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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1386V

Filed: March 9, 2016

Unpublished

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

TERRI DAVIS, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza;

* Shoulder Injury (“SIRVA”);

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Lara Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury 

following receipt of her October 20, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case 

was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 9, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent “opines that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a 

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)” and “further agrees that 

petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccination administered in her left arm 

on October 20, 2014.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that no other cause of 

petitioner’s injury has been identified, that the statutory six month sequela requirement 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends 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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned 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).
has been satisfied, and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
#### Judith Smitten, Respondent, v 56 MacDougal Street Co. et al., Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on May 10, 1990, which found in favor of plaintiff against defendant in the amount of $44,796.83, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order of the same court and Justice, entered on April 25, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment and denied defendants’ cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 for dismissal of the complaint, is dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the aforesaid judgment, without costs.

Plaintiff was the first tenant in this formerly rent-controlled *206apartment after a purported vacancy decontrol, for which the landlord did not file an initial legal rent registration, and did not file an annual registration from 1985 through 1988 inclusive. The plaintiff sought rent overcharges for a period covering March 1986 through November 1988, inclusive, alleging that the base rent was the last legal rent-controlled rate of $189.28 per month.

The IAS court properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction (Emergency Tenant Protection Act § 12 [L 1974, ch 576, § 4, as amended]; McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8632 [a] [1] [f]). This is a rent overcharge proceeding and not, as defendants contend, a fair market rent appeal. A fair market rent appeal requires that the initial legal regulated rent be effectively determined (Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of New York] § 26-513 [b] [1]), for which registration of the initial rent, plainly lacking here, is a prerequisite. (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2521.1 [a] [1].) The IAS court correctly held that since there was no initial registration, the legal rent rate was the last rate under rent control.

Further, as defendants failed to meet their burden of disproving willfulness, the IAS court properly awarded treble damages (Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516 [a]). It is the landlord’s burden to disprove willfulness, which defendants failed to do. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

12:30 p.m. EST, Friday, March 8, 2024.

# PLACE: 

Virtual meeting.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        Enforcement and examination matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.cftc.gov/​*.                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: February 28, 2024.

Robert Sidman,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2024-04471 Filed 2-28-24; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1383

____________

CHARLES KENNETH FOSTER, 

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

[January 29, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Charles Kenneth Foster’s appeal of the circuit court’s 

order denying Foster’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Foster’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s 

decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in 

Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 

(2017). This Court stayed Foster’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. 

State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this 
- 2 -

Court decided Hitchcock, Foster responded to this Court’s order to show cause 

arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Foster’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Foster is not entitled to relief. Foster 

was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 

eight to four. Foster v. State, 654 So. 2d 112, 113 (Fla. 1995). Foster’s sentence 

of death became final in 1995. Foster v. Florida, 516 U.S. 920 (1995). Thus, 

Hurst does not apply retroactively to Foster’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 

226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Foster’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Foster, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Bay County, 

Harry Hentz McClellan, Judge - Case No. 031975CF000486XXAXMX
- 3 -

James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Mark S. Gruber, 

Julie A. Morley, and Margaret S. Russell, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional 

Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida; and Billy H. Nolas, Chief, 

Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of 

Florida, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4460 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4460

            To extend the suspension of duty on Fenamidone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

 Mr. Luetkemeyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To extend the suspension of duty on Fenamidone.

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

SECTION 1. FENAMIDONE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.38 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Fenamidone) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Terry McConnaughey, director and president of Silver Butte Company (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  July 12, 2005

By:    _/s/ Terry McConnaughey_______________



Terry McConnaughey, President and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 445 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 445

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
           deduction of State and local general sales taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2011

 Mr. Young of Florida (for himself, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mrs. Adams, 
Mr. Ross of Florida, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Granger, 
Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Larsen of Washington, and Mr. Crenshaw) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
           deduction of State and local general sales taxes.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL 
              SALES TAXES.

    Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``, and before January 1, 2012''.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable John Bailey Jones, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3617

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Bonnie Sheeler, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 4, 2007 Filed: July 5, 2007

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury convicted Bonnie Sheeler on char ges of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Sheeler appeals, arguing the district court 1 should not have admitted two co-conspirator statements into evidence. This court reviews admission of co-conspi rator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) for abuse of discretion. We will reverse a district court's evidentiary-2- ruling only if it was a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. United States v. Mahasin , 362 F.3d 1071, 1084 (8th Cir. 2004). Th e trial court’s discretion as to evidentiary rulings is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial. United States v. Dierling , 131 F.3d 722, 730 (8th Cir. 1997). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the co-conspirator statements. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |         | 938,635 | 822,216 | 818,942 | 724,016 | 836,914 | 813,385 | 577,138 | 553,851 | 574,243
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 454,049 | 395,666 | 383,974 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.                     

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before October 25, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. 

*Copies:*                         Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Prime “Program for Investment in Microenterpreneurs”.                 

*No:*                     N/A.                

*Frequency:*                     On Occasion.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Disadvantage Entrepreneurs.                

*Annual Responses:*                     500.                

*Annual Burden:*                     40,000.                

Jacqueline White, 

Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. 00-24542 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2077 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2077

    To repeal medical loss ratio requirements for health insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 1, 2011

Mr. Price of Georgia (for himself and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal medical loss ratio requirements for health insurance.

    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 ``MLR Repeal Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REPEALING MEDICAL LOSS RATIO REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-18), 
as added by section 1001(5) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act and as amended by section 10101(f) of such Act, is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Pennsylvania Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Pennsylvania Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 23     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 3      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023