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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

CHRISTINA CORRIGAN

, *

* No. 13

- 416V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: October 5 , 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which respondent

* does not object.

Respondent. *

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

Howard D. Mishkind , Mishkind Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, for

Petitioner;

Jennifer L. Reynaud

, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On September 28 , 2015

, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s appl ication, respondent raised objections

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her

application to request $ 24,626.13

, an amount to which respondent does not object.

The Court awards this amount.

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this ruling on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the

parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical infor mation 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

On June 25 , 201 3 , Christina Corrigan filed a petition for compensation

alleging that her third Hepatitis B vaccine , which s he received on October 2 2

, 2010

, caused her to sustain a vaccine

- related injury diagnosed as Bell’s palsy.

P etitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision

, issued Oct. 5 , 201 5

. Because petitioner received compensation, s he is entitled to

an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

Petitioner seeks a total of $ 24,626.13 in attorney s’ fees and costs. I n

compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner has not advanced any

reimbursable costs in pursuit of her claim

. Respondent has no objection to the

amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $ 24,626.13 in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Howard D. Mishkind

, of the

Mishkind Law Firm Co., L.P.A.

, for attorneys ’ fees and other

litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be direct ed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman , at (202) 357

-

6360

.

IT IS SO ORDERE D.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2823 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2823

 To ensure that all fast-tracked reconciliation bills are subject to a 
               committee hearing, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2021

    Mr. Braun (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
   Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Lankford, Mr. 
 Risch, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. 
 Hoeven, and Mr. Rounds) introduced the following bill; which was read 
           twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that all fast-tracked reconciliation bills are subject to a 
               committee hearing, and for other purposes.

    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 ``No Hearing, No Vote Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. COMMITTEE HEARINGS FOR RECONCILIATION BILLS.

    (a) In General.--Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 (2 U.S.C. 641) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Committee Hearings for Reconciliation Bills.--It shall not be 
in order in the Senate to consider any reconciliation bill or 
reconciliation resolution, unless--
            ``(1) the reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution 
        was--
                    ``(A) ordered reported to the Senate under 
                subsection (b)(1) by the committee of the Senate 
                receiving reconciliation instructions; or
                    ``(B) reported by the Committee on the Budget of 
                the Senate under subsection (b)(2) after receiving 
                recommendations ordered to be reported to the Committee 
                on the Budget by 1 or more committees of the Senate 
                receiving reconciliation instructions; and
            ``(2) each committee that ordered reported the 
        reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution or ordered 
        recommendations to be reported to the Committee on the Budget 
        held not less than 1 hearing regarding any major provision of 
        the reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution within the 
        jurisdiction of such committee.''.
    (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``310(h),'' after 
        ``310(d)(2),''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``310(h),'' after 
        ``310(d)(2),''.
                                 <all>
```
a50612124ex10_1.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1









Named Executive Officers Long-Term Equity Incentive Fiscal Year 2014 Awards













	
Executive Officer

	 	
Restricted Stock*


(Performance-Based


Vesting) (#)

	 	 	
Restricted Stock*


(Time-Based


Vesting) (#)

	 	 	
Restricted Stock*


(Performance-Based


Vesting TSR) (#)

	 
	
Charles H. Turner

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Senior Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer

	 	7,340	 	 	8,388	 	 	13,107	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Catherine David

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Executive Vice President,


Merchandising

	 	6,490	 	 	7,417	 	 	11,590	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Gregory S. Humenesky

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Executive Vice President,


Human Resources

	 	3,678	 	 	4,203	 	 	6,567	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Sharon M. Leite

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Executive Vice President,


Stores

	 	5,563	 	 	6,358	 	 	9,932	 





 



	
* 

	
All equity awards were granted under the Pier 1 Imports, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, restated as amended.  The respective forms of award agreements are attached as Exhibits 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. The grants were effective April 12, 2013.
Tom Skiba                                                           EXHIBIT 10.9
VP and CFO
ONTRACK Data International, Inc.
9023 Columbine Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347

Re:      Amendment to employment letter of April 11, 1996

Dear Tom:

I am writing to express Ontrack's agreement on your employment situation
following the termination of the merger between ONTRACK and Legato.

1.       You will continue to hold the executive officer positions of Vice
         President and CFO.
2.       You will have a new base salary effective 2/1/00 of $166,002 per year.
3.       Your severance package is extended to one year post-termination salary
         continuation and benefits at your base salary level just prior to
         termination.
4.       In addition to your present severance benefits, any decrease in salary,
         or change in reporting responsibility or duties or title without your
         consent due to a change in control of Ontrack, will be the equivalent
         of a "termination" entitling you to the severance set forth in number 3
         above (excluding gross misconduct, criminal behavior in work-related
         areas, or violation of your non-competition and confidentiality
         obligations under written agreement.
5.       Your options under the '95 Option Plan will be deemed amended to
         conform to the "change in control" accelerated vesting provisions of
         your other options under the '96 Stock Incentive Plan. Your option
         agreements under any plan will be modified to state that in the event
         of change in control of the Company, all options become 100% vested.
         The exercise period in the event of a change in control will be one of
         the following:
         a)       If you elect to stay with the new company in a new position,
                  the exercise period will coincide with the normal expiration
                  of the individual option grant.
         b)       If you leave the Company as part of the severance arrangement
                  in item 4, above, you will have a period of 3 years from the
                  last date of employment to exercise your stock options.
6.       You will be offered 30,000 additional Ontrack options effective the
         date of this letter after market close.

All other terms and conditions to remain the same.

Sincerely,

Mike Rogers
CEO and Chairman

Agreed:   /s/ Tom Skiba
          -----------------------
          Tom Skiba
          February 2, 2000
# C_2016192EN.01000201.xml

| 31.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 192/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 May 2016

(2016/C 192/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1139 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4369 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76125 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2830 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1058 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3025 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,81 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3940 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5033 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2932 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5504 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4524 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6537 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6624 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5384 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 326,59 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5673 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3314 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4848 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 199,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5865 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,053 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,3946 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,800 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0148 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,5769 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,7865 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1139

JPY

Japanese yen

123,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4369

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76125

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2830

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1058

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3025

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,81

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3940

RON

Romanian leu

4,5033

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2932

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5504

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4524

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6537

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6624

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5384

KRW

South Korean won

1 326,59

ZAR

South African rand

17,5673

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3314

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4848

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 199,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5865

PHP

Philippine peso

52,053

RUB

Russian rouble

73,3946

THB

Thai baht

39,800

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0148

MXN

Mexican peso

20,5769

INR

Indian rupee

74,7865

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2879 

To provide that Executive Orders 14042 and 14043 shall have no force 

or effect. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 

Mr. LANKFORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide that Executive Orders 14042 and 14043 shall 

have no force or effect. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Vaccine Mandates 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS 14042 AND 14043. 

7 The provisions of Executive Order 14042 (86 Fed. 

8 Reg. 50985; relating to ensuring adequate COVID safety 

9 protocols for Federal contractors) and Executive Order 

10 14043 (86 Fed. Reg. 50989; relating to requiring 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2879 IS

1 Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccination for Federal employ2 ees) are rescinded and shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Lois M. Martin, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lois M. Martin                               
|Lois M. Martin                                   
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|April 30, 2009                                   

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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.
#### Kelly vs. Town of Fond du Lac.

*.Bill of exceptions, leave to serve after time.*

Where the sixty days after written notice or judgment, within which the statute requires the hill of exceptions to he served, have expired without such service made, the court, upon satisfactory excuse shown for the delay, may grant leave to the appellant to serve such hill and have it settled. The principle of *Smith v. Smith*(19 Wis., 522), followed.

MOTION to strike out the bill of exceptions.

The defendant failed to serve a bill of exceptions within sixty days after notice of the judgment; but, upon satisfactory excuse shown, the court allowed the bill to be served and settled afterward.

*A. M.*Blair, plaintiff's attorney, for the motion.

*Coleman & Thorp,*defendants’ attorney, *contra.*

Lyon, J.

Motion to strike bill of exceptions from the judgment roll in the action. The question presented by this motion is, whether tho circuit has power to grant an order, after the expiration of sixty days from the service of written notice of *440the entry of judgment, giving the appellant leave to serve a bill of exceptions and to have the same settled. The ease of *Smith v. Smith,*19 Wis., 522, is decisive of this question, and resolves it in the affirmative. That was a case of exceptions to the report of a referee. The law gives a party ten days after written notice of the filing of the report, in which to file exceptions thereto. Laws of 1860, ch. 264, sec. 14. The report was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant failed to file exceptions thereto within ten days after such notice was given. Thereafter upon notice of motion duly given to the plaintiff, and on affidavits satisfactorily excusing such failure, the circuit court granted an order giving the defendant further time in which to file his exceptions to the report. It was held that the court had power to make the order. The time within which a bill of exceptions is to be served and settled is prescribed in the same section (Laws of 1860, ch. 264, sec. 12); and the power of the court to grant leave to serve and settle the same after such time has expired, in cases where the delay to do so is satisfactorily excused, rests upon precisely the same grounds. In this case the delay was satisfactorily excused.

*By the Court.*— The motion is denied, with costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1861-1862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00214]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9012-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed 12/30/2013 
through 01/03/2014 pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

[[Page 1862]]

 Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130384, Draft Supplement, USFS, NV, Ely Westside Rangeland 
Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: Vernon Keller 775-
335-5336
EIS No. 20140000, Draft EIS, USACE, NC, Village of Bald Head Island 
Shoreline Protection Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: 
Ronnie Smith 910-251-4829
EIS No. 20140001, Draft EIS, APHIS, 00, Determinations of Nonregulated 
Status for 2, 4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties, Comment Period 
Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: Sid Abel 301-734-6352

    Dated: January 7, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-00214 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Department of Employment Security

No. 84-194

#### Appeal of Francis Keddy (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)

December 31, 1984

*New Hampshire Legal Assistance,*of Portsmouth *(Victoria Pulos*on the brief and orally), for the petitioner, Francis Keddy.

*Peter W. Mosseau,*acting attorney general *(Daniel J. Mullen,*assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.

Memorandum Opinion

The New Hampshire Department of Employment Security issued a ruling requiring the petitioner to make restitution of an overpayment in unemployment compensation pursuant to RSA 282-A:164 (Supp. 1983). The issue raised in this appeal is whether that ruling, which was made more than two years after the weeks affected, is barred by the two-year limitation in RSA 282-A:165 (Supp. 1983). The department ruled that the statute did not apply because of the fraudulent nature of the petitioner’s claim.

Upon briefing and oral argument, what should have been apparent to the court when it denied the State’s motion for summary affirmance, dated August 23, 1984, has become clear.

Disposition of this case does not require formal written opinion. Our decision in *Appeal of City of Rochester,*125 N.H. 399, 480 A.2d 181 (1984) is controlling, and the decision below is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### HARRIS *vs.*HARRIS.

APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, WAUPACCA COUNTY.

Heard July 28, 1859.]

[Decided January *17,*1860.

*Pleadings*— Judgment— *Verdict.*

A declaration in assumpsit, which averred that the defendant sold goods, *Sea.,*to the plaintiff, is so defective in substance, that no judgment can he entered upon it.

where a declaration contains no allegations of facts, showing a cause of action, it will not he cured by verdict; the presumption being, that nothing is proved' except what is alleged or necessarily implied from the allegations.

This was an action by Cfolm Harris, Jun., against John Harris, Sen., the facts of which are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

*George B. Smith,*for the appellant.

*S. Crawford,*for the respondent.

*By the Court,*

Dixon, C. J.

This is an action of *assump-sit,*commenced prior to the adoption of the code, before a justice of the peace of Waupacca county. The declaration contains four counts, *namely,*for goods sold; work and labor; money had and received; and money paid, laid out, and expended. It differs, however, from the ordinary counts in assumpsit, in that the relation of the parties to the subject matter of each count is entirely reversed. The indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff is claimed to be for goods, &c., sold and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff; for work and labor performed by the defendant for the plaintiff; for money had and received by the plaintiff for the defendant ; and for money paid, &c., by the defendant for the plaintiff. The plea was the general issue, with several special matters of defense. The objection that no ground of action is *468*set out*in the declaration, was taken in the justice’s court, but does not appear to have been renewed in the circuit

The declaration is so manifestly insufficient as not do admit of comment It is not the case of a cause of action defectively stated, which may be aided by verdict; but the plaintiff shows no cause of action at all, unless it be one in favor of the defendant, and against himself. No judgment can be sustained upon the declaration as it stands. It is well settled that nothing will be presumed to have been proved, even after Verdict, except what is alleged, or necessarily implied from what is alleged; and that where the declaration contains no allegation of facts showing a cause of action, it will not be cured by verdict. *Harding vs. Crargie,*8 Vt., 501; *Williams vs. Hingham Turnpike,*4 Pick., 340; *Needham vs. McAnley,*13 Vt., 68; *Carlisle vs. Weston,*1 Met., 36; *Griffin vs. Pratt,*3 Conn., 513; *Phelps vs. Gill,*1 Day, 315*;*and *Chichester vs. Vass,*1 Call., 83.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the plaintiff may amend his declaration and have a new trial, upon payment of the costs.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 26, 2010

s0224 

# Order

February 26, 2010

140306

LYNN M. GALLAGHER-McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140306 COA: 292514 Oakland CC Family Division: 1998-605074-DM PATRICK M. McCARTHY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.