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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

ROBERT KAPER

, * No. 13

- 504V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

* Filed: September 30 , 20 14

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

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

Lawrence R. Cohan , Anapol, Schwartz, et al. , Philadelphia, PA , for P etitioner;

Jennifer L. Reynaud , U. S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC , for R espondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On September 15 , 2014, petitioner 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 o n subsequent dis cussions, petitioner amended his

application to request $24,250.00 , an amount to which respondent does not object.

The Court awards this amount.

On June 24, 2013

, Robert Kaper filed a petition for compensation alleging

that the influenza vaccine, which he received on November 9, 2011 , caused h im to

suffer Guillain

- Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). 2 Petitioner received compensation

based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision

, issued Aug. 20 , 2 014 . Because

1 T he 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 inf ormation 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.

2 The petition identifies the d ate of vaccination as November 10, 2011 , but th e medica l

records confirm tha t November 9, 2011 , is the correct date of vaccination.2

petitioner received compensation, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and

costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

Petitioner seeks a total of $24,250.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for h is

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

that he did not i ncur any 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 lump sum of $24,250.00 in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Lawrence R. Cohan , for attorneys’

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(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, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357

-

6353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
October 17, 1996

 Refer to: HNG-14

J. M. Essex, P.E.

Vice President, Sales

Energy Absorption Systems, Inc.

One East Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Mr. Essex:

My June 21, 1996 acceptance letter to Mr. Roger Egan restricted the use of your QuadGuard

impact attenuator to locations where reverse direction hits were unlikely pending development

and testing of suitable transition designs.

On October 3 Messrs. Bernard and Stevens provided members of my staff with a copy of your

October 1 letter to Mr. Eller, which forwarded data on three reverse-direction crash tests that

were run on transition designs for use with the QuadGuard in locations where reverse-direction

hits are possible. You requested FHWA acceptance of these specific designs. The test results are

documented in a report by E-TECH Testing Services, Inc. dated September 1996 and entitled

“NCHRP Report 350 Crash Test Results for the QuadGuard Transitions." The specific tests run

and their results are shown as Enclosure 1. The two designs tested are Enclosures 2 and 3. 

Having reviewed these data, we have concluded that the tested reverse-direction transition

designs satisfactorily meet the evaluation criteria appropriate for a TL-3 appurtenance. Thus,

they are acceptable for use with the QuadGuard attenuator at locations where reverse-direction

impacts are possible. We noted that the wood-post, w-beam transition was tested in a weak soil

and with rail on only one side of the posts, as in a roadside (guardrail) installation. We consider

this test as also supporting our acceptance of the wood-post, w-beam guardrail transition in

strong soil and when used as a median barrier in either soil. It also supports our acceptance, for

use in either soil type, of a wood-post, thrie beam barrier transition to the QuadGuard in either a

guardrail configuration (as shown in Enclosure 4) or a median barrier configuration.

We noted that in the test of the concrete safety shape-to-QuadGuard transition, the concrete

safety shape was reinforced and anchored to prevent movement. An equivalent design must be
used in the field to ensure satisfactory performance.

In summary, the QuadGuard may now be used on the National Highway System, when requested

by a highway agency, in bi-directional applications with a wood-post w-beam or thrie beam

guardrail or median barrier in either strong or weak soil or with an adequately reinforced and

anchored vertical-face (as shown in Enclosure 5) or safety shape concrete barrier when an

appropriate one of the previously described transition designs are used.

By copy of this letter, the FHWA field offices will be informed of our action. Please address any

questions or comments to

Mr. James Hatton at (202) 366-1329.

Sincerely yours,

(original signed by Seppo I. Sillan)

Seppo I. Sillan, Acting Chief

Federal-Aid and Design Division

5 Enclosures

Acceptance Letter CC-35B
03 - F e b-2015

1 8 04

I NA C
· DRE -'-351218423582 

### Our Ref

. **307**
**1** 

### 6/DRE/AM-PDC Subject: Declaration of Reciprocity Pear Mr. Gretcli



### Mr

. . Paul Gretch D
i rector

, Office of 

### the Ass

i stan
t Secretary 

### for Aviation and Interna

ti onal 

### Aff111f r a US 

### Department
of Tra tl &po rt alio n 400 

### 7' h Street, 

### S.W

. Room 6402 

### Wash

i ngton, DC 20590 

### Llsboa

, 30 

### January

, 20 1 5 T he National Institute of Civil Aviation herewith confirms that

t his 

### ci v il aviati o n a ut ho rit y 

### will grant, on the basis of r e ciprocity,
to a n y tarrior designated by the United States of A m e r i ca 

### the right 

### to conduct 

### third, 

### fourth and 

### fifth freedom non-scheduled (ch a rte r) 

### passengers flights fo/frcm 

### Portugal
In conformi

t y 

### with the Air Transport Agr e ement between the Eu r ope a n Union and the 

### United States 

### of 

### Amer

i ca, signed 

### In Brussels on the 25

1 h 

### of A pr il of 

### 2 007 and In Wash

i ng t o n, on th e 30 111 of 

### April of 2007. The present Declarat

i on of Reciprocity

Is valid for a per

i od o f six (6) 

### mo n ths as fr o m Feb
r uary 0 1 , 20115

. Yours ainc e r s ly L. T S /F B / I F

2 / 2 RU I 8 , i d lllt.fn 4 -AIIropo

r lo d 1 Pa ll **I~~** • **\1~ 03**  **~** Li e bo a · F' O R T UOA L NIP C • 504 28 8 808 T e l ,t +OSt)

**1** 042 **G** 0 0
' Fox
( 351121
**8~ 0**  2 3 B d \V\ WJ lna c.p t • 4 •m a tt ln a cgorel «t(n a o . nt
#### Willie George REESE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43850.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 533.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-19-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Section 4 
Filing

October 29, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 22, 1997, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing pursuant to 
Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, a notice of termination of gathering 
services which are currently being provided through facilities 
authorized to be abandoned by sale to Constitution Gas Transport 
Company, Inc.\1\ Williston Basin requests that the proposed termination 
of service be effective December 1, 1997. Williston Basin maintains 
that the proposed termination of service will not adversely affect its 
ability to render certificated transportation service to its customers 
or its ability to meet fully its currently contractual obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 81 FERC 
para.62,006 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said 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 Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure. Under section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulation, 
all such motions or protests should be filed on or before November 3, 
1997. 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29095 Filed 11-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 55139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28213]



[[Page 55137]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Presidential Determination No. 98-1--Presidential Determination on the 
Proposed Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Swiss Federal Council Concerning Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents
Federal Register
Vol. 62, No. 204
Wednesday, October 22, 1997

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 55139]]

                Presidential Determination No. 98-1 of October 8, 1997

                
Presidential Determination on the Proposed 
                Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the 
                United States of America and the Swiss Federal Council 
                Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the 
                Secretary of Energy

                I have considered the proposed Agreement for 
                Cooperation Between the Government of the United States 
                of America and the Swiss Federal Council Concerning 
                Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, along with the views, 
                recommendations, and statements of the interested 
                agencies.

                I have determined that the performance of the agreement 
                will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable 
                risk to, the common defense and security. Pursuant to 
                section 123 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
                amended (42 U.S.C. 2153(b)), I hereby approve the 
                proposed agreement and authorize you to arrange for its 
                execution.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, October 8, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-28213
Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Leonard BARONE, Relator, v. The Honorable Paul BAKER, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-580.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54463-54464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27670]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service


National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting of the NIH 
Director's Advisory Panel on Clinical Research

    Notice is hereby given that the NIH Director's Advisory Panel on 
Clinical Research, a group reporting to the Advisory Committee to the 
Director (ACD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will meet in 
public session at the William H. Natcher Building (Building 45) 
Conference Center, Conference Room D, National Institutes of Health, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892, on November 7, 1997 from 9:00 a.m. until 
approximately 3:00 p.m.
    The goal of the Panel is to review the status of clinical research 
in the United States, and to make recommendations to the ACD about how 
to ensure its effective continuance. At this meeting items of special 
concern to the Panel will be discussed preparatory to submission of the 
Panel's final recommendations by the Panel Chair to the ACD in 
December, 1997.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other special accommodations, should 
contact the person named below in advance of the meeting.

[[Page 54464]]

    Attendance may be limited to seat availability. If you plan to 
attend the meeting as an observer or make a statement or if you wish 
additional information, please contact Mrs. Janet Smith, National 
Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 1C-116, 10 Center Drive, MSC 
1154, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1154, telephone (301) 402-3444, fax 
(301) 402-3443, by October 31, 1997.

    Dated: October 7, 1997.
Ruth L. Kirschstein,
Deputy Director, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-27670 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27771]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Proposed Consent Decree; World Color Press, Inc.

    Under 28 CFR 50.7 notice is hereby given that on October 3, 1997, a 
proposed consent decree in United States v. World Color Press, Inc., 
Civil Action No. 96-CV-1804 was lodged with the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
    In this action the United States sought injunctive relief and a 
civil penalty against World Color Press' Alden Printing Facility, 
located in Elk Grove, Illinois, to bring it into compliance with 
requirements in its permit to control and limit emissions of volatile 
organic materials (``VOMs'') for its printing presses. Following filing 
of the complaint, but before settling the litigation, World Color 
complied with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 
request to replace condenser recovery systems with an afterburner at 
the Alden Facility to control VOM emissions from certain printing 
presses. The Consent Decree requires World Color to pay a civil penalty 
of $250,000, and to comply with the Clean Air Act in all respects.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments on the Consent 
Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this 
publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 
General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department 
of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to United States 
v. World Color Press, Inc., D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-1984.
    The C.B. may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, 219 S. Dearborn St., Room 12000, Chicago, Illinois 60604, at 
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson, Air & Radiation Division, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 
4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 2005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the C.D. 
may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 
1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a 
copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $2.50 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce M. Gelber,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-27771 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
1

1

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 11/20/2015 10:10:49 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
2

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 6, 2016

d0829

Order 

Clerk

September 6, 2016

151271

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151271

COA: 323567

Wayne CC: 13-000281-FC

CURTIS LEE ROUSE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,992,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,165,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,157,841
<PP&E>                                       1,419,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                 143,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,434,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,616,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        6,581,076
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,701
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,766,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,434,539
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,319,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (54,797)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,264,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,264,758)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,264,758)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Thomas V. MALONE v. MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 47219.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 15, 1973.

Barnett, Montgomery, McClintock & Cunningham, James W. Nobles, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Oscar Mackey, and Martin R. McLendon, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice:

Appellant, Thomas V. Malone, brought an action for libel against Mississippi State Highway Commission, V. W. Guy and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds county. He alleged that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to him for damages.

The defendants answered, the Highway Commission setting up in its answer in bar of the suit against it that, as an instrumentality of the State, it was not subject to suit in a tort action of the type brought against it.

The matter alleged to bar the suit was heard and the position of the Highway Commission was sustained by the trial court. Malone gave notice of appeal from the action dismissing Highway Commission and filed an appeal bond. No disposition of the case was made as to defendants Guy and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

Highway Commission, the only appellee, has raised the question of jurisdiction and requests dismissal of the appeal as premature.

In Eubanks v. Aero Mayflower Transit Company, 253 Miss. 159, 175 So.2d 169 (1965), this Court said that, in order to be appealable,

> The judgment must dispose of the cause as to all of the parties, reserving no further questions for future determination. (Citing authority). Since a judgment is not final which settles a case as to a part only of the defendants, an order which *49dismisses the suit as to a part only of them, all of whom are charged to be jointly liable, is not a final judgment from which an appeal will lie, while the case remains undisposed of in the lower court as to the other defendants. (253 Miss. at 167, 175 So.2d at 172).

*See also*Wall v. City of Gulfport, 252 So.2d 891 (Miss.1971) and Bradley v. Holmes, 242 Miss. 247, 134 So.2d 494 (1961).

The request of the Highway Commission to dismiss the attempted appeal as premature will be granted.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER and SUGG, JJ., concur.