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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

SHERRIE A. RASMUSSEN, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * No. 13-142V 

 * Special Master Christian J. Moran

 * 

v. * Filed: October 10, 2014

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

 * respondent does not object. 

 Respondent. * 

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

Diana S. Sedar, Maglio, Christopher, & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner;

Tara J. Kilfoyle, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On October 10, 2014, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her 

application to request $ 22,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

On February 26, 2013, Sherrie A. Rasmussen filed a petition for 

compensation alleging that the influenza vaccine, which she received on 

September 5, 2011, caused her to suffer Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). 

 1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website. 

 
Petitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision, 

filed Oct. 10, 2014. Because petitioner received compensation, she is entitled to an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $22,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her 

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that she has not incurred in out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this 

claim. Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

a. A lump sum of $22,000.00 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Diana S.Sedar, for attorneys’ 

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Christina Gervasi, at (202) 

357-6521. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Christian J. Moran

 Christian J. Moran

 Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of XCL Ltd. and Subsidiaries for fiscal year
ended December 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          32,215
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,967
<PP&E>                                          56,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,196
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,089
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,613)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (551)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.03)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_________________________________________ 

)

ALISHIA N. MORRIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 19-cv-887 (APM)

)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES )

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Alishia Morris brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act to compel 

the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to produce records that appear to relate to child 

custody proceedings in the Texas state courts. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 5–6 (seeking Texas state 

court records); Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J., ECF No. 10 [hereinafter 

Def.’s Mot.], Decl. of Jason Luetkenhaus, ECF No. 10-2 [hereinafter Luetkenhaus Decl.], Ex. 1. 

The SEC did not conduct a search, as it knew that the agency would not possess the type of records 

sought — and it so advised Plaintiff. See Luetkenhaus Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The agency now moves to 

dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. See generally Def.’s Mot. 

The SEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The agency has sufficiently 

explained through a sworn affidavit why it would not possess responsive records. See Military 

Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“[I]t is now well established that 

summary judgment on the basis of such agency affidavits is warranted if the affidavits describe 

the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail . . . and are 
2

not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.”). 

Plaintiff offers no reason, and the court cannot think of one, to doubt the agency’s representation. 

See id. After all, the SEC is a federal agency whose mission is to protect investors nationwide and 

to regulate the securities markets. See Luetkehaus Decl., Ex. 2, at 121. Thus, there is no reason to 

think that it would possess records concerning a state child custody matter. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10, is granted. A final 

appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

 

Dated: September 20, 2019 Amit P. Mehta

United States District Judge

 

1 The court uses ECF pagination.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42260-42261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20612]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-054-1210-00]


Closure of Public Lands to Motorized Vehicles, Shoshone Resource 
Area

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Closure of public land to motorized vehicles.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is given that a way and surrounding adjacent public 
land in the Little City of Rocks Wilderness Study Area (WSA) (ID-54-5, 
Shoshone/Sun Valley Environmental Impact Statement, 1986), in Gooding 
County, Idaho is closed to motorized use year round. The closed area 
includes all public land in Township 3 South, Range 15 East, Section 33 
except for a signed parking area south of the historic stone and 
earthen dam in the Little City of Rocks WSA. Motorized cross country 
travel has caused significant surface disturbance in the described 
area. The purpose of the closure is to prevent unacceptable impacts to 
soils and vegetation in compliance with the Interim Management Policy 
Guidance for WSAs.
    All public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management 
within the above described area is closed to motorized vehicle use 
indefinitely from the date of this notice.
    Exemptions from this closure may be approved by the Authorized 
Officer. Exemptions may be approved for

[[Page 42261]]

federal, state, and local government personnel on official duty, 
emergency service personnel including medical, search and rescue, and 
other licensed or permitted individuals.
    The authority for this closure is 43 CFR 8363-1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paula Perletti, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Shoshone Resource Area, 
P.O. Box 2-B, Shoshone, Idaho 83352, telephone (208) 886-2206.

    Dated: July 25, 1997.
Bill A. Baker,
Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-20612 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-66-M
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0828

_____________________________

ANTHONY JEAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Joshua M. Hawkes, Judge.

July 18, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Anthony Jean, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda Afeazue Uwaibi, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**EXHIBIT
      99.1**





**PRESS
      RELEASE**


**For
      Immediate Release**





**Atlantic
      BancGroup, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATBC), announces second quarter financial
      information** .





JACKSONVILLE
      BEACH, FLORIDA, August 2, 2006





Atlantic
      BancGroup, Inc., the parent company of Oceanside Bank, with four locations
      in
      the Jacksonville Beaches and East Jacksonville, Florida, announces second
      quarter 2006 financial results.





Atlantic
      BancGroup reports that it posted net income of $427,000 for the second quarter
      of 2006, compared to net income of $348,000 for the same period of 2005, an
      increase of $79,000 or 22.7%.





Fully
      diluted earnings per share in the second quarter of 2006 were $.34, compared
      to
      $.28 for the same period of 2005.




Consolidated
      total assets at June 30, 2006 reached $230.1 million, an increase of 13.9%
      over
      the period end June 30, 2005. Consolidated deposits and consolidated net loans
      grew 15.9% and 17.8%, respectively, over the same period, with consolidated
      deposits at $183.5 million and consolidated net loans at $166.6 million at
      June
      30, 2006.





Atlantic
      BancGroup, Inc. is a publicly-traded bank holding company, trading on the NASDAQ
      Small Cap Market. Further information may be obtained by contacting David L.
      Young, EVP/CFO at 904-247-4092, #125.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2282 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 519
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2282

                          [Report No. 112-217]

  To extend the authorization of appropriations to carry out approved 
   wetlands conservation projects under the North American Wetlands 
               Conservation Act through fiscal year 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
 Cochran, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
 Blunt, Mr. Tester, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Coons, Mr. Alexander, 
 and Mr. Portman) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                           September 19, 2012

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the authorization of appropriations to carry out approved 
   wetlands conservation projects under the North American Wetlands 
               Conservation Act through fiscal year 2017.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North American Wetlands Conservation 
Extension Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 7(c)(5) of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 4406(c)(5)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
``2017''.
                                                       Calendar No. 519

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2282

                          [Report No. 112-217]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To extend the authorization of appropriations to carry out approved 
   wetlands conservation projects under the North American Wetlands 
               Conservation Act through fiscal year 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 19, 2012

                       Reported without amendment
```
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1182

SHAUN BROWN; JENEVER BROWN; JOBS VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOBS, (JOBS)

,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, (USDA); WILLIAM STRONG, in his official and individual capacity; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, (VDH)

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv

- 01377

- LO

- MSN )

Submitted : May 24, 2018 Decided: May 29, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Shaun Brown and Jenever Brown, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Shaun Brown, Jenever Brown, and Jobs Virginia Community Development Corp.

seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to appoint counsel . This court

may exercise jurisdic tion only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Appellants

seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

See Miller v. Simmons , 814 F.2d 962, 965 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding “ that orders denying

motions for appointment of counsel in civil cases are not subject to interlocutory

appeals ”)

. * Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMIS SED

* Although the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice before we considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers , 973 F.2d 345, 347

- 48 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed could have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see In re Bryson , 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly int erlocutory decision” cannot be saved under doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation marks omitted)).
##### 



Exhibit 10.23
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 PURSUANT TO
 SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 2004 INCENTIVE PLAN
* * *
 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT date, SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. NAME,
 W I T N E S S E T H
   Grant of Option number
 Purchase Price price
 Term of Option Exhibit A
  Nontransferability
 1




---



##### 



Termination of Option
  Changes in Capital Stock
 Method of Exercising Option th
  2




---



##### 



Treatment of Options
 General
 Representations of Optionee
 Notices th
 Reimbursement of Expenses
 Incorporation of Plan
 Continuance of Service
 3




---



##### 



Interpretation
 Enforceability
  SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:Authorized OfficerOPTIONEENameAddress:
 4




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
    Number of Years From Date ofOption Agreement
    
    Percentage ExercisableOne
    
    
    100
    %
  5
#### Ricketts, Appellant, *v.*Capwell.

*Equity*— Specific *performance*— Findings *of fact.*

Where on a bill in equity to enforce specific performance of an alleged parol agreement in relation to land, the answer denies all of the material allegations of the bill, and the court finds that the plaintiff's proof is far from being clear and convincing, and such finding appears to be fully warranted by the evidence, the Supreme Court will not reverse a decree dismissing the bill.

Argued April 11, 1910.

Appeal, No. 242, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1905, No. 12, dismissing bill in equity in case of Agib Ricketts v. R. U. Capwell and Benton Coleman, Executors of Isaac B. Felts, deceased.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for specific performance. Before Evans, P. J., specially presiding.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was decree dismissing the bill.

*269May 16, 1910:

*Wm. S. McLean,*with him *Alexander Ricketts,*for appellant.

*J. M. Walker,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

The object of the bill in this case was to enforce by a decree for specific performance, an alleged parol agreement in relation to land. The answer contained a distinct denial of all of the material allegations of the bill and the court found that the testimony produced by the plaintiff upon the controlling question of fact in the case was far from being clear and convincing. This finding appears to have been fully warranted by the evidence and it will not be disturbed.

The decree dismissing the bill is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 984-985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT97-16-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

December 31, 1996.
    Take notice that on December 20, 1996, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing Attachment A to the filing 
which details, by customer, the historical load factors calculated 
using total firm entitlements for the 12-month period ended October 31, 
1996. Columbia proposes to charge its firm customers the GRI demand 
rate indicated by these

[[Page 985]]

calculations, and any new customer added after January 1, 1997, will be 
billed GRI each month based on the actual throughput for each month of 
prior service until a 12-month history is established.
    In Opinion 407, issued by the Commission on September 27, 1996, in 
Docket No. RP96-267-000, the Commission waived the requirements of 
individual pipeline tariffs so that presently effective tariff sheets 
reflecting the 1996 GRI funding surcharges need not be restated since 
the approved charges for 1997 are the same as the GRI charges approved 
for 1996. Nevertheless, Columbia is filing Attachment A so as to insure 
that the load factors resulting from its calculations are a matter of 
public record.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Section 385.214 and Section 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-206 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Ronald E. HOLMES, Respondent.

No. 51861.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 2, 1977.

Larry Gibbs Turner, Bar Counsel, Gaines-ville, and David G. McGunegle, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

PER CURIAM.

We have before us an original complaint by The Florida Bar against Ronald E. Holmes, one of its members. The referee in the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Bar found respondent Holmes guilty of technical, but not willful, violations of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar and disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The violations stemmed from a loosely constructed agreement Holmes had with clients for the management of a trust account and payment of legal fees. In his report the referee recommends that Holmes be publicly reprimanded for mishandling the trust account and the trust monies. Holmes has not filed a response in opposition to the referee’s findings or recommendation.

The recommendation of the referee appearing to be proper for disposition of this cause, Ronald E. Holmes is hereby publicly reprimanded and ordered to pay costs in*86curred in these proceedings by the Bar of $2,206.20.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, Acting C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.