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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1981 V

UNPUBLISHED

KAREN GODWIN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: June 28, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for P etitioner.

Ida Nassar

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On December 30, 2019

, Karen Godwin 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine

admini stration ( “ SIRVA ” ) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA or which, in the
alternative, was caused

- in

- fact by the influenza vaccine she received on October 26,

2018 . Petit ion at 1, ¶¶ 2, 21

. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine in the

United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 21

- 22. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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

- Government 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 subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012 ).2

On June 25, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent believes tha t “ [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injur y Table ( “ Table ” ) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interp retation ( “ QAI ” )

. ” Id. at 6

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 9, 2013

NO. 03-11-00464-CR

Glenn Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

judgment: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment 

of the district court is in all things affirmed; that the appellant pay all costs relating to this appeal; 

and that this decision be certified below for observance.
#### Alexander Baker, *Appellant, v.*Stephen J. Lewis, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-957-07-1420-BJ]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of survey, Wyoming.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has filed the plats of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM Wyoming State Office, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming, on the dates indicated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 5353 
Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These surveys were executed at the request 
of the Bureau of Land Management, and are necessary for the management 
of resources. The lands surveyed are:
    The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, 
Township 50 North, Range 79 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, 
Group No. 748, was accepted and filed November 17, 2006.
    The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of the 
east boundary, a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the 
subdivisional lines, Township 51 North, Range 79 West, Sixth Principal 
Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 750, was accepted and filed November 17, 
2006.
    The plat that represents the entire record of the survey of a 
portion of the boundary between the Grand Teton National Park and the 
Bridger-Teton National Forest, along the hydrographic divide as defined 
by Congressional Act, February 26, 1929, Public Law 70-817, within the 
unsurveyed portion of Township 42 North, Range 117 West, Sixth 
Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 764, was accepted and filed 
January 31, 2007.
    Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are 
available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.

    Dated: March 13, 2007.
John P. Lee,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Support Services.
[FR Doc. E7-4923 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
Before the Second Division,

July 11, 1941

No. 46167.

#### Protest 26171-K of Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

A sample of the merchandise was admitted in evidence. It was agreed between counsel that the article is in chief value of silk and that the figures surrounding the central portion of the sample are composed in chief value of yarns, threads, or filaments. The central portion resembles an apple. Through the stem portion protrudes a wire made to resemble a stem to which are attached two leaves by winding a thread around the so-called wire stem *237and over and under the leaves so as to hold one end of the leaves close to the so-called wire stem. The attachment of the two leaves to the so-called wire stem of the apple does not fall within the definition of “appliqued” as given by lexiocographers or as judicially defined by the courts. The pincushions were therefore found not to be appliqued. On the two leaves appear certain stitches which counsel for the defendant contends constitute embroidery. As the merchandise was not classified as embroidery and there was no testimony showing it to be embroidery, the court was not prepared to hold from an inspection of the sample alone that this stitching rises to the dignity of embroidery. On the record presented the claim at 65 percent under paragraph 1211 was sustained.
#### THOMAS N. AVERY, Respondent, *v.*ALEXANDER FISHER, Appellant.

*Partnership*— *assignment of firm assets by one partner to pay a firm debt*— the *fact that the paA'tner was an infant cannot be set up by a third person.*

Appeal' from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought by the plaintiff upon a claim held by the firm of Hunt & Avery against the defendant, which had been assigned to him by Avery for an indebtedness due him from the firm. One of the defenses was that Avery was- an infant and incapable of assigning the claim.

"With reference to this the court at General Term said: *“*The indebtedness of the firm of Hunt & Avery to the plaintiff was satisfactorily established. One partner has by virtue of the partnership relation, authority to transfer partnership property in payment of a partnership debt. An assignment made for that purpose by one partner in the partnership name, is binding upon the partnership. *(Everit*v. Strong, 7 Hill, 385; *Mdbbett*v. White, 12 N. Y., M2; *Graser*v. *SteMwagen,*25 id., 315.) The fact that the copartner who made the assignment, in this case was at the time an infant does not invalidate the assignment, for the reason that infancy is a personal privilege, an.d no one but the infant can take advantage thereof *(Slocum*v. Hooker, 13 Barb., 537); and for the further reason, that infancy does not incapacitate a person from becoming the agent of another. Where a partnership is created between an adult and an infant, the relation of mutual agency, growing out of the partnership relation, exists to the same extent ■as if both the parties were adults. The contract of partnership being legal and binding *per se*upon the adult and equally so upon the infant until disaffirmed by him, it follows that the partnership must be bound by the act of the infant partner at any time before an actual disaffirmance by him of the partnership agreement.” *{Sage*v. Sherman, 2 Oomst., 426; Coll. Part., § 12; Story on Agency, § 7.)

*509*Erastus Coons,*for the appellant.

*W. A. Hunt,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Present — Barnard, P. .T., Gilbert and Dykman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LOUIS GORMAN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 212, 39 CMR 212

No. 21,704

March 21, 1969

*Lieutenant. Scott M. Feldman,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Charles E. Patterson,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Ap-pellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 88(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|August 14, 2006 | /s/ John P. Manning    
|--------------- | -----------------------
|                | John P. Manning        
|                | Chief Executive Officer
|                |
** **

**Exhibit 31(a)**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Martin S. Lapera, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 2, 2006
|        |   |   |   | /s/ Martin S.  Lapera                  |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Martin S. Lapera                       |
|   |   |   |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                    100,328
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                             140,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          240,328
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            240,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,018,624
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                      202
<OTHER-SE>                              5,164,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              240,328
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          968,968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        122,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,091,711)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (0.062)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0



</TABLE>
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2452 WBS KJM PS

vs.

WE HALL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled actions. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On August 16, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed a notice

which the court construes as objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02452-WBS -KJM Document 28 Filed 09/20/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 16, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: September 19, 2005

craw2452.800

Case 2:04-cv-02452-WBS -KJM Document 28 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 63164.

#### J. M. Rodriquez & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/19887 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 728 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8291 

[Report No. 118–892] 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit certain tax-exempt 

organizations from providing funding for election administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Ms. TENNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

DECEMBER 17, 2024 

Additional sponsor: Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania 

DECEMBER 17, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 8, 2024] 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8291 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

certain tax-exempt organizations from providing funding 

for election administration. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8291 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End Zuckerbucks Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. 501(c)(3) ORGANIZATIONS PROHIBITED FROM PRO6 VIDING DIRECT OR INDIRECT FUNDING FOR 

7 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘and which does not participate’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘which does not participate’’, and 

12 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert13 ing ‘‘and which does not provide direct funding to 

14 any State or unit of local government for the purpose 

15 of the administration of elections for public office or 

16 any funding to any State or unit of local government 

17 in a case in which it is reasonable to expect such 

18 funding will be used for the purpose of the adminis19 tration of elections for public office (except with re20 spect to the donation of space to a State or unit of 

21 local government to be used as a polling place in an 

22 election for public office).’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this 

24 section shall apply to taxable years beginning after Decem25 ber 31, 2024. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 728 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8291 

[Report No. 118–892] 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

providing funding for election administration. prohibit certain tax-exempt organizations from 

DECEMBER 17, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB