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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-905V

Filed: November 13, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SHABNAM RANJBAR, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza;

* Shoulder Injury (“SIRVA”);

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Douglass Ross, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On August 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

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

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she experienced a left shoulder 

injury as a result of her October 1, 2012 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1-2. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 13, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

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

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has concluded that petitioner suffered a nonTable injury of SIRVA [Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration] and that the 

preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was causally related to 

the flu vaccination she received on October 1, 2012.” Id. at 3. Respondent further 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended 

at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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, the 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 Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
agrees that there is no other identifiable cause for petitioner’s SIRVA and that she 

suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months. Id.

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
#### Danny WHITEHEAD v. CITY OF RUSSELLVILLE.

8 Div. 173.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 21, 1975.

*95Taylor & Taylor, Russellville, for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

CATES, Presiding Judge.

Highway Drunkenness: fine, $50.00, no incarceration.

I

The instant record exhibits some of the lapses pointed out in Williamson v. City of Greenville, 39 Ala.App. 237, 97 So.2d 600.

The City of Russellville has not filed a brief.

The complaint of instant concern on which Whitehead was tried in the court reads as follows:

> “CITY OF RUSSELLVILLE, ALABAMA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. DANNY WHITEHEAD DEFENDANT

> IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, ALABAMA

> COMPLAINT

> “Danny Whitehead, whose name is otherwise unknown, while intoxicated or under the influence of liquor did appear, or travel upon, or be along a public road or highway, within 12 months before the commencement of this prosecution.

> “Robert M. Cleere_

> “ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF RUSSELLVILLE, ALA.

> “STATE OF ALABAMA

> “FRANKLIN COUNTY

> “Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Alabama at Large, appeared Anderson Ayers, who is known to me and who first being duly sworn on oath deposes and says that the foregoing complaint is true and correct.

> “Anderson Ayers_

> “AFFIANT

> “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of January, 1971.

> “Robert M. Cleere__

> “NOTARY PUBLIC

> “Filed:

> “January 15, 1971

> “E. Boyce Scruggs

> “Clerk”

*96A proper complaint by a city or town must allege an authoritative ordination to establish an offense against the municipality. Case v. Mobile, 30 Ala. 538; Taylor v. City of Decatur, 40 Ala.App. 571, 117 So.2d 786; Pearson v. City of Huntsville, 42 Ala.App. 458, 168 So.2d 24. On the other hand a State misdemeanor complaint in a circuit court trial de novo, under Code 1940, T. 15, § 363, must be signed by the District Attorney or his deputy. The form therein used begins, as required by § 170 of the 1901 Constitution: “The State of Alabama, by its District Attorney complains of C. D. that * *

In the *Williamson*opinion, supra, we find:

> “ * * * But, since the circuit court cannot open its doors to a misdemeanor or complaint (which is the most that can be ascribed to the instant pleading) unless it is signed by the circuit solicitor, we conclude that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and we take notice thereof as a fundamental error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. * * * ”

In Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills, 49 Ala.App. 171, 269 So.2d 626, we quoted from Town of Lineville v. Gauntt, 20 Ala. App. 135, 101 So. 154. In this latter case we find:

> “Where a complaint in a quasi criminal prosecution fails to charge an offense, it will not support a judgment of conviction, and the only proper judgment is an acquittal of the defendant. State v. Quarles, 158 Ala. 54, 48 So. 499.”

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and one is here rendered ordering that the defendant below be discharged sine die. Code 1940, T. 15, § 390.

Reversed and rendered.

All the Judges concur.
§ 515.519 Limited payments from accounts of United States citizens abroad. ( a ) Payments and transfers of credit from blocked accounts for expenditures within the United States or the authorized trade territory of any citizens of the United States who are within any foreign country are hereby authorized provided the following terms and conditions are complied with: ( 1 ) Such payments and transfers shall be made only from blocked accounts in the name, or in which the beneficial interest is held by, such citizen or his family; and
( 2 ) The total of all such payments and transfers made under this section shall not exceed $1,000 in any one calendar month for any such citizen or his family.
( b ) This section does not authorize any remittance to a designated foreign country or, any payment, transfer, or withdrawal which could not be effected without a license by a person within the United States who is not a national of a designated foreign country.
[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 49 FR 27144, July 2, 1984]
§ 583.507 Provision of certain legal services. ( a ) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 583.201, is authorized, provided that any receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be authorized pursuant to § 583.508, which authorizes certain payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States; via specific license; or otherwise pursuant to this part: ( 1 ) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;
( 2 ) Representation of persons named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 3 ) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 4 ) Representation of persons before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and
( 5 ) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.
( b ) The provision of any other legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 583.201, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
( c ) U.S. persons do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services, such as making filings and providing other administrative services, that are ordinarily incident to the provision of services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section. Additionally, U.S. persons who provide services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. *See* § 583.404.
( d ) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to § 583.201 is prohibited unless licensed pursuant to this part.
Note 1 to § 583.507 :
Pursuant to part 501, subpart E, of this chapter, U.S. persons seeking administrative reconsideration or judicial review of their designation or the blocking of their property and interests in property may apply for a specific license from OFAC to authorize the release of certain blocked funds for the payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of such legal services where alternative funding sources are not available.
HomeBureau of Energy ResourcesRemarks & Releases...Clean EDGE Asia: Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Nepal Compact Entered Into Force

# 									Clean EDGE Asia: Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Nepal Compact Entered Into Force							

Other Release

August 31, 2023

On August 29, MCC Vice President Cameron Alford and Minister of Finance Prakash Sharan Mahat held a symbolic exchange of letters which marked the official start of the five-year countdown to complete the $500 million compact.  The compact includes the construction of the Nepali portion of a 400kv interconnection with India that will increase the availability and reliability of electricity in Nepal and facilitate cross-border power trade.   For more than three years, ENR provided essential human capital support and capacity building to the Electricity Regulatory Commission.  The establishment of a functional regulator was a condition for the compact to enter into force.  ENR will continue regulatory support and plans to hold a Clean EDGE Asia Energy Spotlight to deepen engagement.

Tags

Bureau of Energy ResourcesEnergyMillennium ChallengeNepal

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      21,136,536
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          18,337
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            12,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 84,346,923
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     114,648,276
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       118,010,088
<LOANS>                                    320,184,206
<ALLOWANCE>                                (3,851,713)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             570,411,235
<DEPOSITS>                                 500,530,570
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          6,730,601
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    28,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,150,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             570,411,235
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             29,154,579
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           10,208,945
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               689,216
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            40,052,740
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          17,414,185
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,443,697
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       22,609,043
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                3,300,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             351,055
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             16,419,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,452,825
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,340,612
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.64
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,856,520
<LOANS-PAST>                                    65,938
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,943,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                2,574,779
<RECOVERIES>                                   183,492
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,851,713
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.63 Payment to a parent or other person on behalf of a minor. If the owner of a savings bond is a minor and the form of registration does not indicate that there is a representative of his or her estate, and if the minor is not of sufficient competency to sign the request for payment and to understand the nature of the transaction, payment will be made to either parent with whom the minor resides or to whom legal custody has been granted. If the minor does not reside with either parent, payment will be made to the person who furnishes the chief support for the minor. The request must appear on the back of the bond in one of the following forms: ( a ) *Request by parent.* I certify that I am the mother of John C. Jones (with whom he resides) (to whom legal custody has been granted). He is __ years of age and is not of sufficient understanding to make this request. Mary Jones on behalf of John C. Jones.
( b ) *Request by other person.*
I certify that John C. Jones does not reside with either parent and that I furnish his chief support. He is __ years of age and is not of sufficient understanding to make this request. Alice Brown, grandmother, on behalf of John C. Jones.
EXHIBIT 11


                     PARLEX CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months Ended                          Six Months Ended
                                     December 27,1998     December 28, 1997     December 27, 1998     December 28, 1997
                                     ----------------     -----------------     -----------------     -----------------

<S>                                     <C>                  <C>                   <C>                   <C>
Net income per share - basic              $.12                 $.14                  $.16                  $.33

Weighted average number 
 of shares outstanding                  4,641,656            4,330,431             4,641,226             3,960,892

Net income per share - diluted            $.11                 $.13                  $.15                  $.32

Weighted average number of 
 shares outstanding                     4,641,656            4,330,431             4,641,226             3,960,892

Effect of dilutive stock options          118,058              207,475               133,078               209,435

Adjusted weighted average number 
 of shares outstanding                  4,759,714            4,537,906             4,774,304             4,170,327
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Louis Kaplan, Appellant, v Mari Smith, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 102]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated January 13, 2005, which, in effect, sustained the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Sherman, S.M.) dated October 21, 2004, granting, after a hearing, his petition for modification of a support order entered on consent dated March 11, 2003, as modified by an order dated June 18, 2003, to the extent of reducing his obligation for child care expenses from the sum of $200 bi-weekly, to the sum of $259.60 monthly, vacated the order dated October 21, 2004, and directed that the order dated June 18, 2003, remain in full force and effect.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Absent a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, the support provisions of the agreement should not be disturbed” *(Matter of Boden v Boden,*42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; *see Gross v Gross,*15 AD3d 442 [2005]). *472The initial order of support dated March 11, 2003, inter alia, obligated the father to pay child care expenses in the sum of $200 bi-weekly. It was entered on the consent of the parties and later amended to reduce health care insurance by order dated June 18, 2003, but the child care expense provision of the order dated March 11, 2003, remained in effect.

The father failed to establish an unanticipated change in circumstances to excuse compliance with the child care expense terms of the order dated March 11, 2003, the fairness of which was unquestioned when it was entered into *(see Matter of Moore v Moore,*118 AD2d 714, 715 [1986]; *Matter of Lamaitis v Mitchell,*80 AD2d 715, 716 [1981]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly sustained the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order granting the father’s petition for modification of the order dated March 11, 2003. Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ, concur.
HomeBrunei

# Brunei

58 items

        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Bruneian Foreign Minister II Dato Erywan	  April 4, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Daniel J. Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs	  Daniel J. KritenbrinkMarch 7, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kritenbrink’s Travel to Singapore, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Brunei	  February 23, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Brunei National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 22, 2024 
        -    DipNote  		The U.S. APEC 2023 Host Year Elevated Stakeholder Voices	  Matt MurrayDecember 15, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for Global Public Affairs Russo Travels to Belgium, Brunei, Thailand, and Laos	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with David M. Turk, U.S. Department of Energy	  August 24, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Brunei	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Brunei	  May 15, 2023 

123…6next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Congratulations on Cabo Verde’s Parliamentary Elections 

# 									Congratulations on Cabo Verde’s Parliamentary Elections 							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

April 22, 2021

We congratulate Prime Minister Ulisses Correia e Silva and the Movement for Democracy (MpD) for the party’s victory in Cabo Verde’s April 18 parliamentary elections.  We also would like to express our admiration for the Cabo Verdean people and the transparent conduct of their free and fair elections.  Through these peaceful elections—which involved an historic level of participation by women candidates, including by the first female leader of a major party—Cabo Verde has further cemented its position as a model of democracy in the region.

With our shared commitment to democratic governance, we deeply value our strong relationship with Cabo Verde, which stretches back more than 200 years.  We look forward to continuing our work together to advance the full range of our bilateral partnership, particularly in the commercial, educational, and security spheres.

 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborCabo VerdeElectionsOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
#### § 566.314 Money laundering.

The term *money laundering* includes the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of, or through a country, or into, out of, or through a financial institution.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2828

To provide for the comparable treatment of Federal employees and Members

of Congress and the President during a period in which there is a

Federal Government shutdown.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 21, 1995

Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on House Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for the comparable treatment of Federal employees and Members of Congress and the President during

a period in which there is a Federal Government

shutdown.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE

4 PRESIDENT DURING GOVERNMENT SHUT5 DOWNS.

6 (a) COMPARABLE PAY TREATMENT FOR MEMBERS

7 OF CONGRESS.—The basic pay of Members of Congress
2

•HR 2828 IH

1 shall be treated in the same manner as the basic pay of

2 the most adversely affected Federal employees who are not

3 compensated for any period in which—

4 (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in ap5 propriations for any Federal agency or department

6 as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropria7 tions bill or continuing resolution; or

8 (2) the Federal Government is unable to make

9 payments or meet obligations because the public

10 debt limit under section 3101 of title 31, United

11 States Code, has been reached.

12 (b) AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS.—

13 The Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative

14 Officer of the House of Representatives shall promulgate

15 any regulations needed to implement this section in a

16 manner consistent with the Constitution of the United

17 States.

18 (c) COMPARABLE PAY TREATMENT FOR THE PRESI19 DENT OF THE UNITED STATES.—The basic pay of the

20 President of the United States shall be treated in the same

21 manner as the pay of Members of Congress described in

22 subsection (a).
3

•HR 2828 IH

1 (d) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section

2 is held invalid by any Federal court, the remaining provi3 sions shall remain valid.

Æ