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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 678 V

Filed: February 4, 2022

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

ELIZABETH TURNER,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* UNPUBLISHED

Decision on Joint Stipulation;

Shoulder Injury; Influenza (“Flu”)

Vaccine

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

Amy Senerth

, Esq.

, Muller Brail, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Andrew Henning

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

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Roth

, Special Master:

On May 23, 2017, Elizabeth Turner [ “ Ms. Turner ” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 Petitioner alleges that

she suffered from a shoulder injury after receiving a n I nfluenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 1, 2015

. Stipulation

, filed Feb. 4, 2022 at ¶¶ 1

- 4. Respondent denies that the immunization caused
petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties h ave agreed to settle the case

. On February 4, 2022, the parties

filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347,

116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will

be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s

inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party
has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is

a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes

medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Sta t. 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

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

A lump sum of $ 25,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, E lizabeth

Turner

. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would b e available

under § 300aa

- 15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipula tion attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and

on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance

with this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth

Mindy Michaels Roth

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice

renounci ng the right to seek review.
Before the Third Division,

August 2, 1938

No. 39144.

#### Protest 807631-G/10614 of William J. Oberle, Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the tea urn was imported for the personal use of the importer and not for sale. On the record presented it was held not subject to the additional duty under section 489. Abstract 32336 cited.
#### Frederick K. Fish, appellant, *v.*The Harrison Milling Company et al., respondents.

[Decided May 3d, 1918.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, whose opinion is reported in *87 N. j. Eq-. 108.*

*Mr. Edward*Maxson, for the appellant.

*Messrs. Church & Harrison,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reason's stated' in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Lewis.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Gardner — 11.

*For reversal*— Hone.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Peoples Financial Services Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alan W. Dakey, Chief Executive Officer/President, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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.  To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





/s/ Alan W. Dakey

Chief Executive Officer/President

(Principal Executive Officer)





Date: March 16, 2011
No. 96-8357 (A-674).

#### In re Medina.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Hawaii National Guard engineers build shelters for evacuees

By Lt. Col. Wayde MinamiState of Hawaii, Department of Defense

                PAHOA, Hawai  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the National Guard website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Hawaii Army National Guardnational guardArmy National GuardHumanitarian Assistancedisaster reliefConstructionConstruction & Equipment
# Patent

## Title
1-Heterocyclic alkyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinazolinones and analgesic

## Abstract

The compound 7,10-dichloro-3-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydrobenz[h]isoquinoline hydrobromide is useful as an antifungal agent.

## Background
The invention is concerned with the compound 7,10-dichloro-3-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydrobenz[h]isoquinoline hydrobromide. At a concentration of 40 .mu.g/ml and 100 .mu.g/ml in Sabourand's dextrose broth it inhibits the growth of Candida albicans and Microsporum canis, respectively, in the commonly employed agar diffusion test. It is adapted to be combined in various forms such as elixirs, dust, unguents, solutions and suspensions to provide compositions inimical to fungal growth.

In order that this invention may be readily available to and understood by those skilled in the art, the following preparation is supplied. hydrobromide

To 34.0 g (0.0944 mole) of 2-(5,8-dichloro-1-naphthylmethylamino)-1-phenyl-1-propanol free base was added cautiously 250 ml 48% HBr. The mixture was stirred and refluxed for sixty hours, cooled and the resulting solid was filtered through a medium sintered glass funnel. The solid was washed with 3.times.75 ml H.sub.2 O, air dried for three hours, washed with 3.times.125 ml ethyl acetate, and air dried. The product weighed 27.9 g (70%) and melted at 298-310.degree.. An analytical sample, m.p. 313-317.degree., was obtained by recrystallization from methanol.

Anal. calcd. for C.sub.20 H.sub.17 Cl.sub.2 N.HBr: C, 56.76; H, 4.29; N, 3.31. Found: C, 56.87; H, 4.23; N, 3.12.

## Claims

1. The compound 7,10-dichloro-3-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydrobenz[h]isoquinoline hydrobromide.
#### EAST WIND ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. Graphic Arts International Union Local No. 280, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.

No. 81-7137.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 10, 1981.

Decided Dec. 4, 1981.

Samuel L. Holmes, Angelí, Holmes & Lea, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

Paul E. Bateman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

David R. Rosenfeld, San Francisco, Cal., for intervenor.

Before KENNEDY and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges, and BURNS,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable James M. Bums, Chief Judge, U. S. District Judge for the District of Oregon.

PER CURIAM:

There is solid, substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that the employee was discharged for union activities. The petitioner was able to make no plausible argument to the contrary.

The Board requests that in this case we grant an award of attorney’s fees against the petitioner for having taken a frivolous appeal to delay enforcement. As indicated, it is difficult to find any merit at all to the appeal, and we think the Board acted properly in requesting us to consider an award of attorney’s fees. We decline to award them in this case, however, because it has not been the practice to do so in this circuit, but henceforth we will be more favorably disposed to such requests in order to preserve the rights of all parties under the National Labor Relations Act and to protect our own docket.

“ENFORCED”
Case No. 8,659a.

#### McARTHUR v. HOGAN.

[Hempst. 286.] 1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

July, 1835.

Replevin—Affidavit—Inadequate—Judgment of Retorno.

1. Where an affidavit in replevin-omits to state that the plaintiff was lawfully possessed of the property, and that it was unlawfully taken from his possession and without his consent,' it is fatally defective, and it is proper to dismiss the suit.

2. Judgment of retorno, not technically correct, but substantially good.

[This was a suit by Charles McArthur against Young Hogan. Heard on appeal.]

Before JOHNSON and YELL, JJ.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

In this action of replevin, two questions are presented for the consideration of the court. . First, the sufficiency of the affidavit of the plaintiff; and second, the legality of the judgment rendered by the court. The affidavit made by the plaintiff in the court below, is manifestly defective and insufficient. It contains no averment that the plaintiff ever was possessed of the property, or that it was unlawfully taken from his possession and without his consent. These averments are required by the statute (Ter. Dig. 457), and the affidavit being thus fatally defective, the suit was properly dismissed by the court. Our statute provides, that if any plaintiff in replevin shall fail to prosecute his suit with effect, the judgment shall be, that he return the property taken. Ter. Dig. 458. Has the circuit court rendered such a judgment? Although the judgment is not in the technical language of the usual forms, yet we think it substantially corresponds, with approved precedents. The judgment is as follows: “Therefore, it is considered that the said plaintiff take nothing by the said writ, and that the said defendant have a return of the property so replevied as aforesaid.” The judgment rendered in the case is, in our opinion, substantially for a return of the property, and although not formally, is substantially correct Judgment affirmed.
#### James McCutcheon & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6494.

Entry No. 743776, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 28, 1942, etc.

Certified January 29, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 23, 1942, etc.

(Decided November 7, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

*403On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2012366EN.01002301.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2012 — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

(Case C-366/12)

2012/C 366/40

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Finanzamt Dortmund-West

Defendant and appellant:

Claimant and respondent: Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

Claimant and respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | Must a closely related activity be a service in accordance with Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment Council Directive 77/388/EEC? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must a closely related activity be a service in accordance with Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment Council Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)

1

| 2. | If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, is an activity closely related to hospital or medical care only if it was performed by the same taxable person as also provides the hospital or medical care? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, is an activity closely related to hospital or medical care only if it was performed by the same taxable person as also provides the hospital or medical care?

| 3. | If question 2 is to be answered in the negative, is an activity closely related even if the care is exempt from tax not under Article 13A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes but under subparagraph (c) of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question 2 is to be answered in the negative, is an activity closely related even if the care is exempt from tax not under Article 13A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes but under subparagraph (c) of that provision?

---

(1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                          |  |                              
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                          | 
|Avanex Cayman                             |  | Cayman Islands               
|                                          | 
|Avanex Communication Technologies Co. Ltd |  | China                        
|                                          | 
|Avanex France OIF S.A.                    |  | France                       
|                                          | 
|Avanex International Corporation          |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Avanex U.S.A. Corporation                 |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|LambdaFlex, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Pearl Acquisition Corp.                   |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Avanex (Thailand) Limited                 |  | Thailand
# C_2012184EN.01002301.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/23

---

Action brought on 9 March 2012 — ZZ v ERCEA

(Case F-33/12)

2012/C 184/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Partial annulment of the applicant’s contract with the ERCEA in the part in which he is graded at AD 10.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the part of the ERCEA’s decision and of the decision to reject the applicant’s complaint in which they classify the applicant at grade 10; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the part of the ERCEA’s decision and of the decision to reject the applicant’s complaint in which they classify the applicant at grade 10;

| — | Order the ERCEA to pay damages for the material harm sustained by the applicant, calculated on the basis of the salary difference between a CA3a and a CA3b, function group III, in respect of the whole period of his contract with the ERCEA, and for the non-material harm sustained by him, plus compensatory and default interest at the rate of 6.75% for the non-material and material harm sustained; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the ERCEA to pay damages for the material harm sustained by the applicant, calculated on the basis of the salary difference between a CA3a and a CA3b, function group III, in respect of the whole period of his contract with the ERCEA, and for the non-material harm sustained by him, plus compensatory and default interest at the rate of 6.75% for the non-material and material harm sustained;

| — | Order the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) to pay the costs.

---
ABCI Holdings Inc.
 
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
 
 I, Mark L. Baum, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ABCI Holdings Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants certifying officers are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5.  The registrants certifying officer has disclosed, based on his most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or person performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 
 6.  The registrants other certifying officers have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: August 18, 2004/s/   Mark BaumMark L. BaumChairman, CEO