one or more major programs of the contracting Federal agency.
EXHIBIT 3.4
 CERTIFICATES OF DESIGNATIONS,
PREFERENCES, POWERS AND RIGHTS
OF
SERIES 2006 PREFERRED STOCK
OF
AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC. Company
 RESOLVED
 Section 1. Designation and Amount Original Issue Price
 Section 2. Rank Senior Securities Common Stock Junior Securities Parity Securities Distributions
 Section 3. Dividends and Distribution




---



##### 



Section 4. Liquidation Preference
 Liquidation Preference
  Section 5. Conversion Conversion Rights
 Right to Convert
 Mechanics of Conversion
 Reservation of Stock Issuable Upon Conversion




---



##### 



Adjustment to Conversion Price
 Adjustment to Conversion Price Due to Stock Split Dividend, Etc.
 Adjustment Due to Merger, Consolidation, Etc.
 Section 6. Voting
 Section 7. Optional Redemption by Company




---



##### 



Section 8. Mandatory Conversion by Company
 Section 9. Status of Converted or Redeemed Stock
 Section 10. Other Preferred Stock
 Section 11. Lost or Stolen Certificates
 Section 12. Fractional Shares
 Section 13. Preemptive Rights
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 25, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 25, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0081. TIMOTHY LITTLEJOHN v. AMBER GROVE et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2110009
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

The **Final Rule for the TEACH Grant Program** was published in the **Federal Register on June 23, 2008**.  This rule is effective July 1st, 2008.  On June 30, 2008, a a correction notice  was published in the the Federal Register.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2008. Public comments were due on or before April 21, 2008.

## News About Session 1

                - List of negotiators for the TEACH Team
                - Organizational protocols
                - Agenda for the first meeting
                - TEACH statutory language MS Word (34K) | PDF (26K)

## News About Session 2

                - Session 2 agenda
                - Draft summary of session 1 MS Word (32K) | PDF (55K)
                - Draft regulations MS Word (146K) | PDF (127K)
                - Draft conforming language MS Word (75K) | PDF (128K)

## News About Session 3

                - Session 3 agenda
                - Draft summary of the January 22-24 session MS Word (45K) | PDF (64K)
                - Final summary of the January 8-10 session MS Word (35K) | PDF (56K)
                - Draft regulations MS Word (155K) | PDF (137K)
                - Draft conforming language MS Word (76K) | PDF (139K)

## Committee Consensus

The Committee reached a consensus on proposed regulations.
                - Consensus language - program and conforming    MS Word (182K)  |  PDF (167K) 

2007-08 Negotiated Rulemaking Main PageOPE Policy Initiatives | OPE Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### 204.101 Contracting officer's signature.

Follow the procedures at PGI 204.101 for signature of contract documents.

[71 FR 9268, Feb. 23, 2006]
No. 7967.

#### Schroeder *v.*Phillips.

(Decided January 5, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Beavis & Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*568*Messrs. Foran, McTighe <£ Baker*and *Mr. C. G„ Lones,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
### §1736. Check of lookout databases

Prior to the admission of an alien under the visa waiver program established under section 1187 of this title, the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall determine that the applicant for admission does not appear in any of the appropriate lookout databases available to immigration inspectors at the time the alien seeks admission to the United States.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title III, §307(b), May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 556.)

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
#### Ann Goodson, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 5, 1978, granting claimant's motion pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the application denied, without costs and without disbursements. The late notice sought to be served pertains to an accident which allegedly occurred on September 22, 1977, when claimant stepped in a hole or depression on a stairway at the Times Square station of the Seventh Avenue IRT subway. Although she contends that she was aided at the time by a uniformed transit authority employee, neither the identity nor a description of the employee has been furnished. Both the notice of claim and the moving papers conspicuously fail to set forth the relevant facts sufficient to have afforded the transit authority notice so as to permit some opportunity to investigate. The location of the accident has not been specified, other than the general statement that the accident occurred within the station "on the platform at the bottom of the stairway leading down to the Seventh Avenue IRT uptown trains * * * on the first step onto the platform off the stairway." Moreover, no excuse is offered for the failure to serve timely notice within 90 days after the occurrence. Although the accident is alleged to have occurred on September 22, 1977, counsel was not retained until March 30, 1978 and the present application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was thereafter made by personal service effected on April 7, 1978. No explanation is offered to excuse the delay during the intervening period subsequent to the accident. Furthermore, although claimant asserts that she sustained a herniated disc and severe sprains of both ankles, she was not hospitalized until February 28, 1978, more than five months after the accident. The hospitalization plainly had nothing to do with the delay in filing. Nor has claimant submitted any substantiating proof to establish a causal relationship between the injuries and the alleged occurrence of September 22, 1977. Under the circumstances Special Term abused its discretion in permitting late service of the notice of claim under subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Lane. JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                $261
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       15,119
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                         15,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    32,157
<PP&E>                              97,200
<DEPRECIATION>                      55,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      85,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               13,211
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                             1,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                          50,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        85,467
<SALES>                             56,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    56,392
<CGS>                               49,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       52,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      90
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      3,580
<INCOME-TAX>                         1,219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  2,361
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         2,361
<EPS-BASIC>                         2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                         2.20



</TABLE>
A04A0063.

#### SIMS v. THE STATE.

(618 SE2d 103)

Decided July 13, 2005.

*Jo Nesset-Sale,*for appellant.

*Kenneth W. Mauldin, District Attorney, Patricia K. Atwill, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case having been reversed by the Supreme Court, *Sims v. State,*279 Ga. 389 (614 SE2d 73) (2005), our decision in *Sims v. State,*267 Ga. App. 572 (1) (600 SE2d 613) (2004) is hereby vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40321 Summary Calendar In The Matter Of: WILLIAM HAYES WYTTENBACH, Debtor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WILLIAM HAYES WYTTENBACH, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(07-CV-180) Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
William Hayes Wyttenbach appeals an order affirming the bankruptcy court’s“Order Striking Pleadingsand Retroactively Annulling AutomaticStay.” The bankruptcy court held that Wyttenbach was ineligible to be a debtor because United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerkhe did not comply with thecredit counseling requirements in 11 U.S.C. § 109(h).

Wyttenbach appealed to the Southern District of Texas but neither disputed that he failed to fulfill the credit counseling requirements nor contended that the bankruptcy court’s reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) was in error. Instead, Wyttenbach challenged the bankruptcy court’s order only on the grounds that he filed his chapter 7 petition as a “man,” not a “trust”—grounds upon which the bankruptcy court did not rely. In his current brief, Wyttenbach does not assert that the lower court’s reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) was improper; he again argues only that the lower courts misidentified him as a “trust” rather than a “man.” We conclude that the district court did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s order. AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Joseph Malloy, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered October 25, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and of assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the court properly left to the jury to determine from the conflicting facts whether the defendant’s inculpatory admissions and statements were coercively obtained, notwithstanding his detention on the alleged pretext of confinement under a vagrancy charge to which defendant had pleaded guilty *(People*v. *Everett,*10 N Y 2d 500, 507-508; *Culombe*v. *Connecticut,*367 U. S. 568, 590-591, 601-604; *People*v. *Leyra,*302 N. Y. 353, 363). On the jury’s implicit finding that these statements and admissions were voluntarily made, apart from the identification proof assailed as improperly bolstered, there was then competent other proof of defendant’s identification sufficient to sustain conviction *(People*v. *Alexander,*13 A D 2d 520, 521). It appears that in *United States ex rel. Everett*v. *Murphy*(329 F. 2d 68, cert. den. 377 U. S. 967), the Federal Court of Appeals has taken a view contrary to that of the New York Court of Appeals in *People*v. *Everett, supra).*Whenever such conflict is found to exist, the rulings of the New York Court of Appeals are controlling on this court *(People ex rel. Aronson*v. *McNeill,*19 A D 2d 731, 732). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1823.570-1 Definitions.

*Employee in a sensitive position* means a contractor or subcontractor employee who has been granted access to classified information; a contractor or subcontractor employee in other positions that the contractor or subcontractor determines could reasonably be expected to affect safety, security, National security, or functions other than the foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and confidence; and includes any employee performing in a position designated “mission critical” or performing mission-critical duties. The term also includes any applicant who is tentatively selected for a position described in this paragraph.

*Mission Critical Space Systems* means the collection of all space-based and ground-based systems used to conduct space missions or support activity in space, including, but not limited to, the crewed space system, space-based communication and navigation systems, launch systems, and mission/launch control.

*Mission Critical Positions/Duties* means positions or duties which, if performed in a faulty, negligent, or malicious manner, could jeopardize mission critical space systems and/or delay a mission.

*Use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of alcohol* includes having, while on duty or during a preemployment interview, an alcohol concentration of 0.04 percent by weight or more in the blood, as measured by chemical test of the individual's breath or blood. An individual's refusal to submit to such test is presumptive evidence of use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of alcohol.

[80 FR 60554, Oct. 7, 2015]