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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-754V 

Filed: January 4, 2018 

UNPUBLISHED 

RONALD DEVINGO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Carol L. Gallagher, Linwood, NJ, for petitioner. 

Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On June 8, 2017, 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”). Petitioner alleges that he received an influenza vaccine on November 12, 2015, 

and thereafter suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration 

(“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters. 

On January 3, 2018, 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 states that “petitioner’s medical course is consistent with 

SIRVA as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 2. Respondent further agrees 

 

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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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).
2 

that “petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months.” 

Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
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

      ( print page 67788)    
The Small Business Administration Region IX Hawaii District Advisory Council, located in the geographical area of Honolulu, Hawaii, will hold a public meeting at 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2000, at the Business Information and Counseling Center, 1111 Bishop Street, Suite 204, Training Center, Honolulu, HI 96813, to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the Small Business Administration, or others present. For further information write or call Andrew K. Poepoe, District Director U.S. Small Business Administration, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 2-235 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850; (808) 541-2965. 

Bettie Baca, 

Counselor to the Administrator/Public Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 00-28906 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-430-Y

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File

Late Response/Amended Response (doc. 35). The certificate of

conference to the motion indicates that the motion is unopposed. 

As a result, and after review of the motion, the Court concludes that

it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Second Amended

Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims for

Relief is DEEMED filed this same day, and the clerk of the Court is

DIRECTED to file a copy of the second amended response, which was

attached as electronic exhibits 13-17 to the motion for leave. See

N.D. Tex. L. Civ. R. 15.1(b).

Defendants shall have until October 5, 2022, to file a reply

to Plaintiff's Second Amended Response.

SIGNED September 15, 2022.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>

                                 June 29, 2000


Mr. Michael J. Saylor
Alcantara LLC
8000 Towers Crescent Drive
Suite 1400
Vienna, Virginia  22182

      Re:  $25,000,000 Credit Facility (the "Loan") from Bank of America, N.A.
           (the "Lender") to Microstrategy Incorporated (the "Borrower")

Dear Mr. Saylor:

     In consideration for the pledge by the Borrower of certain collateral more
fully described in the Pledge and Security Agreement of even date herewith from
the Borrower for the benefit of the Lender, the Lender has agreed to release and
does hereby release Michael J. Saylor as Guarantor under that certain Guaranty
of Payment dated May 15, 2000 and does hereby release Alcantara LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Alcantara" collectively with Michael J. Saylor, the
"Guarantors") as Guarantor under that certain Guaranty of Payment also dated May
15, 2000.

     In addition, the Lender hereby releases the Pledge and Security Agreement
dated May 15, 2000 (the "Original Pledge") given by Alcantara as Pledgor for the
benefit of the Lender pursuant to which Alcantara had pledged certain
investments held in Account Number 859973 with the Lender as manager.

     This letter once fully signed will be the Bank's authorization and
confirmation that the "control letter" dated May 15, 2000 is also released and
terminated.

     By its signature below, the Borrower shall acknowledge and agree that the
release of the Guarantors and the Original Pledge has been consented to by the
Borrower and that such releases do no in any way affect the Borrower's
obligations under the documents evidencing and securing the Loan.

                                             Sincerely,

                                             /s/ Cheryl D. Fitzgerald

                                             Cheryl D. Fitzgerald
                                             Vice President
<PAGE>

Mr. Saylor
June 29, 2000
Page 2


Acknowledged and agreed to by:

Microstrategy Incorporated

By: /s/ Michael Saylor
    ------------------------
    Name:
    Title:


cc:  Mr. Bradley A. Hughes, Investment Officer
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Lillian McGuigan, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

September 16, 1957.

*Oscar D. Thees*for petitioner.

*Burke & Burke*for William Moorcroft.

George A. Brenner, S.

Following the issuance of letters of administration in the estate of the above-named decedent, there was filed in this office an instrument purporting to be the will of decedent, and which on its face appeared to be a carbon copy of a will bearing the signature of the decedent and the signatures of two subscribing witnesses.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established that the instrument propounded as the will of decedent was executed *866in duplicate; that the ribbon copy and one carbon copy were executed in the manner prescribed by section 21 of the Decedent Estate Law, and that at the time of execution the decedent was competent to make a will and was free from restraint.

The evidence established that the will was drafted and its execution supervised by an attorney who also acted as a subscribing witness. Both subscribing witnesses testified that one of the duplicate originals, the ribbon copy, was delivered to the decedent immediately following its execution and the other duplicate original, the carbon copy, was placed in an envelope and deposited in the office safe of such attorney, A search by the proponent for the duplicate original delivered to the decedent has failed to disclose its existence.

The proceeding for the probate of the alleged will is denied and the petition is dismissed. The proponent’s failure to explain the inability to produce both or all copies of a will executed in multiplícate one of which was shown to have been in the possession of decedent raises the presumption that the will was revoked by the decedent. *(Surrogate’s Ct. Act,*§ 143; *Matter of Kennedy,*167 N. Y. 163, 168; *Matter of Robinson,*257 App. Div. 405.)

Submit decree denying probate to the instrument propounded as the will of decedent and dismissing the probate petition.
USA Notice of Publication – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CLOIS GLENN RABORN (01)

 NO. 4:22-CR-066-O

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(1) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(6)(C), I certify that 

the government posted notice of this forfeiture action on an official government internet site 

(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days beginning on June 28, 2022 as shown 

by the Advertisement Certification Report attached as Exhibit A.

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD E. MEACHAM 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Brandie Wade

BRANDIE WADE

Assistant United States Attorney

State Bar of Texas No. 24058350

801 Cherry Street, 1700

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Telephone: 817-252-5200

Facsimile: 817-252-5455

Email: brandie.wade@usdoj.gov

Case 4:22-cr-00066-O Document 37 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 102
USA Notice of Publication – Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 11, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic 

case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic 

filing” to counsel for Defendant, who has consented in writing to accept this Notice as 

service of this document by electronic means.

/s/ Brandie Wade

BRANDIE WADE

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:22-cr-00066-O Document 37 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 103
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 22, 2009 

0415 

Order 

 

April 22, 2009 

137761 & (45)(46) 

ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137761 

 COA: 277765 

Kalamazoo CC: 06-000087-CZ 

MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS 

ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae and the 

motion to file a response are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 

16, 2008 judgment 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. 

 HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KHALIL J. GASKIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D 20-1557

[October 15, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562013CF003488A, 562013CF001093B.

Khalil J. Gaskin, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Ohio Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Ohio Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 6      | 6      | 6      | 5      | 5      | 4      | 4      | 4     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | NA     | 4      | NA     | 4     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|U.S. Refinery Hydrogen Production Capacity as of January 1 (Million Cubic Feet per Day)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|U.S. Refinery Hydrogen Production Capacity as of January 1 (Million Cubic Feet per Day)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 1,955  | 2,298  | 2,444  | 2,572  | 2,357  | 2,569  | 2,418  | 2,501 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2,607  | 2,527  | 2,644  | 2,674  | 2,940  | 3,139  | NA     | 3,052  | NA     | 3,104 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3,143  | 3,230  | 3,244  | 3,265  | 3,258  | 2,965  | 2,823  | 3,100  | 3,109  | 2,914 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,985  | 3,082  | 3,215  | 3,047  | 3,094  | 3,102  | 2,997  | 3,009  | 3,037  | 3,073 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,126  | 2,893  | 2,893  | 2,875  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/21/2022                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2024
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 299

Authorizing the printing of the book entitled ‘‘Hispanic Americans in

Congress’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1994

Mr. SERRANO (for himself, Mr. ORTIZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. PASTOR,

Mr. DE LA GARZA, Mr. DE LUGO, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. TORRES, Ms.

ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.

ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Mr. TEJEDA, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. UNDERWOOD,

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, and Mr. BONILLA) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of the book entitled ‘‘Hispanic

Americans in Congress’’.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the book entitled ‘‘Hispanic Americans

3 in Congress’’, prepared under the direction of the Joint

4 Committee on Printing, shall be printed as a House docu5 ment, with illustrations and suitable binding.

6 SEC. 2. There shall be paid from the contingent fund

7 of the House of Representatives not more than $3,000 for

8 administrative costs of compiling the document.
2

•HCON 299 IH

1 SEC. 3. In addition to the usual number, there shall

2 be printed, for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing,

3 the lesser of—

4 (1) 25,000 copies of the document; or

5 (2) such number of copies of the document as

6 does not exceed a total production and printing cost

7 of $110,000.

Æ
#### FIRST TRUST JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF CHICAGO v. BATES et al.

No. 13221.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

July 3, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1942.

Lawther, Cramer, Perry & Johnson, of Dallas, for appellant.

Maxey & Freeman and Joe A. Keith, all of Sherman, for appellees.

BOND, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege. The suit is based upon a written contract, alleged to have been executed by the defendant in Gray-son County, Texas, and performable in that county. The defendant is a corporation and has an agent in Grayson County, with whom the plaintiff negotiated and consummated the written contract with the defendant corporation.

In due time the defendant filed a plea of privilege to transfer the suit to the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, alleging that Dallas County had exclusive venue thereof; and the plaintiff controverted the plea, urging venue exception as provided in Subd. 23, Art. 1995, R.S.: “Suits against a private corporation, association or joint stock company may be brought in any county in which the cause of action, or a part thereof, arose, or in which such corporation, association or company has an agency or representative, or in which its principal office is situated. 3⁄8 * * *»*

The record reveals that the defendant is a private corporation, that the contract, the breach of which is involved in the suit, was in writing, and the cause of action arose in Grayson County; and that the defendant has an agent in that county. The cause was submitted to the jury, and the jury found (material here) that on December 2, 1940, the date of filing of the suit, H. U. Bean and Tom Barbee, of Grayson County, Texas, were agents of the defendant, representing it in said county. We are not concerned with the facts on the merits of the suit. It is not incumbent upon plaintiffs to prove their cause of action; having established the venue.facts under one of the exceptions to the statute, they are not required to go farther and make out a prima facie cause of action, as might be required under other *735subdivisions. Rural Life Ins. Co. v. Caperton, Tex.Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d 309; Municipal Life Ins. Co. v. United Fidelity Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 288; Painter Bus Lines, Inc., v. Carpenter, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 278; National Aid Life v. Self, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 606; De Shong Motor Freight Lines, Inc., v. North Texas Coach Co., Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 766; Texas-Louisiana Power Co. v. Wells, 121 Tex. 397, 48 S.W.2d 978.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Filed 2/8/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 17

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Tate Allister Pederson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20100187

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Wickham Corwin, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Reid A. Brady and Tanya Johnson Martinez, Assistant State’s Attorneys, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, N.D. 58108-2806, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Nicholas D. Thornton, Fargo Public Defender Office, 912 3rd Ave. S., Fargo, N.D. 58103-1707, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Pederson

No. 20100187

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Tate Pederson appeals from a criminal judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of gross sexual imposition and sexual assault, and from an order dismissing his motion for a new trial.  On appeal, Pederson argues insufficient evidence exists to support the guilty verdict.  He further asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers