alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 57047.

petition 6889-R (New York).

#### American Sponge & Chamois Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was established that the merchandise was entered at a 50 percent discount, but appraised at a 30 percent discount, and that the petitioner had made full disclosure to the appraiser enabling him to apply the lesser discount. An appeal for reappraisement was filed but before it came to trial, the importer obtained the knowledge that the value used by the appraiser was based upon the greater number of sales in America. Consequently, the reap-praisement proceedings were abandoned. From the evidence presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-1583V 

Filed: June 21, 2017 

UNPUBLISHED 

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

BETSY GRAHAM, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination; 

 * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner. 

Kathryn Robinette, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On November 29, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

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

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) that was “caused in fact” by an influenza (“flu”) vaccination. 

Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters. 

On June 20, 2017, 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 

at 1. Specifically, respondent believes petitioner has satisfied her burden in showing 

that her flu vaccination was the cause-in-fact of her SIRVA. Id. at 7. Respondent 

further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under 

the Vaccine Act. Id.

 

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

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

the E-Government Act of 2002. 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 subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

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

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
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 WindStream Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December
31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ryan Keating,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



| | /s/ Ryan Keating                            
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Ryan Keating                                
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



Date: July 25, 2014



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to WindStream Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by WindStream Technologies, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF DONALD R. RAMON


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with Invesco Mortgage Capital Inc.’s (the “Company”) Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Ramon, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.











April 29, 2010

/s/Donald R. RamonDonald R. RamonChief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MINUTE ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOYCE MICHELLE DYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN FEMALE PIERCE COUNTY

DISTRICT COURT CLERK,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5693FDB

MINUTE ORDER 

The court hereby directs the clerk to enter the following Minute Order:

On March 7, 2006, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to cure

certain deficiencies in her application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. #6). On

March 24, 2006, the postal service returned plaintiff’s copy of that order, which

was sent to her last known address. Apparently, plaintiff is no longer at that

address, but she has not informed the court of her change of address.

Local Rule CR 10(f) requires parties to notify the court within ten days of a

change of address. Local Rule CR 41 states: “A party proceeding pro se shall

keep the court and opposing parties advised as to his current address. If mail

directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk is returned by the post office, and if such

plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within sixty days thereafter of

his current address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure

to prosecute.”

Accordingly, the clerk shall place a deadline of May 23, 2006, on the

court’s calendar to check the record for a change of address filed by plaintiff.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05693-FDB Document 13 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

LEWIS JOHN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY MARK C. BERRY, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5694RJB

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

CONTINUANCE

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the court on plaintiff’s filing of a motion for continuance for order to show cause. (Dkt.

#10). After reviewing plaintiff’s motion and the balance of the record, the court hereby finds and

ORDERS as follows:

On January 12, 2006, the court, finding plaintiff’s complaint to be deficient in several respects,

ordered him to file an amended complaint by no later than February 12, 2006, or show cause why this

matter should not be dismissed. (Dkt. #9). In plaintiff’s motion, he seeks a thirty-day extension of time in

which to respond to the court’s order to show cause, stating that he suffers from cluster headaches that

limit the amount of time he is able to work, has a limited amount of time to spend in the law library, and is

pending a transfer to another institution. 

The court does not find plaintiff’s request to be unreasonable, and thus will grant him a thirty (30)

Case 3:05-cv-05694-RJB Document 11 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

day extension of time in which to respond to the court’s order to show cause. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion for continuance for order to show cause (Dkt. #10) hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond

to the court’s order to show cause (Dkt. #9) as stated therein, by no later than March 12, 2006. 

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate forms so that he may file an amended

complaint. The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05694-RJB Document 11 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  
          This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
          from the Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. Condensed Consolidated
          Balance Sheets and Statements of Operations.
</LEGEND> 
<CIK> 0000874808
<NAME> MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  228,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    42,700
<INVENTORY>                                     79,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               360,000
<PP&E>                                         114,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 788,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          508,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (327,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   788,300
<SALES>                                        286,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               286,300
<CGS>                                          200,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  200,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (74,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (73,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (69,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.124
                                MARTIN A. LYNCH


September 10, 1999


This letter will memorialize our agreements with respect to certain
modifications and clarifications of my employment arrangements with Smart &
Final Inc. (the "Company"), as follows:


     1.   The term of my employment pursuant to my existing employment agreement
          dated April 1, 1997, as heretofore amended (collectively, the
          "Employment Agreement"), is hereby extended to January 3, 2003 (the
          "Extended Termination Date").

     2.   The minimum "Standard Benefit" payable to me under the Company's
          Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan shall be no less than $175,000
          per year.

     3.   Effective March 15, 1999, my Base Salary pursuant to the Employment
          Agreement shall be $288,400 per year.  Such base salary (as well as
          bonuses and other benefits payable under the Employment Agreement)
          shall be subject to periodic adjustment pursuant to the Employment
          Agreement consistent with historical Company practice and the
          Company's treatment of other executive officers.

     4.   The Company shall propose to the Compensation Committee of the Board
          of Directors that all stock options and other non-vested benefits
          which I hold or which are subsequently granted shall immediately vest
          or be extended such that I retain their economic value upon the
          termination of my employment. I understand the Company cannot warrant
          or represent what action the Committee may take on this proposal.

     5.   In all other respects, my employment Agreement and all other
          agreements and understandings relative to the employment relationship
          between me and the Company shall remain unmodified and in full force
          and effect through the Extended Termination Date.


                                                /s/ Martin A. Lynch
                                                ---------------------------
                                                    Martin A. Lynch

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

Smart & Final Inc.

By:  /s/ Ross E. Roeder
     ---------------------------------
         Ross E. Roeder, Chairman, CEO
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 5

JOINT RESOLUTION

Waiving certain provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 relating

to the appointment of the United States Trade Representative.

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)(3)) became effective on January 1, 1996, and provides certain limitations with respect to the appointment of the United States Trade

Representative and Deputy United States Trade Representatives;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act

of 1974 does not apply to any individual who was serving

as the United States Trade Representative or Deputy

United States Trade Representative on the effective date

of such paragraph (3) and who continued to serve in that

position;

Whereas Charlene Barshefsky was appointed Deputy United

States Trade Representative on May 28, 1993, with the

advice and consent of the Senate, and was serving in that

position on January 1, 1996;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act

of 1974 does not apply to Charlene Barshefsky in her capacity as Deputy United States Trade Representative;

and
2

SJ 5 ES

Whereas in light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to continue to waive the provisions of paragraph (3) of section

141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the appointment of Charlene Barshefsky as the United States

Trade Representative: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of

4 section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

5 2171(b)(3)) or any other provision of law, the President,

6 acting by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,

7 is authorized to appoint Charlene Barshefsky as the

8 United States Trade Representative.

Passed the Senate March 5, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 5

JOINT RESOLUTION

Waiving certain provisions of the Trade Act of

States Trade Representative.1974 relating to the appointment of the United
**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 this Annual Report of Red Rock Pictures Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Levy, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Red Rock Pictures Holdings Inc.			   
Dated: December 14, 2006
    RED ROCK PICTURES HOLDINGS INC.  
By:

*/s/ Robert Levy                   *
 		Robert Levy  		Chief Executive Officer,  		Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  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.
  By:
    /s/ Alex Deyi YangName:
    Alex Deyi YangTitle:
    Acting Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,090
<INVENTORY>                                        374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               167,182
<PP&E>                                          49,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          146,347
<BONDS>                                         10,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,010
<SALES>                                        214,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,823
<CGS>                                          193,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,049
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,447
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,447
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
#### THE HOLMES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1286.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 5, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the issues presented in this case,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The March 27, 2000 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is vacated.

(2) The case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in *Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.,*— U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1255, 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001). The district court is directed to consider whether the “change in the law” exception to collateral estoppel applies in view of the *962
      *Traffix*decision, and, if appropriate; then to consider the case on the merits.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 9, 2014.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00770

- CR No. 05

- 14

- 00771

- CR

STEVEN DWAYNE FERREL L, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12

- 72590

- L , F14

- 54495

- L



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal s . Appellant’s counsel has approved

the motion. Th e Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal s be DISMISSED

and this decision b e certified below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47

140770F.U05

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

STEVEN DWAYNE FERRELL, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00770

- CR V.

TH E STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 72590

- L. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date , we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 9th day of December, 2014.

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

STEVEN DWAYNE FERRELL, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00771

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 54495

- L. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 9th day of December, 2014.