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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BETHANY BLAGA, *

* No. 13

- 654V Petitioner, * Special Master Moran

*

v. * Filed: February 12 , 2016

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys ’ fees and costs; award in AND HUMAN SERVICES, * the amount to which respondent does

* not object. Respondent. *

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

Amber D. Wilson

, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, S arasota, FL , for petitioner;

Traci R. Patton , United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 18 , 2016

, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent for review. Upon review of petitioner’s app lication, respondent raised objections to certain items. Based on subsequent dis cussions, petitioner amended her application to request $75 ,648.72 for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by petitioner’ s counsel. The Court awards this amount.

On Septembe r 9, 2013

, Bethany Blaga filed a petition for compensation

, alleging that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine , which s he received on or about September 21 , 201 2 , caused development of acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis ( “ ADEM ”)

. P etitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision

, issued September 24, 2015. Because petitioner

1 The E -Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.received compensation, s he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

Petitioner seeks a total of $ 75,648.72 in attorney s’ fees and costs. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states that s he did not incur any in out

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $75 ,648.72 , in the form of a check made payable to petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Amber D. Wilson, of Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA

, for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be di rect ed to my law clerk, Shannon Proctor, at (202)

357

- 6360

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran Special Master

2
¬Ï

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

**

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * * * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * * * * *

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *** * * **

* *

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

* * * * * **

*

*

*

* * *

*

** * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*** *

* ** *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

*

*

*

* * ** *

* * *

*

* *

*

** * **

*

*

** * ** **

* **

* * *

*

*

*

* * * * * *

*

* *

*

*

*

*

* * *

** *

!

?>

UT

?>

"K

"K

"K

?>?>?>

?>

?>

?>

?> ?> ?>

?>

?>?>?>

?>

?>

?>

¬Ï

¬Ï

¬Ï

* * *

*

*

*

*

* * * * * **

*

*

/

T01N

T01N

T01S

T01S

R03E

R04E

R04E

R04E R05E

R05E

R03E R04E

8 9

7

3 1 4 2 6

1 5

6

11

23

33

14 15

36 35 32

29

34

25

16

36

30

31

13

24

10 12

19

18

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð331

6Ð242

6Ð231

6Ð389

6Ð254

6Ð249

6Ð389.1F

6Ð389.1A

6Ð300

6Ð389.1G

6Ð386

6Ð619

6Ð331.1A

6Ð426.1A

6Ð389.1A

6Ð614

6Ð389

6Ð331.1B

6Ð389.1B

6Ð 6Ð389.1N 389.1I

53

6Ð389.1F

6Ð254.1A 

188

6Ð389

6Ð254

249

1I

6Ð389.1A

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð304

6Ð254

6Ð447

6Ð231

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð331

Lena

Pasture

Tigerville

Pasture

Redfern

Pasture

Deer Park Pasture

West Side

Pasture

Marshall

Pasture

Mini

Pasture

01

39

49

48

47

46

41

07

58

10

06

11

05

53 61

55

54

12

37

13

62

05

63

28

000

000

000

624059

61

624

Private

621035

Private

624043

P

Private

7021

Private

Private

624022

62403

Private

61401

Marshall

Corrals

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Tigerville Range Allotment

± 10/05/2010

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

Existing Improvements

"K Spring Head Works

?> Pond/Reservoir

UT Water Tank

! ! ! ! ! Pipeline

* * * Fence

" Cattleguard

¬Ï Corral

Proposed Alt C Improvements

/ Proposed Spring Exclosure

* * * Proposed Fence

¬Ï Proposed Corral

Management Area

5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis

Other Symbols

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

NFS Ungrazed

Private Land
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                          37,056
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,402
<INVENTORY>                                     29,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,029
<PP&E>                                          24,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,326
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    113,336
<COMMON>                                       128,093
<OTHER-SE>                                   (186,635)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,120
<SALES>                                        170,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,569
<CGS>                                          122,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,146
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,726)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,229)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,229)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 457

- CR

Juan Cuadrado, Jr. , Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 50,419 , HONORABLE JOE CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Juan Cuadrado, Jr., was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The district court later revoked supervision and adjudicated him guilty after he admitted most of the violations alleged in the State =

s motion to adjudicate. The court sentenced Cuadrado to seven years = imprisonment.

Cuadrado =

s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

adv anced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Te x. Crim. App. 1969). A copy ofcounsel =

s brief was delivered to Cuadrado, and he was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel = s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Bea Ann Smith, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Affirmed Filed: October 24, 2002

Do Not Publish
§ 1002.108 Firewall. ( a ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: ( 1 ) *Involved in making any determination concerning a covered application from a small business* means participating in a decision regarding the evaluation of a covered application from a small business or the creditworthiness of a small business applicant for a covered credit transaction.
( 2 ) *Should have access* means that an employee or officer may need to collect, see, consider, refer to, or otherwise use the information to perform that employee's or officer's assigned job duties.
( b ) *Prohibition on access to certain information.* Unless the exception under paragraph (c) of this section applies, an employee or officer of a covered financial institution or a covered financial institution's affiliate shall not have access to an applicant's responses to inquiries that the financial institution makes pursuant to this subpart regarding whether the applicant is a minority-owned business, a women-owned business, or an LGBTQI+-owned business under § 1002.107(a)(18), and regarding the ethnicity, race, and sex of the applicant's principal owners under § 1002.107(a)(19), if that employee or officer is involved in making any determination concerning that applicant's covered application.
( c ) *Exception to the prohibition on access to certain information.* The prohibition in paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply to an employee or officer if the financial institution determines that it is not feasible to limit that employee's or officer's access to an applicant's responses to the financial institution's inquiries under § 1002.107(a)(18) or (19) and the financial institution provides the notice required under paragraph (d) of this section to the applicant. It is not feasible to limit access as required pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section if the financial institution determines that an employee or officer involved in making any determination concerning a covered application from a small business should have access to one or more applicants' responses to the financial institution's inquiries under § 1002.107(a)(18) or (19).
( d ) *Notice.* In order to satisfy the exception set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, a financial institution shall provide a notice to each applicant whose responses will be accessed, informing the applicant that one or more employees or officers involved in making determinations concerning the covered application may have access to the applicant's responses to the financial institution's inquiries regarding whether the applicant is a minority-owned business, a women-owned business, or an LGBTQI+-owned business, and regarding the ethnicity, race, and sex of the applicant's principal owners. The financial institution shall provide the notice required by this paragraph (d) when making the inquiries required under § 1002.107(a)(18) and (19) and together with the notices required pursuant to § 1002.107(a)(18) and (19).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Independent Auditors' Report on
                    Financial Statement Schedule and Consent


The Board of Directors
Lamar Advertising Company:

The audits referred to in our report dated February 6, 1998, except as to Note
18 of the consolidated financial statements which is as of February 27, 1998,
included the related financial statement schedule for the years ended October
31, 1995, and 1996, the two months ended December 31, 1996, and the year ended
December 31, 1997. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this
financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-10337) on Form S-8 of Lamar Advertising Company of our report dated February
6, 1998, except as to Note 18 of the consolidated financial statements which is
as of February 27, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Lamar
Advertising Company and subsidiaries as of October 31, 1996 and December 31,
1997, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity
(deficit) and cash flows for the years ended October 31, 1995 and 1996, the two
months ended December 31, 1996, and the year ended December 31, 1997, which
report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Lamar
Advertising Company.




                                               KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
March 26, 1998
Exhibit 13.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002





The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2021 of Stevanato Group S.p.A. (the “Annual Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





I, Franco Moro, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Stevanato Group S.p.A., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), of the Exchange Act;  and




(2) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Stevanato Group S.p.A.






|       |               |                                                    
|------ | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|       |               |                                                    
|Dated: | March 8, 2022 | /s/ Franco Moro                                    
|       |               | Franco Moro                                        
|       |               | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer







| |  | 
| |  | 
| |  | 









---
11/16/201 1 12:1 3 0 1 se c PAG E 01/0 1 iMENTOF ^ Grea t Smok y MountamHdicopter s IN C M Helicopter s o f

Tennesse e IN C 110 1 Highwa

y 6 6 - , -- , - .-; . ^ • : SeviervillcT N 3786 2 ' ' '-'•••' • ''-'• ' 865-388-432 4 UKS . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Management

Syste m 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 Washington , D C 205 ^ T o Who m^

X Ma y Concern ; 1 . W e reques t

that ou r tw o companies , ye t

owne d an d locate d b y th e same family , b e allowe dt o combin e th e requirement s o f dru g testin g into o n entity . 2 . Company name s an daddresse s are locate d a t th e to p o f this page , 3 . Th e requirement s w e wis h t o combin e ar e th e 1 4 CF

RSection s 1 an d th e Par

t 9 1 an dPar

t 13 5 requirement s o f

dru g testing , 4 . W e reques t

t o combin e th e tw o dru g testin g program s t o eas e th e paperwor k an dmanagement

responsibilitie s o n eac h company . Al l personne l wil l stil l b e dru g teste dan dfiles maintaine d bu t wil l n o longer

requir e tw o separate peopl e t o complete thi s on e task . 5 . There woul dn o har mt o th e publi c b y doin g this sinc e adru g free workplac e woul dstil l b e uphel dt o th e federal standard s required . 6 . Th e specifi c item s requirin g th e tes t arc locate d i n FA R91.1047 , FA R 91.1051 ; thes e sam e requirement s ar e require d fo r Par t 13 5 operations . 7 . Our

mai n goal i s t o conduc t

dru g testin g o n ou r

employee s i n th e mos t efficien t manne r possible . W e believ e that

combinin g the mint o on e poo l i s th e smartes t

wa y t o d o tha t

fo r both th e goo d o f

u s an d o f you r inspector s whe n the y visi t

ou r facility , S . Whil e w e can' t

findarequiremen t

liste d tha t woul d make i t

illegal t o d o thi s w e als o can' t

fin don e that

say s i t i s o k either . Durin g ou r

las t inspectio n i t wa s note dthat

th e tw o program s wer e merge d int o one . 9 . Th e inspecto r

tol du s to make thi s request . Than k yo u for yo u tim e an dconsideratio n o f thi s matter .

Owner
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

DAT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SHAUN ROE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30038

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00002-TMB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Shaun Roe appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to

distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). We have

FILED

MAR 31 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAT/Research 2 09-30038

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The Government contends that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because

Roe waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. This contention lacks

merit. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en

banc) (enforceable appeal waiver does not deprive this court of jurisdiction).

Roe contends that although he waived his right to appeal in a written plea

agreement, the waiver is not enforceable because the district court did not advise

him at his change of plea hearing that his statements, under oath, could be used in

subsequent perjury proceedings. This contention lacks merit because the

government did not initiate a perjury action against Roe. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(b)(1)(B); see also United States v. Vonn, 294 F.3d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir.

2002)(order). 

Thus, Roe’s contention that the district court erred in imposing a four-level

leadership enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) is precluded by the appeal

waiver. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007). 

AFFIRMED.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Reward Offers for Information to Bring Hive Ransomware Variant Co-Conspirators To Justice

# 									Reward Offers for Information to Bring Hive Ransomware Variant Co-Conspirators To Justice							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 8, 2024

Today, the Department of State is announcing a reward offer of up to $10,000,000 for information leading to the identification and/or location of any individual(s) who hold a key leadership position in the Hive ransomware variant transnational organized crime group. In addition, we are also announcing a reward of up to $5,000,000 for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of any individual in any country conspiring to participate in or attempting to participate in Hive ransomware activity.

The Hive ransomware variant targeted victims in over 80 countries, including the United States. Beginning in late July 2022, the FBI penetrated Hive’s computer networks, obtained its decryption keys, and offered them to victims worldwide, preventing victims from having to pay up to $130 million in ransoms demanded.

Today’s announcement complements the Department of Justice announcement that, with Europol, the German and Dutch authorities, and the United States Secret Service, it had seized control of Hive’s servers and websites, thereby disrupting Hive’s ability to further attack and extort victims.  We will continue to work with allies and partners to disrupt and deter ransomware actors that threaten the backbone of our economies and critical infrastructure.

This reward is offered under the Department of State’s Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program (TOCRP), which supports law enforcement efforts to disrupt transnational crime globally and bring fugitives to justice.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsLaw EnforcementOffice of the SpokespersonTransnational Organized Crime Rewards Program Targets

Back to Top
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60640 Summary Calendar

KENNETH RAKESTRAW

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. CARPENTER COMPANY

Defendant - Appellee

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:94-CV-247-S-D)

_________________________________________________________________ July 1, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Rakestraw appeals the summary judgment dismissing his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 . He argues that the district court improperly held that his temporary injury did not constitute a disability under the ADA, and, alternatively, that he was regarded as having2

a disability by his employer, whether or not his injury constituted a disability under the statute. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the same reasons given by the district court. Rakestraw v. Carpenter Co. , No. 94-CV-247 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 1995). AFFIRMED.
§ 1092.206 Nonbank registry implementation dates. ( a ) *Applicable dates.* The applicable nonbank registry implementation date for purposes of this subpart shall be as follows: ( 1 ) For a covered nonbank that is a larger participant of a market for consumer financial products or services described under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B) as defined by one or more rules issued by the Bureau, 30 days after this subpart takes effect with respect to that covered nonbank;
( 2 ) For a covered nonbank described under any other provision of 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1), 120 days after this subpart takes effect with respect to that covered nonbank; and
( 3 ) For any other covered nonbank, 210 days after this subpart takes effect with respect to that covered nonbank.
( b ) *Calculation of dates.* If paragraph (a) of this section would establish a nonbank registry implementation date on a date that is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the applicable nonbank registry implementation date will be the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.