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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-282V Filed: October 5, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GRETCHEN KOKOTOVICH, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular Pertussis * (“Tdap”) Vaccination; Shoulder Injury

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Relat ed to Vaccine Administration AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit * (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Alice Isabel Legat Tayman, U.S. Departmen t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On February 29, 2016, petitioner fil ed a petition for co mpensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury that was caused in fact by her April 3, 2015 Tet anus-diphtheria-acellular pertu ssis vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Pr ocessing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.

On September 30, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compen sation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has concluded that compensation is appropriate in this case. [Respondent] has conclu ded that petitioner’s alleged injury is

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 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, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused-in-fact by the Tdap vacci ne she received on April 3, 2015.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees t hat no other causes have been identified “for petitioner’s SIRVA, and records show that she has suffer ed the sequela of her injury for more than
six months.” Id. Respondent additionally indicates that “based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal pr erequisites for compensation under the Act.”
Id. at 4.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
2006-0762.

#### Boutwell v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Daniel Lee Boutwell. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
KATHERINE ANNE SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM G. SMITH, JR., 

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. 1D16-5404

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 17, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Terry P. Lewis, Judge.

F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Brandon D. Bellew, and Eric J. Brooks of Johnson, Pope, 

Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, Clearwater; Jackie L. Fulford of the Law Office of 

Jackie L. Fulford, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Kenneth R. Hart and Kevin A. Forsthoefel, Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 7
DescriptionFrom: Auta Lopes <auta@institutionalfinancialservice.com> 

Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 1:35 PM 

To: Davis, Ashley <Ashley.Davis@em.myflorida.com> 

Cc: rmcclendon1@gmail.com 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Slicitation for 10,000,000M 3M-N95-8210 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or 

open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 

Dear Mr. Davis, 

Persuant to our conversation on April 2nd 2020, I wanted to circle back with you 

regarding the purchase of 10,000,0000 3M N95 8210 Particulate Respirators. 

Masks in stock: 
3M N95 (1860s) $5.70/each 

3M N95 (8210s) $5.65/each 

Procedures: 

1. Buyer Must provide POF, 

2. Entity name, and 

3. Person buying. 

4. 3M will perform a background check on this entity/person to make sure that they have 

never been involved in any money laundering, criminal activity, drugs etc. This step takes 

a couple hours. 

5. Once approved we move on to the PO and 

6. You, (Florida Division Of Emergency Management) will pay 3M directly. 

7. Shipment arrives in 7-10 days. 

8. Price includes shipping. 

9. Only money we handle are the commissions that are put in escrow and released after 

client pays/receives product. 

If you, (Florida Division Of Emergency Management) would like to pay 3M after delivery 

and inspection, then you must put the entire purchase price in an escrow account and then 

funds will be released after inspection. 

Your due dilignece: 

3M Does Not allow any videos or photos of their production facilities. They do this to 

make sure that their products are not being passed /sold as fake products. That's their 

policy. I am happy to put you on the phone with the 3M Attorney and Khalid who is the 

direct 3M distributor. 

Sincerly, 

Auta Lopes 

Managing Partner 

1 Ignite Capital, LLC 

404-734-5410<tel:(404)%20734-5410> 

auta@InstitutionalFinancialService.com<mailto:auta@InstitutionalFinancialService.com> 

Under Florida law, correspondence with the Florida Division of Emergency Management, 

which is neither confidential nor exempt pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 119, is a 

public record made available upon request.

Contact 

Name Ashley Davis Account Name

US REJECTED/INVALID 

ACCOUNTS
Davis, 

Ashley

Government Agency 

Name

Florida Division of Emergency 

Management
Page 1 of 2

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SHARI ANN WIGINTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5387-LC/MJF 

COMMISSIONER OF THE 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER 

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated August 3, 2021. (ECF No. 13). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections 

thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this action is 

DISMISSED. 

Case 3:20-cv-05387-LC-MJF Document 15 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3:20-cv-5387-LC/MJF 

3. Judgment is entered, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 

AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. 

4. The clerk of the court is directed to close the case file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2021. 

 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-05387-LC-MJF Document 15 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 319.1 Preemption of State and local laws. ( a ) Under section 436 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), a State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate in foreign commerce any plant or plant product in order to control, eradicate, or prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed within the United States.
( b ) Therefore, in accordance with section 436 of the Plant Protection Act, the regulations in this part preempt all State and local laws that are inconsistent with or exceed the regulations in this part.
#### § 215.18 Information collection/recordkeeping—OMB assigned control numbers.

| 7 CFR section where requirements are described | Current OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 215.3(d) | 0584-0067 |
| 215.5(a) | 0584-0005 |
| 215.7 | 0584-0005 |
| 215.10(a), (b), (d) | 0584-0005 |
| 215.11(c)(1) | 0584-0005 |
| 215.11(c)(2) | 0584-0594 |
| 215.12(d) | 0584-0005 |
| 215.13a | 0584-0026 |
| 215.14a | 0584-0005 |

[[81 FR 50193](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-50193), July 29, 2016]
**Exhibit31.2**

**Certification**

I, Jack Pearlstein, Chief Financial Officer of SoleraHoldings, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Solera Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007

 
|       |                         |
|------------|------------------------------|
|       | /s/ Jack Pearlstein          |
| ** ** | **Jack  Pearlstein**         |
| ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer** |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2903]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 30, 2010

    The following Applications for: Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0023.
    Date Filed: January 25, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: February 16, 2010.
    Description: Application of Wings Airways, Inc. requesting a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport passenger, 
property and mail in interstate air transportation.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0028.
    Date Filed: January 29, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: February 19, 2010.
    Description: Application of Aero Republica S.A. requesting a 
foreign air carrier permit and corresponding exemption to enable it to 
engage in daily scheduled nonstop flights between Bogota, Colombia and 
Miami, Florida.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-2903 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 281

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 281 appear at 78 FR 11972, Feb. 21, 2013.

#### § 281.5 Responsibilities of an Indian tribal organization designated as State agency.

An ITO administering SNAP on a reservation shall adhere to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, all subsequent amendments, and all regulations issued pursuant to that law in the same manner as any other State agency. The ITO may contract certain administrative functions to private organizations as provided in parts 274 and 277. The ITO may not, however, contract responsibility for certification activities such as interviews or eligibility determinations. The ITO shall retain full responsibility for program administration.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRIAN M. CASEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:19-cv-491-AW-MJF

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Centurion of Florida has moved to dismiss, arguing that the 

operative complaint is a shotgun pleading. ECF No. 71 The magistrate judge has 

issued a report and recommendation, concluding the motion should be granted in 

part. I have carefully reviewed that report and recommendation. I have also 

considered de novo the issues raised in Casey’s objections. ECF No. 122.

In his objection, Casey correctly notes that the magistrate judge did not 

address his claims on the merits. This is because Casey’s complaint is a shotgun 

pleading, and Casey has not cured this, despite opportunities to do so. Casey blames 

his pleading failure on prison officials, who he suggests have interfered with his 

ability to send filings to the court. But as the docket shows, Casey has submitted 

many filings, and he has not shown why he could not have filed a compliant 

pleading. I now adopt the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this 

order, with one exception. Rather than dismiss the state claims without prejudice 

Case 4:19-cv-00491-AW-MJF Document 125 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 2
2

(allowing them to be refiled in state court), I will remand those claims to the state 

court from which they were removed. The federal claims will be dismissed with 

prejudice. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 71) is GRANTED to this extent.

I have also reviewed Casey’s Third and Fourth Motions for Sanctions (ECF 

Nos. 118, 119), which I find to be without merit. Those motions are DENIED. 

Casey has also challenged the magistrate judge’s order denying Casey’s 

motion for appointed counsel, see ECF No. 120, and the magistrate judge’s orders 

denying the preliminary injunction motion and denying several other motions, see

ECF Nos. 121, 123. I conclude Casey has not shown that the magistrate judge’s 

orders were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The clerk will enter judgment that says, “The federal claims are dismissed 

with prejudice because they are presented in a shotgun pleading. The court declines 

to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims, which are remanded to state court.”

The clerk will take appropriate steps to effect the remand, and the clerk will then 

close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 10, 2021.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00491-AW-MJF Document 125 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NUMBER: 3:20-CV-4698-

TKW-HTC

 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF CHANGE IN FIRM NAME

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective immediately, the Law Office of 

Jeremiah J. Talbott, P.A. will be known as:

Talbott, Lampert, & Stoner, P.A.

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, FL 32503

(850) 437-9600 (Phone)

(850) 437-0906 (Fax)

All counsel of record is requested to use the new name of the firm on all 

certificates of service and correspondence. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15TH day of January, 2021 a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished to counsel for the Defendant as 

listed below via CMC/ECF, E-Mail and U.S. Mail.

 /s/ Jeremiah J. Talbott 

JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 44 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 2
Florida Bar No. 0154784

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, FL 32503

Tel. (850) 437-9600

Fax (850) 437-9606

E-Mail:jj@talbottlawfirm.com; 

civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

SERVICE LIST

Stephanie Pidermann, Esquire

Katie Gudaitis, Esquire

Lydecker Diaz

1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

ksm@lydeckerdiaz.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Escambia County Board of County Commissioners

Cecily L. Kaffer, Esquire

Pro hac vice

The Kullman Firm

P.O. Box 1287

Mobile, AL 36633

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant, Rayme Edler

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 44 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 301.81-10 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector during normal business hours will be furnished without cost to persons requiring the services. The United States Department of Agriculture will not be responsible for any other costs or charges.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 23, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D17-919 & 3D17-906

Lower Tribunal No. 05-15321

________________

J.B., The Mother, and M.W., The Father,

Appellants,

vs.

Department of Children and Families, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cindy S.

Lederman, Judge.

Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third

Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant J.B.,

The Mother; Thomas J. Butler, for appellant M.W., The Father.

Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Laura J.

Lee (Sanford), for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

LOGUE, J.
In this consolidated appeal, a mother and father appeal a final judgment

terminating their parental rights. Because the final order is supported by competent

substantial evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the

child’s hearsay statements, we affirm.

The mother and father argue that the trial court erred in admitting several

child hearsay statements. Section 90.803(23)(a), Florida Statutes (2016),

provides—under specific circumstances—for the admission of hearsay statements

from a child “with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 16 or

less” if those statements describe “any act of child abuse or neglect.” In order for a

statement to be deemed admissible, the trial court must conduct a hearing and find

that “the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient

safeguards of reliability.” § 90.803(23)(a)(1). If the child is unavailable to testify

as a witness, the statement is admissible only if “there is other corroborative

evidence of the abuse or offense.” § 90.803(23)(a)(2)(b).

Here, the trial court made the requisite findings of reliability and

corroborative evidence under the statute in a separate written order on the

Department’s motion for admission of the child’s hearsay statements. Finding no

error in that order, we hold the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting

the statements.

2
The trial court ultimately found, “[t]he child has waited his entire life for the

parents to learn to keep him safe and nurtured, the parents have failed and the child

desperately needs permanency.” Because the trial court’s detailed, twenty-five

page final order is supported by competent substantial evidence, there is no basis

for reversal.

Affirmed.

3
98-1889.

#### Robinson v. Haskins.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
exv10w21



 






Exhibit 10.21




First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated

Equity Office Properties Trust

1997 Non-Qualified Employee Share Purchase Plan

(Effective as of December 7, 2004)




	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 





     WHEREAS, Equity Office Properties Trust (the “Trust”) has adopted the Second Amended and
Restated Equity Office Properties Trust 1997 Non-Qualified Employee Share Purchase Plan (Effective
as of October 5, 2004) (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the Trust desires to amend the Plan to eliminate the 31-day waiting period to become
an “Eligible Employee”;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Trust hereby amends the Plan, effective December 7, 2004, in the following
respects:



     Section 2.7 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“2.7 The term “Eligible Employee” shall mean each officer or employee of a Participating
Employer who is shown on the payroll records of a Participating Employer as a
“benefits-eligible” employee.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by a duly authorized officer of the
Trust, as of the 7th day of December, 2004.



	 	 	 
	

	 	EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST
	 
	 	 
	

	 	By:        /s/ Stanley M. Stevens     
	

	 	Name:   Stanley M. Stevens
	

	 	Title:    Executive Vice President, Chief Legal
	

	 	             Counsel and Secretary