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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-208V

UNPUBLISHED

DAVID CARPENTER, JR.,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 15, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 26, 2020, David Carpenter 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 as a result of an influenza vaccine administered

(“SIRVA”) on November 3, 2018 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters.

On April 13, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, Respondent concluded that Petitioner suffered a Table injury of left SIRVA.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that that Petitioner satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

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

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 89

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

4 There is established a Joint Congressional Committee

5 on Inaugural Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as

6 the ‘‘joint committee’’) consisting of 3 Senators and 3

7 Representatives, to be appointed by the President of the

8 Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives,

9 respectively. The joint committee is authorized to make

10 the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the

11 President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United

12 States on January 20, 2001.

13 SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

14 The joint committee—

15 (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equip16 ment and the services of appropriate personnel of

17 departments and agencies of the Federal Govern18 ment, under arrangements between the joint com19 mittee and the heads of those departments and
2

SCON 89 ES

1 agencies, in connection with the inaugural pro2 ceedings and ceremonies; and

3 (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods

4 and services to carry out its responsibilities.

Passed the Senate March 2, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 89

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on

Inaugural Ceremonies for the inauguration of thePresident-elect and Vice President-elect of theUnited States on January 20, 2001.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00291-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF FRANCES

PHILLIPS, AN ALLEGED

INCAPACITATED PERSON

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

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-GD00198-2

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

NO. 02-14-00315-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF EDWIN

WOOLEY, AN ALLEGED

INCAPACITATED PERSON

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

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-GD00251-2

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



### ORDER

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

We have considered the “Motion Of Amicus Curiae To Participate In Oral

Argument” filed by Terry W. Hammond in cause number 02-14-00291-CV and

“Appellee’s Motion For Additional Time For Oral Argument” filed in cause

numbers 02-14-00291-CV and 02-14-315-CV. The motions are GRANTED

.

Terry W. Hammond will be permitted to present oral argument when the

case is argued on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 1:30 PM

, before a panel

consisting of Justice Dauphinot, Justice Gabriel, and Justice Sudderth, in the

courtroom of the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, which is

located on the 9th floor of the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center. This panel is

subject to change by the court. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8.

Appellant and appellee will each have a total of twenty (20) minutes for

oral argument with appellant having an additional five (5) minutes for rebuttal.

Hammond will be allowed to present oral argument during any or all of the twenty

(20) minutes allotted to the appellee in accordance with the appellee’s agreement

with Terry W. Hammond. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.5.

The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the

attorneys of record and the amicus curiae.

DATED February 12, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

2
Exhibit 32.2











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecolocap Solutions Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Michel St-Pierre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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)
The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 13th day of May, 2011.








MICHEL ST-PIERREMichel St-PierreChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the quarterly report of IFSA Strongman, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jussi
Laurimaa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.



Date:  May 15, 2006                           By: /s/ Jussi Laurimaa
                                                 -------------------
                                              Jussi Laurimaa
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### William P. BOSWORTH, Sr. v. INTERNATIONAL LAND, INC., and W.P. Bosworth, Jr.

No. 58246.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 15, 1989.

George E. Morse, White & Morse, Gulf-port, for appellant.

Jack Parsons, Parsons & Matthews, Wiggins, for appellees.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ANDERSON and PITTMAN, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; John S. Morris, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ZUCCARO, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         47,865
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  228,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                   8,821
<INVENTORY>                                    7,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               305,125
<PP&E>                                         2,016,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                 364,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,232,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          348,490
<BONDS>                                        1,534,377
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,669
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,033,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,232,711
<SALES>                                        357,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,900
<CGS>                                          205,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               83,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               377
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             22,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                46,292
<INCOME-TAX>                                   14,727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            31,565
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   31,565
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.17



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, David J. Keefe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: November 9, 2007



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David J. Keefe                  
|    |  | David J. Keefe                      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project Nos. 12817-002 and 14083-000]

                    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,[1]                                          for proposed projects to be located on the Mississippi River, in West Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana. The applications were filed by Free Flow Power Corporation for Project No. 12817-002, and Northland Power Mississippi River LLC for Project No. 14083-000.                

                    On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.[2]                                          The priority established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed application.                

The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.

Dated: January 10, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) (2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             18 CFR 4.37 (2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-698 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 20, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1231 Lower Tribunal No. 16-31841

________________ 

### Guyberto R. Jean Louis ,

Appellant, vs. 

### Maria Obeida Carvajal and Jose A. Rodriguez Renteria , Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge. Khullar P.A., and Divya Khullar (Tamarac), for appellant. Michael J. Neimand, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2

Recommending the integration of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 20, 1999

Mr. DURBIN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recommending the integration of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO).

Whereas the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia

are undergoing an historic process of democratic and free

market transformation after emerging from decades of

brutal Soviet occupation;

Whereas each of the Baltic states has conducted peaceful

transfers of political power—in Lithuania since 1990 and

in Latvia and Estonia since 1991;

Whereas each of the Baltic states has been exemplary and

consistent in its respect for human rights and civil liberties;
2

•SCON 2 IS

Whereas the governments of the Baltic states have made consistent progress toward establishing civilian control of

their militaries through active participation in the Partnership for Peace program and North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) peace support operations;

Whereas Lithuania is participating in the NATO-led multinational military force in the Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina (commonly referred to as ‘‘SFOR’’) and is

consistently increasing its defense budget allocations with

the goal of allocating at least 2 percent of its GDP for

defense by 2001;

Whereas each of the Baltic states has clearly demonstrated

its ability to operate with the military forces of NATO

nations and under NATO standards;

Whereas former Secretary of Defense Perry stipulated five

generalized standards for entrance into NATO: support

for democracy, including toleration of ethnic diversity and

respect for human rights; building a free market economy; civilian control of the military; promotion of good

neighborly relations; and development of military interoperability with NATO; and

Whereas each of the Baltic states has satisfied these standards for entrance into NATO: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are to be

4 commended for their progress toward political and

5 economic liberty and meeting the guidelines for pro6 spective members of the North Atlantic Treaty Or-
3

•SCON 2 IS

1 ganization (NATO) set out in chapter 5 of the Sep2 tember 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement;

3 (2) Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would make

4 an outstanding contribution toward furthering the

5 goals of NATO should they become members;

6 (3) extension of full NATO membership to the

7 Baltic states would contribute to stability, freedom,

8 and peace in the Baltic region and Europe as a

9 whole; and

10 (4) with complete satisfaction of NATO guide11 lines and criteria for membership, Lithuania, Latvia,

12 and Estonia should be invited to become full mem13 bers of NATO.

Æ
(n J 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Derian Douglas Hickman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Department of Defense et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

MAY 04 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District anCJ 

Bankruptcv Courts 

It 0687 

Plaintiff Derian Douglas Hickman has filed an application to proceed without prepayment 

of fees and a pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be 

dismissed for lack of standing. 

Hickman has sued the Department of Defense, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Bell Helicopter, 

Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Six Flags Theme Park, Luxor Las Vegas Casino, and Sky Angel 

Satellite TV. However, the complaint does not appear to state any injury or any cause of action. 

In its entirety the one-page complaint states as follows: 

Requesting verifying information involving prepayment of fees and poverty. 

Requesting previous civil filing patent and royalty payments and/or filings. 

Employer identification numbers and employee identification number and tax 

filings verifying my previous business filings. Freedom liberty and independence 

party donations. From any above company involving the election of Darian 

Douglas Hickman for President of the United States or Governor of Virginia[,] 

Texas or Wyoming. Requesting a trial by jury documents and amount due. 

Please include my exact words in your opinion. Please. 

Complaint. 

A federal court is limited by the Constitution to considering matters that present a case or 

controversy. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Standing is one of the justiciability doctrines that has 

3 
developed to give meaning to Article III's case or controversy requirement. Nat 'I Treas. 

Employees Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996). A question of Article 

III standing is a question of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd v. 

Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) ("Subject matter jurisdiction, then, 

is an Art. III as well as a statutory requirement[.]") Article III standing requires, among other 

things, that a plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, which is an invasion of a legally protected 

interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or 

hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). In this case, the 

complaint does not identify any injury. Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

Date: ~ a...tl 2010 

- 2 -