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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

PATRICIA TRUJILLO, *

* No. 14-692V

Petitioner, * Special Master Moran

*

v. * Filed: March 19, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).

Respondent. *

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

Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Washinton, DC, for Petitioner;

Alexis Babcock, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On March 17, 2015, respondent filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Patricia Trujillo on August 1, 2014. In her

petition, Ms. Trujillo alleged that the influenza vaccine, which is contained in the 

Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received 

on January 14, 2013, caused her to suffer from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). 

Petitioner further alleges that she experienced residual effects of this injury for 

more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or 

settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her GBS.

Respondent denies that petitioner’s GBS was caused-in-fact by her influenza 

vaccination, and denies that the vaccine caused any other injury or her current 

condition.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as 

“Appendix A.” The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as 

 

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 party has 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.
2

the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum of $130,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner, Patricia Trujillo. This amount represents compensation 

for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 14-692V according to this decision 

and the attached stipulation.2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
Case 1:14-vv-00692-UNJ Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:14-vv-00692-UNJ Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:14-vv-00692-UNJ Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:14-vv-00692-UNJ Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:14-vv-00692-UNJ Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,059
<INVENTORY>                                     90,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,911
<PP&E>                                         463,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                 290,067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,312
<BONDS>                                         17,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,227
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383,852
<SALES>                                        433,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               433,801
<CGS>                                          324,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  397,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,471
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,874
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.56
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Third I. C. M. Realty Co., Respondent, v Town of Camillus et al., Appellants.

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following Memorandum: In determining the net income produced by the property in the specified tax years, the Judicial Hearing Officer erred by deducting the actual costs of certain long-term improvements in full in the year they were paid rather than amortizing those costs over the useful life of the improvements *(see, Matter of Food Fair v Board of Assessment Review,*78 AD2d 335, 337; American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Appraisal of Real Estate, at 256 [4th ed 19641; Kniskern, Real *976Estate Appraisal and Valuation, at 252 [1933]). Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, this court’s earlier decision in *Matter of Third I. C. M. Realty Co. v Town of Camillus*(115 AD2d 967, *lv denied*67 NY2d 605) does not compel a different result inasmuch as the issue there involved "artificially calculated reserves”. The parties agree that the assessments of the subject property only for the years 1987-1988 and 1988-1989 need to be recalculated. Based upon the record before us, we are unable to make those recalculations. Accordingly, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for that determination. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Aronson, J.H.O.—Tax Certiorari.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Den-man, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
2023 ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIA ROSTER

MANAGER

Richard Waycott, CEO

Almond Board of California

1150 9th St., Ste. 1500

Modesto CA 95354

Telephone: (209) 549-8262

Fax: (209) 549-8267

www.almonds.com

POSITION MEMBERS TERM ENDS ALTERNATIVES TERM ENDS

Independent Grower Representatives

1 Paul Ewing 2024 Katie-Staack-Dorsett 2026

Atwater, CA Hickman, CA

2 Brandon Rebiero 2025 Brad Klump 2026

Modesto, CA Escalon, CA

3 Joe Gardiner 2024 Chris Bettencourt 2024

Earlimart, CA Westley, CA

Independent Handler Representatives

1 Alexi Rodriquez 2026 Ron Fisher 2026

Caruthers, CA Modesto, CA

2 Bob Silveira 2024 Dexter Long 2024

Williams, CA Ballico, CA

3 Darren Rigg 2024 Chad DeRose 2026

Le Grand, CA McFarland, CA

Cooperative Grower Representatives

1 Frances Kellie Evans 2026 George M. Goshgarian 2026

Live Oak, CA Fowler, CA

2 Christine Gemperle 2024 Kent Stenderup 2024

Ceres, CA Bakersfield, CA
Cooperative Handler Representatives

1 Mel Machado 2025 Laura Gerhard 2026

Modesto, CA Sacramento, CA

2 Alicia Rockwell 2026 Dean LaVallee 2026

Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1206 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that noncitizen 

nationals of the United States who are children of United States citizens 

are eligible for United States citizenship, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 

that noncitizen nationals of the United States who are 

children of United States citizens are eligible for United 

States citizenship, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONDITIONS OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP FOR 

4 NONCITIZEN NATIONALS OF THE UNITED 

5 STATES WHO ARE CHILDREN OF UNITED 

6 STATES CITIZENS. 

7 Section 320(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1206 IH

1 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

2 inserting after ‘‘outside of the United States’’ the 

3 following: ‘‘, or born in an outlying possession of the 

4 United States,’’; and 

5 (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the pe6 riod at the end the following: ‘‘, except that the re7 quirement under this paragraph to be admitted to 

8 the United States as a lawful permanent resident 

9 shall not apply in the case of a child born in an out10 lying possession of the United States’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
ACCEPTED

03-14-00678-CR

4878562

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/14/2015 11:33:51 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

EX PARTE 

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 

• 

NO. 03-14-00678-CR 

LESLIE PARKER JONES 

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW, Keith S. Hampton and Leslie Parker Jones, and files this his 

Motion to Dismiss Appeal, pursuant to Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, and in support thereof, would show the Court the following: 

I. 

Leslie Parker Jones was found guilty of aggravated assault in Cause No. DD1-DC-08-303025 on January 22, 2009. He was sentenced to ten years of 

community supervision. On October 24, 2014, Appellant filed his notice of appeal 

from writ proceedings conducted pursuant to Article 11.072 ofthe Code of Criminal 

Procedure. 

II. 

After a careful review of his appeal, Appellant and his counsel move to dismiss 

the appeal. 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/14/2015 11:33:51 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
III. 

This Motion to Dismiss Appeal is filed in duplicate and pursuant to Rule 42.2, 

the duplicate should be sent to the Travis County District Clerk. 

Respectfully submitted, 

·--... , .. :..o·-

__ ;; ~ 

KEITH S. HAMPTON 

Attorney at Law 

1103 Nueces Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 476-8484 (o) 

(512) 762-6170 (c) 

(512) 477-3580 (f) 

keithshampton@gmail.com 

SBN# 08873230 

2' 

/ 

ESLIE PARKER JONES, Appellant 

• 

By affixing my signature above, I, KEITH S. HAMPTON, hereby certify that 

a true copy of Motion to Dismiss Appeal has been delivered to the Travis County 

District Attorney's Office on this day, April 13, 2015.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00362-CR

ZEDA SHONTA HAZLEY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-1020-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Zeda Shonta Hazley has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal under 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2.1 We have not issued a decision in this appeal, and 

Hazley personally signed the motion. The motion is granted, and the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

 

1 Hazley also states in the motion that she “respectfully moves this Court to withdraw appellant’s notice 

of appeal.” We have no authority under Rule 42.2 to “withdraw appellant’s notice of appeal”; therefore, 

we will construe Hazley’s motion as only a motion to voluntarily dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2.
Hazley v. State Page 2

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 16, 2015

Do not publish

[CR25]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deborah Powell, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record at the pretrial suppression hearing fully supports the court’s finding of fact that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her *Miranda*rights *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436). Further, we find that the prosecutor’s remarks during summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. His remarks were a proper response to defendant’s testimony and to the remarks on summation of defense counsel. Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that her sentence is harsh and excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                             276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,221
<PP&E>                                          11,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,337
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,431
<SALES>                                         17,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,796
<CGS>                                            9,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,235)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,252)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     27
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,225)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2264

GARY RICHARD WAUGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-02-332)

Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Richard Waugh, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Henson Kinney, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gary R. Waugh appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint made under the Federal Torts Claim Act.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. The district court referred this case

to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Waugh that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation

could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon

the recommendation. Despite this warning, Waugh failed to object

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also,

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Waugh has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-59/04)

(2004/C 94/150)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.

Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

(1)   Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

----
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Allan L. Bridgford, Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



| | (1) |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year
ended November 1, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.                                                                                        

Dated: January 24, 2003

| |  |     |  |                                                           
| |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ |  | Allan L. Bridgford                                        
| |  |     |  | Allan L. Bridgford, Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32

BRESLER & REINER, INC.        Section 906 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 Annual Report of Bresler & Reiner, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officers of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/SIDNEY M. BRESLERSIDNEY M. BRESLER
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ROBERT O. MOOREROBERT O. MOORE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER    

Dated:
March 31, 2006

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports
(1) dated February 1, 2002 with respect to the subaccounts of AUSA Separate
Account VA BNY, which are available for investment by contract owners of
AUSA Landmark Variable Annuity and (2) dated February 15, 2002 with respect
to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of AUSA Life
Insurance Company, Inc., included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 to the
Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-83560) and related Prospectus of
AUSA Landmark Variable Annuity.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 25, 2002
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20722 Conference Calendar

JOHNNY VALCHAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-1897

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnny Valchar, Texas prisoner # 744014, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Valchar contends that the file maintained by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (“the Board”) contains erroneous information regarding his gang affiliation. The district court dismissed this claim as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Valchar has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing as frivolous his claim concerning theNo. 04-20722 -2- presence of false information in his parole file. See Norton v. Dimazana , 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997). This court will not consider Valchar’s argument that the Board failed to comply with provisions of the Texas Open Records Act requiring that information be divulged to an inmate or his attorney because Valchar did not raise this claim in the district
court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Valchar does not address the dismissal of the remaining claims raised in the district court. Accordingly, these claims have been abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Valchar’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of Valchar’s appeal by this court counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Valchar has accumulated at least two additional strikes based on the dismissal of a previous civil rights complaint and appeal as frivolous. See Valchar v.
Swart , No. 99-10186 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 1999) (unpublished). Valchar has now accumulated at least three strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, Valchar is now BARRED fromNo. 04-20722 -3- proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
IMPOSED.