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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1581V

Filed: August 2, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

HECTOR DAVILA-MAYORGA a/k/a 

ERNESTO CERVANTES,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Master Horner

Damages Decision Based on Proffer; 

Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder 

Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for petitioner.

Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 10, 2019, Hector Davila-Mayorga, also known as Ernesto, filed a 

petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 

U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a 

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). (ECF No. 1.)

On April 1, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to 

compensation for his SIRVA. On July 29, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer on award of 

compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00 for pain 

and suffering related to his SIRVA. (ECF No. 37.) In the Proffer, Respondent 

represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as 

a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 decision 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.
2

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump 

sum payment of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering related to his SIRVA in the form 

of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all 

damages that would be available under § 15(a). 

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Daniel T. Horner

Daniel T. Horner

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
§ 1182.4 Board review of the application. ( a ) All applications will be reviewed for completeness. Applicants will be given an opportunity to correct minor errors or omissions. Incomplete applications may be rejected, or, if omissions are corrected, the filing date of the application, for purposes of calculating the procedural schedule and statutory deadlines, will be deemed to be the date on which the complete information is filed with the Board.
( b ) If the application is accepted, a summary of the application will be published in the Federal Register (within 30 days, as provided by 49 U.S.C. 14303(c)), to give notice to the public, in the form of a tentative grant of authority.
( c ) If the published notice does not properly describe the transaction for which approval is sought, applicants shall inform the Board within 10 days after the publication date.
( d ) A copy of the application will be available for inspection at the Board's offices in Washington, DC. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the application from the applicants' representative, as specified in the published notice.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, June 22, 1995 (85), Para 85.33 Message from the President--Peoples Republic of China Export License]
[Page 1039]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.85.33  message from the president--peoples republic of china export 
          license

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McKEON, laid before the House a message 
from the President, which was read as follows:

To the Congress of the United States:
  Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 902(b)(2) of the 
foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public 
Law 101-246) (``the Act''), and as President of the United States, I 
hereby report to the Congress that it is in the national interest of the 
United States to terminate the suspension under subsection 902(a)(3) of 
the Act with respect to the issuance of licenses for the export to the 
People's Republic of China of U.S. Munitions List articles, insofar as 
such suspension pertains to export license requests for cryptographic 
items covered by Category XIII on the U.S. Munitions List.
  License requirements remain in place for these exports and require 
review and approval on a case-by-case basis. The Department of State, in 
consultation with the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies, 
will review each request, including each proposed use and end-user, and 
will approve only those requests determined to be consistent with U.S. 
foreign policy and national security.
                                                   William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, June 22, 1995.

  By unanimous consent, the message was referred to the Committee on 
International Relations and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 104-87).
```
#### The State ex rel. Feldkamp, Appellant, *v.*East Ohio Gas Company et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Feldkamp v. E. Ohio Gas Co.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 221.]

(No. 97-730

Submitted October 27, 1998

Decided December 30, 1998.)

*222
      *Harold Ticktin,*for appellant.

*Buckley, King & Bluso*and *Gary A. Weiss,*for appellee East Ohio Gas Company.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Michael A. Vanderhorst,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

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

Cook, J., not participating.
#### § 1242.58 Operating signals and interlockers, operating drawbridges, highway crossing protection (accounts XX-51-59, XX-51-60 and XX-51-61).

Separate common expenses on the basis of total train hours (including train switching hours) of the particular common operating divisions or track segment on which the common signals, interlockers, drawbridges and highway crossings are located.
**Exhibit99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Scherer Healthcare, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Donald P. Zima, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(3)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934: and

(4)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Donald  P. Zima                                  |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                       |
| Donald P. Zima  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                       |
| August 14, 2002                                            |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of RBC Life Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven E. Brown, Vice President  Finance 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Steven E. BrownSteven E. BrownVice President  Finance and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 14, 2007
###### Editorial Note on Part 91

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59779, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 91.01-2 When required.

(a) Except as noted in this subpart or subpart 91.05, no vessel subject to inspection and certification shall be operated without a valid certificate of inspection.

[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16974, Dec. 30, 1965. Redesignated by USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33877, June 7, 2012]
#### Manuel Jaimes v. The State.

*No. 799.*

*Decided December 13.*

1. Embezzlement by Bailee — Charge of Court. — On a trial for embezzlement of a horse by a bailee, where the court charged the jury, that if they “ believed from the evidence that defendant borrowed the animal in question, and was to return it in two days, and did not so return it, but took it to Laredo, or other place, and it was taken away from him, such would be a fraudulent appropriation of the animal by defendant, and you will find him guilty as charged *Held,*fundamentally wrong, and a charge directly upon the weight of evidence.

2. Fraudulent Conversion is a Matter of Fact to be Found by the Jury.—On a trial for theft by a bailee, whether the facts are sufficient to show a fraudulent conversion must be found as a matter of fact by the jury, and not as a matter of law by the court.

Appeal from the District Court of Hidalgo. Tried below before Hon. John C. Russell.

Appellant was indicted for the fraudulent conversion of a horse, of which he was the bailee, and at his trial was convicted, his punishment being assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.

No statement is necessary.

No brief on file for appellant.

*R. L. Henry,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

*474DAVIDSON, Judge.

This conviction was for embezzlement by appellant, as bailee, of a certain horse, the property of one Lopez. Among Others, the court gave the following instructions: “ If the jury believe from the evidence that defendant borrowed the animal in question, and was to return it in two days, and did not so return it, but took it to Laredo, or other place, and it was taken away from him, such would be a fraudulent appropriation of the animal by the defendant, and you will find him guilty as charged; this to be considered in connection with the other facts of this charge.” For two reasons this charge is essentially, fundamentally wrong: first, it is directly upon the weight of the testimony, as stated in the charge; second, as a matter of law, the court instructs the jury that such facts prove the fraudulent conversion. Whether the facts were or were not sufficient to show a fraudulent conversion must be found as a matter of fact by the jury, and not as a matter of law by the court.

For the errors indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, May 22, 1995 (70), Para 70.11 Subsequent Action on a Reported Bill Sequentially Referred]
[Page 804]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.70.11  subsequent action on a reported bill sequentially referred

  Under clause 5 of Rule X the following action was taken by the 
Speaker:

            [The following action occurred on May 20, 1995]

       H.R. 1561. The Committee on the Judiciary discharged.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 134 (Friday, July 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38617-38618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3414]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 8, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Interchangeable Virtual 
Instruments Foundation, Inc. has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its

[[Page 38618]]

membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Honeywell 
Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, INDIA has been added as 
a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments 
Foundation, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 
Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 
39336).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 27, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17582).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-3414 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 133 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 38100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3385]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-952-07-1420-BJ]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be 
officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, (30) thirty calendar days from the 
date of this publication.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey for 
Townships 9 and 10 North, Range 4 East, accepted June 20, 2007, for 
Group 1062 New Mexico.
    If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats 
is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must 
file a written protest with the New Mexico State Director, Bureau of 
Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within thirty days after the protest is 
filed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This plat will be available for 
inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 
and P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115. Copies may be 
obtained from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet.

    Dated: July 6, 2007.
Robert A. Casias,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 07-3385 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
#### § 1548.21 Screening of cargo.

An IAC may only screen cargo for transport on a passenger aircraft under §§ 1544.205 and 1546.205 if the IAC is a certified cargo screening facility as provided in part 1549.

[74 FR 47706, Sept. 16, 2009]
`[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, June 15, 1995 (80), Para 80.6 Recorded Vote]
[Page 917]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.80.6  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. MARKEY:

       In section 3133:
       Page 528, line 17, strike out ``Funds'' and all that 
     follows through page 529, line 9, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:
     (1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in section 
     3101(b), not more than $50,000,000 shall be available for a 
     project to provide a long-term source of tritium, subject to 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) The amount made available under paragraph (1) may not 
     be used until such time as the Secretary of Energy has 
     completed a record of decision on a tritium production 
     program and congressional hearings have been conducted to 
     determine the appropriate option, in light of the national 
     security needs and nonproliferation and environmental 
     consequences, for establishing a long-term source of tritium.
       Page 530, strike out lines 1 through 9.

It was decided in the

Yeas

214

<3-line {>

affirmative

Nays

208`
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 139 (Friday, July 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 39826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3522]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIH Tetramer Facility.
    Date: August 1, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817.
    Contact Person: Alex Ritchie, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NIAID/DEA Scientific Review Program, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive MSC 7616, Room 3123, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-
2550, [email protected].
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology And Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 13, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-3522 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 28, 1995 (51), Para 51.38 Petitions, Etc.]
[Page 512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.51.38  petitions, etc.

  Under clause 1 of rule XXII.

       4. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the mayor of the 
     city of DeRidder, LA, relative to a petition for damages 
     filed by two residents of Beauregard Parish; which was 
     referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
```
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

98-1518.

#### Miller v. Walker.

Pickaway App. No. 98CA23. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due September 16, 1998, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondents, v. HENRY GRIFFIN and CHARLES RILEY, Appellants.

*Code of Oriminal Procedure, sea.*543 — *when an mvoneous judgment is entm'ed upon a lawful verdict the appellate court must correct it, and not remit the ease to the trial cowrt.*

By section 543 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is made the duty of the appellate court, when an erroneous judgment has been entered upon a lawful verdict, to correct the judgment in such manner as to make it conform to the verdict.

It is no longer proper to remit the case to the trial court to have the proper judgment pronounced, as was required hy chapter 226 of 1863.

Appeals from judgments, entered on the conviction of the defendants upon their trials upon indictments for felonious assaults.

*S. B.*Noble, for the appellants.

*Benjami/n W. Downing,*district-attorney, for the people.

Cullen, J.:

There was no general verdict on any count of the indictment. The jury found the prisoners guilty of assault and battery with intent to do bodily harm. This verdict was, in its legal effect, a conviction of assault and battery only. *(Hussy*v. *The People,*47 Barb., 503.)

The defendant Riley was sentenced, on such conviction, to imprisonment for six months in the penitentiary. This sentence could be pronounced for an assault and battery. The record, therefore, discloses no error as to him, and the conviction and judgment thereon must be affirmed.

*596The defendant Griffin was sentenced, as for a felony, to imprisonment in the states prison for one year. This judgment was unauthorized. Before the statute of 1863 (chapter 226) this error would have compelled the .prisoner’s discharge.

After the passage of that statute the record was remitted to the court below, with directions to pronounce a proper judgment. *(Hussy*v. *The*People, *supra.)*But the Code of Criminal Procedure seems to have altered the practice in this respect.

By section 543 it is made the duty of the appellate court, where an erroneous judgment has been entered upon a lawful verdict, to correct the judgment to conform to the verdict, and there is no provision for remitting the case to the trial court.

It seems, therefore, that the appellate court must now pass the proper sentence.

The judgment upon the defendant Griffin must be reversed, and the prisoner brought before this court for judgment on his conviction.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Cullen, JJ.

Conviction and judgment affirmed.

Sentence as to Griffin set aside, and defendant Griffin to be brought before the court for sentence as for an assault and battery only.