alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10-439V

(E-Filed: August 26, 2014)

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

JAMIE MILLER, as Personal * UNPUBLISHED

Representative of the Estate of, LISA 

MILLER, *

* 

 Petitioner, * Special Master

* Hamilton-Fieldman

v. * 

* Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * .

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

F. John Caldwell, Jr., Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.

Linda S. Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1(ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2the 

undersigned issued a decision on December 12, 2013. On August 25, 2014, the parties 

filed a Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. This stipulation requests a total 

 

1

The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within 

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade 

secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that 

are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to 

the public. Id.

2

The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
2

payment of $57,600.00, representing total attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to General 

Order #9, the stipulation reflects that Petitioner incurred no costs in pursuit of his claim.

The undersigned finds that this petition was brought in good faith and that there 

existed a reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is 

appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed 

amount seems reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby 

awards the amount of $57,600.00, in the form of a check made payable jointly to 

Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, F. John Caldwell, Jr., Esq. 

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of 

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment 

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master
Nicholas James TRAMMELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-96

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

Nicholas James Trammell, Perry, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The following Financial Data Schedule  contains  standard  data  for  the  three
Months ended  April  5,  1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            APR-05-1999
<CASH>                                        1806 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               162460 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   559 
<INVENTORY>                                  38965 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            206017 
<PP&E>                                       23552 
<DEPRECIATION>                               10475 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              257207 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       132513 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       117 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  118075 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                257207 
<SALES>                                     163924 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            163924 
<CGS>                                       141065 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               141065 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             785 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               8316 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  3248 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           5068 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  5068 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .43 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .43 
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 29**

 

 

Consent of SRK Consulting (Canada)Inc.

** **

We consent to the inclusionin this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission,of references to our name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI43-101 Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project,Ontario, Canada” effective date February 14, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financialyear ended December 31, 2014 and we consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statementon Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

 

Datedthis 27th day of March, 2015

 

SRKConsulting (Canada) Inc.

** **

 

*/s/Glen Cole*** **

By:Glen Cole, P.Geo

TitlePrincipal Consultant (Resource Geology)
Denied; and Opinion Filed May 18 , 2015 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 15 - 00592 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 00597 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 00594 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 00596 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 00595 - CV IN RE ELVIN OMAR VAS QUEZ , Relator Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10 - 35051 - Q, F10 - 35055 - Q, F10 - 35052 - Q, F10 - 35054 - Q, F10 - 35053 - Q 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to rule on and grant his “motion to strike void orders” concerning the disposition of the funds in his inmate trus t account. The petition does not include the certification, required by rule 52.3(j) of the rules of appellate procedure, that the person filing the petition has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j). The motion also does not include a docket sheet or other form or proof that the trial court has not ruled on relator’s motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (nece ssary contents of petition for writ of mandamus include certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing matter complained of).– 2

– Because the parties in an original proceeding before this Court assemble their own record,

see T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j), (k), the Court strictly enforces the requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record. See, e.g. , In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient t o authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). We must do so whether a party is represented by counsel or not. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 42 6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (Although claims pleaded in pro se inmate petitions should be liberally construed, same procedural standards apply to inmates as to other litigants.) Because relator’s petition does not comply with rule 52, he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief. We deny the petition. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8.

150592F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
#### IN RE: Wayne PETTAWAY, Petitioner

No. 16-3566

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

(Opinion filed: November 16, 2016)

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 27, 2016

Wayne Pettaway, Pro Se, Albion, PA for Petitioner.

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

In an earlier appeal, Wayne Pettaway, a state prisoner, was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. At that time, Pettaway was notified that he was required to pay the full $455 fee in installments regardless of the outcome of his appeal, and the warden was directed to collect and forward the fee to the District Court Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Pettaway v. SCI Albion, C.A. No. 12-1396 (order entered March 29, 2012). Subsequently, we dismissed the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Pettaway v. SCI Albion, C.A. No. 12-1396 (judgment entered May 22, 2012).

Pettaway now seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the District Court to refund all fees that were erroneously deducted in excess of the $350 District Court filing fee.1 Mandamus is an extraordinary reme*844dy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pettaway cannot satisfy this standard.

Among other things, Pettaway has no right to the relief he requests. As he was notified, he is responsible for the fee for his appeal regardless of its outcome. See Porter v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179-80 (3d Cir. 2009) (outlining purposes of filing and docketing fees and explaining that appellants are not entitled to their return). Once Pettaway was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he became obligated to pay the full fee. See id. at 180 n.4. That we dismissed his appeal as frivolous does not relieve him of his obligation. Accordingly, we will deny Pettaway’s petition.2 Pettaway’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1

. Pettaway attached as an exhibit to his petition a summary of his prison account statement showing that $297.85 had been deducted as filing fees for his appeal as of May 3, *8442016, with a remaining balance due of $157,15. It appears that Pettaway has conflated the $350 District Court filing fee with the $455 filing fee for his appeal,

2

. On October 17, 2016, Pettaway requested expedited consideration by this Court. To the extent that this is a motion to expedite this mandamus petition, the motion is denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1519 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the Mass Transit 

Account. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Mr. RICE of South Carolina 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 phaseout 

the Mass Transit Account. 

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 ‘‘Highway Restoration 

5 Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PHASEOUT OF MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9503(e) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1519 IH

1 ‘‘(6) PHASEOUT.—In the case of fiscal years 

2 beginning after September 30, 2021, each rate de3 termined under paragraph (2) shall be the applicable 

4 percentage of such rate. For purposes of the pre5 ceding sentence, the applicable percentage shall be 

6 determined under the following table: 

‘‘In the case of fiscal year: The applicable 

percentage is: 

2022 ............................................................................................ 80 percent

2023 ............................................................................................ 60 percent

2024 ............................................................................................ 40 percent

2025 ............................................................................................ 20 percent

2026 and each fiscal year thereafter .......................................... 0 percent.’’. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

8 9503(e)(5)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘para10 graphs (2) and (6)’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to fiscal years beginning after Sep13 tember 30, 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-845260

NO. 2018-BA-0729

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana.

**ADMISSION GRANTED.**

*1045GUIDRY, J., would remand to the Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appoint a commissioner.

GENOVESE, J., would remand to the Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appoint a commissioner.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alex C. AVALOS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50051 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/18/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alex C. Avalos, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Alex C. Avalos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Avalos has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further'responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank A. Novick, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 637]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated April 22, 2002 *(People v Novick,*293 AD2d 692 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered May 17, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
The ESTATE OF Jules REICH, Rhandi Kahn, individually, RHK JSR Holdings, LLC, Palm Beach Somerset, LLC, The Dunes at WPB, LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited partnership, The Dunes at WPB GP Inc., a Florida corporation, The Grand Isles at WPB, GP, INC., a Florida corporation, and MJRM Boca LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellants, v. Gary SMITH, individually, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2605

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 2018

Aram Caldarera Bloom of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, West Palm Beach, and Andrew M. Dector of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants The Estate of Jules Reich, The Grand Isles at WPB, GP, Inc. and RHK JSR Holdings, LLC.

Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk, PL, Miami, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed. See**Cardegna v. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.* , 930 So.2d 610 (Fla. 2006) (citing *Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna* , 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) ).

May, Damoorgian and Forst, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
        ACT OF
        2002**
  In
          connection with the Annual Report of American Security Resources Corporation
          , a
          Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
          Frank Neukomm, President and Chief Executive Officer, does hereby certify,
          pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
          his 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 all material respects,
          the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  By:
                      /s/ Frank NeukommName:
                      Frank NeukommTitle:
                      President and CEO
   April
          2,
          2007
  A
          signed
          original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
          to
          American Security Resoources Corporation and will be retained by the Company
          and
          furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
          request.
From: Terri Hollingsworth/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: James Hirtz/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

 Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/01/2011 03:41 PM

Subject: Draft Risk Assessment Report for the Pulp and Paper Source

 Category

Cortney,

Bill Schrock just informed me that the SAN 5469 - RTR NESHAP for the

Pulp and Paper Industry has been transmitted to OMB. In conjunction

with this proposal, I am forwarding the Draft Risk Assessment Report for the Pulp 

and Paper Source Category for your review.

I will be out of the office beginning December 2nd and returning December 12th. 

If you have any comments or questions about the risk assessment, please contact 

Jim Hirtz with our Air Toxics Assessment Group. He is the lead on the risk 

assessment and will be able to answer your questions.

(See attached file: Pulp & Paper Risk Assessment draft OMB.doc)

(See attached file: Appendix 1.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 2.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 3.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 4 multipathway 10-25-11.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 5 Detailed Risk Modeling Results_111711.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 6 AcuteImpacts_Refined_111711.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 7 Centroid Changes_111711.pdf)

(See attached file: App8_COS_111711.pdf)

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

Terri Hollingsworth

Air Toxics Assessment Group

Health & Environmental Impact Division, C539-02 Office of Air Quality Planning & 

Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

phone: 919-541-5623

fax: 919-541-0840

e-mail: hollingsworth.terri@epa.gov
**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








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of M~Wave,
      Inc.
      for the three months ended June 30, 2007, I, Jeff Figlewicz, Chief Financial
      Officer of M~Wave, Inc. 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:





(1)
      such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
      months ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.











Dated:  August
                14, 2007
            /s/  Jeff
                FiglewiczJeff
                FiglewiczChief
                Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT JUNE 30, 1997 AND
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           4,759
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,418)
<INVENTORY>                                     61,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,138
<PP&E>                                         868,737
<DEPRECIATION>                               (305,679)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 784,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,031
<BONDS>                                        319,953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,631
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   784,318
<SALES>                                        123,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,471
<CGS>                                          122,625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,570)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,753)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>