alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2845

___________________________ In re: John Patrick Raynor lllllllllllllllllllll Debtor

------------------------------ John Patrick Raynor lllllllllllllllllllll

Appellant v. Dennis P. Walker lllllllllllllllllllll

Appellee

____________ The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit

____________ Submitted: May 19, 2020 Filed: May 22, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.John Raynor appeals after the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the

bankruptcy court’s 1 order dismissing his adversarial complaint as barred by res judicata. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Williams v. King (In re King), 744 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir. 1990) (res judicata bars relitigation of claim if prior judgment was rendered by court of competent jurisdiction, prior judgment was final judgment on merits, and same cause of action and same parties or their privies were involved in both cases). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Thomas L. Saladino, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska. -2-
JULIE R. BEDOGNE, as personal 

representative of the estate of 

VINCENT R. BEDOGNE, 

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 30, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu); GuillainBarré syndrome (“GBS”).

Scott William Rooney, Nemes, Rooney, P.C., Farmington Hills, MI, for Petitioner.

Steven Santayana, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Julie R. Bedogne (“Petitioner”), as personal representative of the estate of Vincent 

R. Bedogne (“Mr. Bedogne”) has pursued this petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the

“Vaccine Act”). Petition filed January 26, 2021 (ECF No. 1) (filed by Mr. Bedogne); Notice

(EF No. 11) (reflecting Mr. Bedogne’s subsequent death); Order (ECF No. 20) (amending

the case caption); Amended Petition (ECF No. 39).

Petitioner alleged that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to Mr. 

Bedogne on September 26, 2019, Mr. Bedogne suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome 

(“GBS”). Amended Petition at 2-4. Petitioner further alleged that Mr. Bedogne continued 

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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).

CORRECTED

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 21-0803V 

UNPUBLISHED 
2

to suffer from GBS symptoms at the time of his passing on February 1, 2021, and that 

said symptoms were a factor in his cause of death. Id. at 3. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 30, 2022, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer in 

which he concedes that Petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for GBS. 

Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 8 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)).

Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the Act’s other statutory and 

jurisdictional requirements. 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
AFS-12-477-E August 13, 2012

Exemption No. 10600 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0814

Ms. Brigit Kavanagh Relative of Milo Rhys Jaffe

206 Willow Drive Collinsville, IL 62234

Dear Ms. Kavanagh:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received July 25, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Milo Rhys Jaffe for an exemp tion from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Milo to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Milo.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA2

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Milo Rhys Jaffe exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Milo is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Milo to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during us e of that CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Milo’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Milo Rhys Jaffe may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Milo’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on August 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosures
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.9

July 30, 2001

Mr. Brian Davidson
Baystar Capital LP
c/o Stark Investments
1500 West Market Street
Mequon, Wisconsin 53092

RE: SETTLEMENT TERMS $4,500,000 9% SENIOR SUBORDINATED CONVERTIBLE NOTE DUE
MAY 24, 2002

Dear Brian,

Confirming our July 27, 2001 telephone conversation, this letter summarizes our
understanding of the terms for settling all of Baystar Capital LP's ("Baystar")
claims against International Microcomputer, Inc. ("IMSI") related to the 9%
Senior Subordinated Convertible Note Due May 24, 2002 ("Note").

IMSI will continue to calculate and accrue interest, penalty interest and
penalties through the day of the close of Digital Creative Development
Corporation's ("DCDC") investment in IMSI. As we discussed, DCDC has indicated
that they are going to do everything possible to close by August 31, 2001.
Attached is a schedule that summarizes the calculation of the total interest,
penalty interest and penalties as of that date. That total is $1,755,735.42. On
the closing date the Baystar claim against IMSI will be calculated as 10% of the
Note balance plus the total accrued interest, penalty interest and penalties.
Based on an August 31, 2001 close the total claim would be $625,573.54.

DCDC will pay this claim plus accrued interest in four installments on September
30, 2002, December 31, 2002, March 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003. Interest will
accrue at 8% per annum from the date of the close until the September 30, 2002
payment. Thereafter, interest will accrue at the rate of 12% per annum until the
claim is paid in full on or before June 30, 2003. Attached is a second schedule
that summarizes the calculation of the four payments based on an August 31, 2001
close. The first three would be $177,533.92 and the final one would be
$177,533.93 for a total of $710,135.69.

Attached is a letter that summarizes the debt settlement for all of IMSI's
creditors. Union Bank of California, Silicon Valley Bank and the Creditors'
Committee have all agreed orally to the proposed terms. Imageline has actually
signed an agreement that provides for the 10% settlement of their arbitration
award plus a twelve year consulting agreement to cover possible additional
claims, assistance in the Zoom litigation and sales of IMSI's MasterClips
products.

If you agree that this letter and the attached schedules do accurately state the
terms of our understanding, we would appreciate your signing one copy of this
letter and returning it to us. As soon as the attorneys complete drafting the
actual consent form, we will send one to you for your signature.

Brian, I have very much appreciated working with you, Colin and Joe Gill. Thank
you very much for your assistance and patience.

Yours truly,                            ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
                                        Baystar Capital LP

Jeffrey B. Morgan                       By: /s/ BRIAN DAVIDSON
----------------------------                ------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer                     Brian Davidson

Attachments


                                      141
---

---

# Exhibit 13.1

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 Annual Report of B.V.R. Systems (1998) Ltd (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ilan Gillies, Chief
Executive 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 to my knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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: May 10, 2007

| |  | /s/ Ilan Gillies
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



---

---
Opinion filed March 16, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00262-CV

__________

DAVID HILTON AND CINDY HILTON, Appellants

V.

5J OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12750-D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed in this court a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. In 

the motion, the parties state that they have finalized their settlement agreement and 

that “there are no longer any issues in controversy between them” as it relates to this 

appeal. The parties request that we dismiss this appeal, leaving the trial court’s 

summary judgment intact, and that we tax costs against the party incurring same. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. 
2

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

March 16, 2023

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
The Honorable Bevington Reed Commissioner Coordinating Board Texas College and University System P. 0. Box 12788, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. H-746 Re: Obligation ofjunior colleges to set aside aportion oftuition charges as Texas Public Educational Grants. Dear Dr. Reed:

You have requested our opinion regarding the obligation ofjunior colleges to set aside aportion oftuition charges as Texas Public Educational Grants. Section 56.033 ofthe Texas Education Code provides as follows: The governing boards of institutions of higher education shall cause to be set aside for use as Texas Public Educational Grants twenty-five cents out of each hourly charge inSubsection (,bl $1, 50out of each hourly charge inSubsection (c) ofSection 54.051 ofthis code, as amended, and six percent ofhourly tuition charges for vocational-technical courses at public community andjunior colleges. You ask: 1)whether public community andjunior colleges are required to set aside from tuition charges for vocational-technical courses both the designated six percent and also the specified fixed amount; and 2)whether funds must be set aside regardless ofwhether there is state funding for the course.

Section 54. 051(m) ofthe Education Code contains a similar provision to that of section 56. 033, except that itmakes no specific reference tovocationaltechnical courses atpublic community andjunior colleges. InAttorney General Opinion M-l 129 (1972). this Office held that section 54.051(m) was applicable tovocational-technical courses atpublic junior colleges, even though such courses are not generally equated interms of semester credit hours. The Opinion devised amathematical formula for computation ofthe amount to be withheld for vocational-technical courses.

p. 3167The Honorable Bevington Reed - page two (H-746)

We believe that the Legislature, by its particular reference to vocational-technical courses in section 56. 033, intended to supply that mathematical formula and avoid the imprecision of section 54. 051(m), by making specific its intention to include these courses within the ambit ofthose from whose tuition charges certain amounts are to be set aside. There is nobasis for concluding that the Legislature intended to authorize a greater deduction for vocational-technical courses by requiring the withholding of both the designated six percent and also the specified fixed amount.

As toyour second question, it is our opinion that the presence or absence of state funding for the particular vocational-technical course is immaterial tothe question ofwhether “six percent ofhourly tuition charges” must be set aside. The statute draws’no distinction inthis regard, and it appears to be mandatory. SUMMARY Public community andjunior colleges are required to set aside from tuition charges for vocational-technical courses only the six percent designated in section 56.033 ofthe Texas Education Code. Such funds must be set aside regardless of wh~etherthere is state funding for the course. Very truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas

PROVED:

Opinion Committee

. jad:

p. 3168
#### SUSAN CONNELLY, ADM’X. *vs.*JOHN McNEIL, EX’R. *et al.*

It is erroneous for a jury to give interest on damages found by them in an. action of trespass *quare clausum fregit:*but this Court has the power to allow a *remittitur*to be entered for interest so given.

In the above case the remittitur was allowed on the payment of costs, and then the judgment below was affirmed.

AoxioN of TRESPASS *qucure clausum*fregit, tried before bis Honor Judge Manly, at the Fall Term, 1854, of Cumberland Superior Court.

The exceptions taken to the instructions which his Honor gave the jury were abandoned in this Court, and the only question submitted is upon a motion' here by the defendants’ counsel to arrest the judgment, because the jury in their verdict, had allowed interest upon the damages which they found for the plaintiff. The plaintiff meets that motion by another to be allowed to enter a remittitur for the interest.

*J. G. Shepherd,*for the plaintiff.

*D. Reid,*for the defendant.

Nash, C. J.

The action is ih trespass *quare clausum fregit.*The jury returned a verdict against the defendant for ninety dollars, with interest on that sum from the date of the writ, for which judgment was rendered. A motion is made in arrest of judgment by the defendants, and the plaintiff moves for permission to amend the record by entering a *remittitur*for the interest. The judgment is unquestionably erroneous, and would be arrested, but for the counter motion by the plaintiff. That this Court can allow the judgment to be amended by permitting the *remittitwr,*is fully established by the case of *Williamson*v. *Cannady,*3 Ire. Rep. 349, in which the reasons for such a course of procedure are set forth at large, and we deem it unnecessary to repeat them.

The plaintiff has leave to enter a *remittitvrr*upon the payment of the costs of this Court, The judgment is affirmed.

Per Curiam. * Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1



                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

         I, Jackelyn  Giroux,  President of  FoneFriend,  Inc ( the "Company" ),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months
ended June 30, 2003 (the " Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  November 19, 2003


                                            /S/ Jackelyn Giroux
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Jackelyn Giroux, President/Director
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





The
undersigned, Carl Tedeschi, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director of
Cardio Vascular Medical Device Corp. (the “Company”), certifies, under the
standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      November 15, 2010.
                By:
                /s/
      Carl TedeschiName:
                Carl
      TedeschiTitle:
                Treasurer,
      Chief Financial Officer andSecretary
      and Director
                  (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated 
Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: November 14, 2024.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20892.
    Meeting Format: Video Assisted Meeting.
    Contact Person: James T. Snyder, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers 
Lane, MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 20892, (240) 669-5060, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7218131f17015c011c0b161700321c1b1a5c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff959e929a8cd18c91869b9a8dbf919697d1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 11, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-24057 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMovie Gallery, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedApril 4, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Ivy M. Jernigan, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

##### **(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 the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: May 14, 2004           |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/ Ivy M. Jernigan          |   |
| Name: Ivy M. Jernigan        |
| Its: Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Movie Gallery, Inc. and will beretained by Movie Gallery, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----