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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 858 V

Filed: October 14, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

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

BRENDA SMITH

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza ;

* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA ;

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

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil LLP, Dresher, PA

, for petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On July 21, 2016

, p etitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine

Act”)

. Peti tioner alleges that she suffer e d a shoulder injury as a result of the

administration of her October 9, 2015 influenza vaccination

. Petit ion at 1

. The case

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

On October 11, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she

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

4(c) Report at 1

. Specifically, respondent “ opines that petitioner’s alleged injury is

consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA” ) . . . [and]

further agrees that petitioner’s SIRVA was caused

- in

- fact by the flu vaccination

administered on October 9, 2015. No other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA were

identified. ” Id. at 3

. Respondent further agrees that t h e statutory six month sequel a

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other 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 subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 requirement has been satisfied and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for

compensation under the Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
#### Israel ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Cab Associates, Local Union 731, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 00-9313.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 3, 2001.

Israel Rogers, pro se.

Richard Schoolman, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, NY, for appellee New York City Transit Authority.

Jonah C. Grill, Tunstead, Schechter & Torre, Jericho, NY, for appellee Cab Construction Company.

*15Judith Laudati, Bisceglie & Friedman, Newark, NJ, for appellee Local Union 781.

Present CARDAMONE, PARKER, CUDAHY,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Richard J. Cudahy, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Appellant Israel Rogers appeals from a September 15, 2000 judgment of the district court entered upon an August 31, 2000 order granting summary judgment in favor of New York City Transit Authority, CAB Construction Company (“CAB”), and the Excavating and Common Laborers Union, Local Union 731.

Plaintiff filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in July 1997, alleging that his employment with CAB had been terminated by CAB without notice or hearing and on account of his race. The Defendants moved for summary judgement, arguing among other things that Rogers’s action should be dismissed because the Defendants’ alleged discriminatory actions were not under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983. On August 28, 1998, the Honorable Henry Pitman, United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a Report and Recommendation in which he concluded that CAB and Local 731 were not acting under color of state law, that nothing in the relationship between CAB, Local 731 and NYCTA suggests state action, and that NYCTA had no part in the termination of Rogers’s employment. The district court adopted these conclusions in an order dated August 28, 1998, and dismissed Rogers’s complaint.

On February 2, 2000, this Court vacated that order on the ground that the district court did not give Rogers adequate notice concerning the “nature and consequences” of a summary judgment motion as required by our holding in *Vital v. Interfaith Med. Ctr.,*168 F.3d 615, 620-21 (2d Cir.1999). On remand, the district court provided the appropriate notice in an order dated May 23, 2000.

On August 16, 2000, after the appropriate notice was given, Rogers submitted additional documents intended to defeat the motion. In an order dated August 29, 2000, the district court determined that Rogers’s additional submissions had not raised any material issue of fact that would cast doubt on Magistrate Judge Pitman’s recommendations, and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Appellees.

We affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth in Magistrate Judge Pitman’s August 28, 1998 report and recommendation and the district court’s orders of September 28,1998 and August 29, 2000.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
COO-EX10.22_2012.10.31-10K


Exhibit 10.22


AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 
2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN FOR 
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.




WHEREAS, The Cooper Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted the Amended and Restated 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Directors of the Cooper Companies, Inc. (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the Company to amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations; and


WHEREAS, the Board of the Company desires to amend the Plan to reduce the amount and adjust the vesting of the annual grant of restricted stock under Section 6(a) of the Plan;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


First: The first sentence of Section 6(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with: “Each Annual Restricted Stock Grant presented to a Non-Employee Director shall entitle the recipient to purchase 1,500 shares of Restricted Stock or, in the case of the Chairman of the Board, 1,650 shares of Restricted Stock.”;


SECOND: The first sentence of Section 7 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with: “On each November 1 each Non-Employee Director shall be granted a Stock Option to purchase up to 4,500 shares of Stock or, in the case of the Lead Director and/or any non-executive Chairman of the Board, as the case may be, up to 4,950 shares of Stock.”


THIRD:  The provisions of this amendment shall be effective October 24, 2012.


FOURTH:  Except to the extent herein above set forth, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company. 






THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.




		
	By:
	 /s/ Carol R. Kaufman    


Carol R. Kaufman
		
	Title: 
	Executive Vice President, Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer
























Amendment No. 2 to the Second Amended and Restated 2006 LTIP for NEDs
Adopted: October 24, 2012
From: bjuhlmer1@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:57:06 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Beverly Roberts

Houston, TX 77079
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2424

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Terry Cross, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 30, 2006 

Filed: December 14, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Terry Cross appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and being a felon and unlawful drug user in possession

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (3), and 924(a)(2). His counsel

has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). 
-2-

Cross’s plea agreement contains a valid appeal waiver. See United States v.

Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of

appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th

Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). Having reviewed

the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find

no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver. 

Accordingly, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant

counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Amendment no. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Per Iversen, President and Chief Executive 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.
 
 August 22, 2011
 
 /s/ Per IversenPer IversenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1010 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1010

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
         hydroelectric project in the State of North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2001

Mr. Helms (for himself and Mr. Thurmond) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
         hydroelectric project in the State of North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
number 11437, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the 
requirements of that section and the Commission's procedures under that 
section, extend the time period during which the licensee is required 
to commence the construction of the project for 3 consecutive 2-year 
periods.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) takes effect on the date of the 
expiration of the extension issued by the Commission before the date of 
the enactment of this Act under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 
U.S.C. 806).
                                 <all>
```
From: rohaak@gwi.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:24:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Haak

Old Orchard Beach, ME 04064
Before the Second Division,

November 26, 1965

No. 69631.

#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/907, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of print rollers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. M. Studner*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 149, C.D. 2404), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: goforwand22@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:26:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rebekah De Nooy

Grand Rapids, MI 49512
From: erica@techlynx.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:35 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Erica Rhoads

Bangor, PA 18013
No. 59195.

protests 253301-K and 253302-K (New York).

#### Paris Leather Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers in these cases disclosing nothing which would tend in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protests were overruled.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MIDWEST ATHLETICS AND SPORTS ALLIANCE 

LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

XEROX CORP.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1077

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of New York in No. 6:19-cv-06036-EAWMWP, Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

PAUL J. ANDRE, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 

Redwood Shores, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by LISA KOBIALKA; MARK BAGHDASSARIAN,

CRISTINA MARTINEZ, New York, NY. 

 ANDREW LOUIS PERITO, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BETHANY BENGFORT, DARALYN JEANNINE DURIE,

VERA RANIERI, ERIC C. WIENER. 

Case: 23-1077 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 05/14/2024
 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

May 14, 2024

Date

Case: 23-1077 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 05/14/2024
EXHIBIT 10.9.2

April 27, 2006

To: Aurora Gold Corporation
3540 West 41st Avenue, Suite 204
Vancouver, BC V6N 3E6

Tel. 604-687-4432
Fax 604-687-4709

Attention: Cameron Richardson
Email: c.richardson@telus.net
       ----------------------


From: Tomas Almeida, Certified Translator

Re: Translation of Memorandum of Understanding regarding Bigode Project


                            Translator's Declaration

I,  Tomas  Almeida,  Certified  Portuguese to English Translator, Member in good
standing  of  the  Society  of  Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia
(STIBC),  which  is  a  member  association  of  the  Canadian  Translators  and
Interpreters Council (CTIC), hereby attest that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the above-mentioned document is a true, correct and complete translation
of  the  Portuguese  document  presented  to  me.


Tomas  Almeida


Tomas Almeida
19780 Honeydew Drive
Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2S6

Tel. 604-465-6128
Fax 604-465-6129
Cell.604-202-0031
Email: talmeida@telus.net
       ------------------