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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0 450 V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE A. MILLER, also known as

MICHELLE MILLER GORSKI

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: January 22, 2021

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

John L. DeFazio

, Viola Cummings and Lindsay, LLP

, Niagara Falls

, NY

, for P etitioner.

Mallori Browne Openchowski , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for

R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 26, 2019

, Michelle A. Miller 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 “ left shoulder impingement syndrome ”

and “ G lenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit ” that was caused

- in

- fact by an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine that was administered on October 3, 2016 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 21, 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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

1. Specifically, R espondent states that “ [P]etitioner ’ s alleged injury is consistent with a SIRVA [shoulder injur y related to vaccine administration] , as defined on the Vaccine Injury

Table

. ” Id. at 4 . Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the resi dual effects of her injury for more than six months

. Id.

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
# C_2019423EN.01003101.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fortischem v Commission

(Case T-121/15) (1)

(State aid - Chemical industry - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - State resources - Advantage - Recovery - Economic continuity - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 423/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented initially by P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently by P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos and V. Dolka, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 3 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on the State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fortischem a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fortischem a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders AlzChem AG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders AlzChem AG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

---
# C_2016048EN.01004902.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on pants)

(Case T-64/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on pants - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 (Case R 2563/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of two parallel stripes on pants as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---
# C_2016078EN.01001002.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/10

---

Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Kendrion NV, supported by: European Commission

(Case C-71/15 P) (1)

1

(2016/C 078/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

The Vice-President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---
----

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery

(2005/C 336/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

NOTE:

More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/

----

(1)  ESO: European Standardisation Organisation:

(2)OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(3)OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

----
# C_2016305EN.01003701.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/37

---

Order of the General Court of 17 June 2016 — Hako v EUIPO (SCRUBMASTER)

(Case T-629/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SCRUBMASTER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 305/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hako GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 September 2015 (Case R 2197/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SCRUBMASTER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Hako GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hako GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.

1

---
No. 40390.

#### Protest 941515-G of American Import Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of rubber balls the same as those the subject of Abstract 27179. The claim as rubber footballs at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Erwin Cheldin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
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 presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                    /s/  Erwin Cheldin
                    ------------------
           Name:    Erwin Cheldin
           Title:   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
           Date:    November 8, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Susan Miller [ mailto:SMiller@bia.org ]

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 2:44 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Subject: Brick MACT

- OMB Follow

- up

Sharon

First let me apologize for my absence at yesterday’s meeting. My 11

- year old severely broke his

leg (both bones in his lower leg, chipped one and put it all out of alignment) on Sunday and we

were having to watch to be sure it was staying put and no surgery was required. I thought I was

going to still make the meeting, but that was not to be.

One of our members who flew in from Nebraska for the meeting was unable to get into the building

because his license has expired. He has a concern I believe he (and I know we) spoke of in our

comments that he wanted to highlight. Specifically, he believes he can meet the PM limit as

proposed in the rule, but canno t continuously meet the “no visible emissions” compliance

demonstration. He is concerned that he could potentially be required to install an air pollution

control device to meet the compliance demonstration requirement, even though he meets the

underlying standard. While I know there is the general ability to apply for an alternative compliance

demonstration, we are wondering if there is a way to handle this more directly as the issue. Ryan

is traveling today, but we will be working to put what would hav e been his oral presentation into a

letter and have that letter to you by early next week.

Again, sorry I missed speaking with all of you at the meeting. My thanks to all of you for taking the

time to listen to our industry’s concerns.

Sincerely,

susan

Susan J Miller

Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety

Brick Industry Association

311 South Academy Street

Cary, North Carolina 27511

919 380

- 2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn

something new.

- Dalai Lama
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARVINDER KAUR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72751

Agency No. A079-268-794

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Harvinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to

reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894

FILED

JAN 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72751

(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s second motion to

reopen because it was untimely and numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R. §

1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to establish changed circumstances in India to

qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limit for filing motions

to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-

97 (9th Cir. 2008). Kaur’s contentions that the BIA improperly analyzed her claim

and failed to adequately explain its decision are belied by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaur’s contentions regarding the BIA’s

February 28, 2007, order denying her first motion to reopen because this petition

for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188

(9th Cir. 2003). In addition, although Kaur contends otherwise, we lack

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen removal

proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.

2011). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
No. 53192.

#### American Leather Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 127803-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Raymond GELINAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-15611

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket Nos. 04-00107-CV-AAA, 03-00026-CR-AAA.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 8, 2005.

Raymond Gelinas, Jesup, GA, pro se.

Amy Lee Copeland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Gelinas appeals, *pro se,*the denial of a motion to attack his sentence, under section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code, and alleges that his sentencing was illegal, under *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Gelinas argues that we should apply *Blakely*retroactively and invalidate his federal sentence for possession with the intent to distribute oxycodone. *Varela v. United States,*400 F.3d 864 (11th Cir.2005), controls squarely the question Gelinas’s certificate of appealability presents. We affirm the denial of his motion under section 2255.

Gelinas pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute oxycodone and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 48 months in prison. Gelinas did not pursue a direct appeal. A retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines later reduced Gelinas’s sentence to 26 months in prison. In August 2004, after the Supreme Court decided *Blakely,*Gelinas filed his first motion for collateral review and argued that his sentence was illegal under *Blakely.*

The district court denied Gelinas’s motion. Afterwards, the Supreme Court made advisory the federal Sentencing Guidelines in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Gelinas then applied for, and was granted, a certificate of appealability to answer the following two questions: first, should we apply *Blakely*“and/or” *Booker*retroactively to cases on collateral review; and second, if that rule is retroactive, was Gelinas’s sentence enhanced improperly based on his possession of a firearm, a fact found by the judge? We review the issues of law *de novo. Varela,*400 F.3d at 867 n. 3.

A panel of this Court has already answered the first of these questions, and *286that answer is dispositive. In *Varela,*this Court determined that *“Schriro v. Summerlin,*542 U.S. [348], 124 S.Ct. 2519 (2004), is essentially dispositive” of this issue and, like the new rule announced in *Ring v. Arizona,*536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the “prototypical procedural rule” of *Booker*should not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. 400 F.3d at 867. The denial of Gelinas’s motion is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 597 

Designating the period beginning on October 8, 2006, and ending on October 

14, 2006, as ‘‘National Hispanic Media Week’’, in honor of the Hispanic 

media of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 29), 2006 

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BINGAMAN, 

and Mr. NELSON of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

NOVEMBER 16, 2006 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the period beginning on October 8, 2006, and 

ending on October 14, 2006, as ‘‘National Hispanic 

Media Week’’, in honor of the Hispanic media of the 

United States. 

Whereas, for almost 470 years, the United States has benefitted from the work of Hispanic writers and publishers; 

Whereas more than 600 Hispanic publishers circulate more 

than 20,000,000 copies of publications every week in the 

United States; 

Whereas 1 out of every 8 citizens of the United States is 

served by a Hispanic publisher; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

SRES 597 ATS 

Whereas the Hispanic press informs many citizens of the 

United States about the great political, economic, and social issues of the day; 

Whereas the Hispanic press of the United States particularly 

focuses on informing and promoting the well-being of the 

Hispanic community of the United States; and 

Whereas, by commemorating the achievements of the Hispanic press, the Senate acknowledges the important role 

that the Hispanic press has played in the history of the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the period beginning on October 

3 8, 2006, and ending on October 14, 2006, as ‘‘Na4 tional Hispanic Media Week’’, in honor of the His5 panic Media of the United States; and 

6 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

7 to observe the week with appropriate programs and 

8 activities. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 8397)

Entry No. 386-D.

#### Famous Import Co. *v.*United States

(Decided March 4, 1955)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of canned meat paste imported from Canada.

> That the issues and the merchandise involved in said appeal to reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the issues and the merchandise involved in *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. (Perry H. Chipurnoi, Inc.)*v. *United States,*42 C. C. P. A. —, C. A. D. 570.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Canada for home consumption, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade was Canadian $7.92 per case packing included.

> *464.IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *B. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. (Perry II. Chipurnoi, Inc.)*v. *United States,*42 C. C. P. A. —, C. A. D. 570 be incorporated in the record in the instant appeal to reappraisement and that such appeal be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was Canadian $7.92 per case, packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00299

- CR
Marcus Allen Bergh v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- 10

- 27537

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 14, 2016.
No. 45173.

#### Protests 45617-K, etc., of Conestoga Cream & Cheese Mfg. Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284) it was held that an allowance of 2)4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible coverings.
# C_2016462EN.01000301.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV

(Case C-92/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 96/75/EC - Systems of chartering and pricing in inland waterway transport - Scope - Article 1(b) - ‘Carrier’ - Article 2 - Freedom to conclude contracts and negotiate prices))

(2016/C 462/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sven Mathys

Appellant:

Respondent: De Grave Antverpia NV

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

In the context of inland waterway transport activities, Article 1(b) of Council Directive 96/75/EC of 19 November 1996 on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and international inland waterway transport in the Community, in so far as it defines a ‘carrier’ as an owner or an operator of one or more inland waterway vessels, and Article 2 of that directive, in so far as it states that, in that field, contracts are to be freely concluded between the parties concerned, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, that would enable a person who does not correspond to that definition to conclude a contract of carriage as a carrier.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

1

---