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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0197V

UNPUBLISHED

ERNESTINE HARRIS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: July 2, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 4, 2019, Ernestine Harris 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”

vaccination administered on September 28, 2017. Petition at 1,5. The case was 

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

On June 30, 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

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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

at 1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner suffered a Table injury and 

states that “[n]o other causes for [P]etitioner’s SIRVA were identified.” Id. at 6. 

Respondent further agrees that the statutory six month sequela requirement has been 

satisfied. Id.

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
# C_2009099EN.01001101.xml

| 30.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 October 2008

in Case E-3/08

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 on detergents)

Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 on detergents

2009/C 99/09

In Case E-3/08, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 12u of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time-limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Henrik Bull, Judge-Rapporteur, and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge, gave judgment on 29 October 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 12u of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 12u of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
# C_2021058EN.01005401.xml

| 18.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/54

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 58/10)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 11 November 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85838 |
| Decision No | 131/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | Regionally differentiated social security contributions 2021 |
| Legal basis | The annual Resolution of the Parliament on rates for social security contributions etc., and Section 23-2 of Act No 19 of 28 February 1997 relating to the National Insurance Scheme (Folketrygdloven) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Regional aid |
| Form of aid | Tax reduction |
| Intensity | 3,1 to 12,4 |
| Duration | 1.1.2021-31.12.2021 |
| Economic sectors | Horizontal. All sectors covered by the Regional Aid Guidelines 2014-2021 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Government of Norway |

Date of adoption of the decision

11 November 2020

Case No

85838

Decision No

131/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

Regionally differentiated social security contributions 2021

Legal basis

The annual Resolution of the Parliament on rates for social security contributions etc., and Section 23-2 of Act No 19 of 28 February 1997 relating to the National Insurance Scheme (Folketrygdloven)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Regional aid

Form of aid

Tax reduction

Intensity

3,1 to 12,4

Duration

1.1.2021-31.12.2021

Economic sectors

Horizontal. All sectors covered by the Regional Aid Guidelines 2014-2021

Name and address of the granting authority

Government of Norway

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/.

---
§ 243.7 Informational content of a reduced resolution plan. ( a ) *Reduced resolution plan content.* Each reduced resolution plan of a covered company shall include: ( 1 ) A description of each material change experienced by the covered company since the filing of the covered company's previously submitted resolution plan (or affirmation that no such material change has occurred); and
( 2 ) A description of changes to the strategic analysis that was presented in the covered company's previously submitted resolution plan resulting from any: ( i ) Change in law or regulation;
( ii ) Guidance or feedback from the Board and the Corporation; or
( iii ) Material change described pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *Deemed incorporation by reference.* If a covered company does not include in its reduced resolution plan a description of changes to any information set forth in section 165(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C)) since its previously submitted resolution plan, such information from its previously submitted resolution plan are incorporated by reference into its reduced resolution plan.
# C_2011176EN.01001002.xml

| 16.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/10

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 14 February 2011 in the case of Arnulf Clauder

(Case E-4/11)

2011/C 176/08

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 February 2011 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 February 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Arnulf Clauder, on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Directive 2004/38/EC, in particular Article 16(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1), to be interpreted such that a Union citizen with a right of permanent residence, who is a pensioner and in receipt of social welfare benefits in the host Member State, may claim the right to family reunification even if the family member will also be claiming social welfare benefits? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Directive 2004/38/EC, in particular Article 16(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1), to be interpreted such that a Union citizen with a right of permanent residence, who is a pensioner and in receipt of social welfare benefits in the host Member State, may claim the right to family reunification even if the family member will also be claiming social welfare benefits?

| 2. | Is it of relevance for the answer to Question 1, whether the Union citizen with a right of permanent residence was employed or self-employed in the host Member State prior to attaining retirement age? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it of relevance for the answer to Question 1, whether the Union citizen with a right of permanent residence was employed or self-employed in the host Member State prior to attaining retirement age?

| 3. | Is it of relevance for the answer to Question 1, whether the family member will be employed or self-employed in the host Member State and still be claiming social welfare benefits? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it of relevance for the answer to Question 1, whether the family member will be employed or self-employed in the host Member State and still be claiming social welfare benefits?

---
# C_2016422EN.01000701.xml

| 17.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 September 2015

in Case E-6/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market — Local authorisation requirement for construction works)

(2016/C 422/06)

In Case E-6/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), or, alternatively, Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, by maintaining in force Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning and Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market) by maintaining in force Section 20-1, second paragraph and Section 22-3 of the Planning and Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market) by maintaining in force Section 20-1, second paragraph and Section 22-3 of the Planning and Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNE Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony S.
Conigliaro, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                      /s/ Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                      -------------------------
                                      Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

May 24, 2004


                                       38
#### § 269.10 Time for internal labor organization business, consultations and negotiations.

Solicitation of memberships, dues or other internal labor organization business shall be conducted during the nonduty hours of the employees concerned. Officially requested or approved consultation between management executives and representatives of a labor organization shall, whenever practicable, be conducted on official time, but the President or a duly authorized officer of a Bank may require that negotiations with a labor organization be conducted during the nonduty hours of the Bank.
# C_2023029EN.01004001.xml

| 26.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/40

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 June 2022

in Case E-4/21

Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – Article 61(3)(c) EEA – State aid – Admissibility – Obligation to initiate formal investigation procedure – Statement of reasons)

(2023/C 29/05)

In Case E-4/21, Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION seeking the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 023/21/COL of 26 March 2021, Aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 1 June 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Annuls ESA Decision No 023/21/COL concerning aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls ESA Decision No 023/21/COL concerning aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable.

| 2. | Orders ESA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ESA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

| 3. | Orders Iceland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Iceland to bear its own costs.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2007
    /s/ Tom DeeryTom Deery, Chief Executive Officer Date: August 14, 2007
    /s/ Brian CarterBrian Carter, Chief Financial Officer
It has cleared ---- To OP for ROCIS/OMB Clearance - SSM SIP call (SAN 

5623; RIN 2060-AR68)

Pam Long to: Lisa Sutton, Krishna Viswanathan, Phil Lorang, 

Peter South 02/12/2013 03:16 PM

Cc: Joseph-J Dougherty, Anna Wood

Thank you, Pam S. Long 

AQPD Regulatory Contact

Regular Mail:

USEPA/OAQPS/AQPD/OD (C504-01)

Room # C505C

RTP, NC 27711

919-541-0641 (Phone)

919-541-5509 (Fax)

----- Forwarded by Pam Long/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/12/2013 03:15 PM -----

From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Paul Shriner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Pam Long/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, StephanieN Brown/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nicole 

Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/12/2013 03:11 PM

Subject: RE: To OP for ROCIS/OMB Clearance - SSM SIP call (SAN 5623; RIN 2060-AR68)

Thanks all.  I have uploaded the clean version and we have officially concluded our review under EO

12866.  Thanks again, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Nathan

From: Shriner.Paul@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Shriner.Paul@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:11 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: Long.Pam@epamail.epa.gov; Brown.StephanieN@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Fw: To OP for ROCIS/OMB Clearance - SSM SIP call (SAN 5623; RIN 2060-AR68)

Here is the clean version and the RLSO version, please let me know when you have confirmed these are 

ready for upload on our end....

(See attached file: EO12866_SSM Petition_2060-AR68_Proposal_FRN_20130212.docx) (Clean 

Version)

(See attached file: EO12866_SSM Petition_2060-AR68_Proposal_FRN_Compares 11-26-12 to 

2-12-13 Ver.RLSO.docx) (RLSO Version)
Thanks,

Paul 

Paul Shriner

U.S. EPA

OP/PRAD
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.6.2



                      SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT


        SECOND AMENDMENT, dated as of March 30, 2000 ("Second Amendment"), to
Rights Agreement dated as of September 14, 1998 (the "Rights Agreement"),
between Leap Wireless International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and Harris Trust Company of California (the "Rights Agent").
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Rights Agreement.

        WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent previously entered into the
Rights Agreement; and

        WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26 of the Rights Agreement, the Company and
the Rights Agent may from time to time supplement or amend any provision of the
Rights Agreement in accordance with the terms of such Section 26.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing promises and mutual
agreements set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereby amend the Rights
Agreement as follows:

               1. Section 7.2 of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

               "7.2 Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Price for each one
               one-thousandth of a Preferred Share pursuant to the exercise of a
               Right shall be $350.00, shall be subject to adjustment from time
               to time as provided in Sections 11, 13, and 26 and shall be
               payable in lawful money of the United States of America in
               accordance with Section 7.3."

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of
the date first written above.

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

By: /s/ James E. Hoffmann
    ------------------------------------
        Name:  James E. Hoffmann
        Title: Senior Vice President,
               General Counsel

HARRIS TRUST COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA


        By: /s/ John A. Castellanos
            ----------------------------
        Name:  John A. Castellanos
        Title: Vice President



                                       1
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.  20549

FORM 10-Q/A

AMENDMENT TO FORM 10-Q DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1996

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)	OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

EDISON CONTROL CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

New Jersey
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

22-2716367
(IRS Employer Identification No.)

W60 N151 Cardinal Avenue
PO Box 326
Cedarburg, WI
(Address of principal executive offices)

53012
(Zip Code)

(414) 377-6565
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

140 Ethel Road West
Piscataway, NJ  08854
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
report)

<PAGE> 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


EDISON CONTROL CORPORATION
(Registrant)		


Date:  November 1, 1996
/s/ Mary E. McCormack
Mary E. McCormack
(Chief Executive Officer)
	

Date:  November 1, 1996
/s/ Jay R. Hanamann
Jay R. Hanamann
(Chief Financial Officer)
§ 150.30 What fiduciary capacities does this part cover? You are subject to this part if you act in a fiduciary capacity, except as described in subpart E of this part. You act in a fiduciary capacity when you act in any of the following capacities: ( a ) Trustee.
( b ) Executor.
( c ) Administrator.
( d ) Registrar of stocks and bonds.
( e ) Transfer agent.
( f ) Assignee.
( g ) Receiver.
( h ) Guardian or conservator of the estate of a minor, an incompetent person, an absent person, or a person over whose estate a court has taken jurisdiction, other than under bankruptcy or insolvency laws.
( i ) A fiduciary in a relationship established under a state law that is substantially similar to the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act or the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act as published by the American Law Institute.
( j ) Investment adviser, if you receive a fee for your investment advice.
( k ) Any capacity in which you have investment discretion on behalf of another.
( l ) Any other similar capacity that the OCC may authorize under 12 U.S.C. 1464(n).