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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

PATRICIA HUHMANN, * No. 13

- 90 3 V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

* Filed: January 22, 2015

v. *

* Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * in the amount to which

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * respondent does not object.

*

Respondent. *

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

Kathy A. Lee

, Cline, Farrell, et al

. , Indianapolis, IN , for petitioner;

Claudia B. Gangi , United States Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 21, 2015 , respondent 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 application, respondent raised objections

to certain items. Base d on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her

application to request $20,344.31 , an amount to which respondent does not object.

The Court awards this amount.

On November 13, 2013, Patricia Huhmann filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influenza vaccine, which she received on November 16, 2010

, caused her to suffer pain in her left shoulder

. The undersigned ruled that Ms.

Huhmann is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act. Ruling , issued May

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 decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation 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

13, 2014. Petitioner received compe nsation based upon respondent’s proffer

. Decision , filed Aug. 29 , 2 014 . Because petitioner received compensation, she is

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

- 15(e).

Petitioner seeks a total of $20,344.31 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states

that she incurred no o ut

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this 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 $20,344.31 in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Kathy A. Lee , 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 directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357

-

6353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
2017-0389.

#### State ex rel. Armatas v. Haas.

In Prohibition. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed. On motions for leave to intervene as respondents. Motions denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: June 8, 1998 63 FR 
31212.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: June 10, 1998 10:00 a.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The following Docket Number and Company has been 
added on the Agenda scheduled for the June 10, 1998 meeting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Item No.                                          Docket No. and company                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAE-17...........................  ER98-852-000, The Washington Water Power Company                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16087 Filed 6-12-98; 12:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of PrincipalExecutive OfficerRequired by Rule 13a-14(b) or15d-14(b)of the Exchange Act**

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAdvanstar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended March 31, 2006  as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    |  /s/ Joseph  Loggia |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph Loggia            |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     |   |
|   | Date: May 15, 2006  |   |

 

----
# 319th CES upgrades 20-year base hydrant fuels system infrastructure

/ Published Aug. 22, 2023
GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE, N.D., 
The 319th Civil Engineer Squadron began a base hydrant fuels system replacement in July 2023, on Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota.

The hydrant fuel system was initially constructed in 1959, with minor repairs until 2003 when it was replaced with aluminum. The main purpose of the system is to store fuel and to fuel base aircraft. However, years of wear-and-tear on the aluminum valves created a need for an overall upgrade to steel valves estimated to cost $2.4 million.

The U.S. Air Force Petroleum Agency and U.S. Defense Logistics Agency gave the 319th CES the option to pay contractors for restoration, or the option to replace the system through in-house manpower.

Leadership from the 319th CES operations flight and airmen from the water and fuels maintenance shop decided to tackle the project with their own expertise for roughly half the price. 

“Rebuilding the liquid fuels infrastructure here at Grand Forks AFB upgrades many airmen, making them more knowledgeable of the job throughout the Air Force,” said U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Louis Thiele, non-commissioned officer in charge for the 319th CES project.

While building up their workforce for this project, Thiele and Louis Brenner, a maintenance mechanic for the 319th CES, initially began in-house project preparation in the beginning of 2023.  

AFPET connected Thiele and Brenner with the U.S. DLA, who later funded the project with the stipulation that the whole system be replaced instead of repaired.

Additional repairs include replacing wirings, belts and hydraulically controlled components, which improve the cathodic protection components that ensure the ground does not erode underground pipes.

“They have new regulations that requires the replacement of all remaining valves because they’re constructed with wrong composite metals,” Thiele said. “Aluminum is brittle; it breaks in cooler temperatures.”  

Members from the 319th CES liquid fuels maintenance shop flew to a Cla-Val fuel valve factory in Cosa Mesa, California, to observe the new steel valves being molded. The squadron has since begun to replace 49 valves across the base, costing $675,000. Overall, the project has saved the Air Force about $1.7 million.

*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Grand Forks Air Force Base website.*
#### Reed Smith LLP, Plaintiff, v LEED HR, LLC, Appellant, and Sands Brothers Venture Capital II, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[67 NYS3d 9]

Order, Supreme Court, New York (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 13, 2016, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to attach certain stock certificates deposited with the court in this interpleader action, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of increasing the amount of the undertaking to $100,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

A plaintiff seeking an order of attachment must show the probability of its success on the merits of its cause of action, that one or more grounds for attachment provided for in CPLR 6201 exist, and that the amount demanded from the defendant, exceeds all counterclaims known to the plaintiff (CPLR 6212 [a]).

Defendants-respondents demonstrated their probability of success on the merits of their fraudulent conveyance cross claim, by submitting considerable evidence of a far-reaching fraudulent scheme, whereby the assets of their debtor, 02HR LLC, were moved through a series of entities before being used to purchase the shares at issue *(see DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v Kontogiannis,*110 AD3d 522 [1st Dept 2013]; Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 276, 278; *see also*Ky Rev Stat Ann § 378A.040). Fair consideration was not given in exchange for the shares *(see Commodity Futures Trading Commn. v Walsh,*17 NY3d 162, 175 [2011]; *Sardis v Frankel,*113 AD3d 135, 141-142 [1st *421Dept 2014]; Debtor and Creditor Law § 272 [a]). Defendant LEED HR, LLC has not shown that it actually paid for the shares; even if it did pay all or part of the recited purchase price, it paid far below the market price for the shares. The prior transfers of 02HR’s assets and of the shares were supported by either no consideration or insufficient consideration.

Respondents have also shown their likelihood of success on the merits of their claims for unjust enrichment and equitable restitution *(Sperry v Crompton Corp.,*8 NY3d 204, 215 [2007] [“(t)he essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered”]).

Two grounds under CPLR 6201 are met here. First, LEED is a Kentucky limited liability company not qualified to do business in New York *(see Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v Falor,*14 NY3d 303, 310 [2010]; *Considar, Inc. v Redi Corp. Establishment,*238 AD2d 111 [1st Dept 1997]; CPLR 6201 [1]). Second, respondents have established that, through a fraudulent scheme, 02HR’s assets have been secreted in a concerted effort to defraud them or to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in their favor *(see e.g. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc.,*110 AD3d at 522; CPLR 6201 [3]).

The remaining elements for an attachment have been met. However in the exercise of our discretion we increase the amount of the undertaking as noted (CPLR 6212 [b]).

Concur— Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2461 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2461

To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to manage the Strategic 
      Petroleum Reserve more effectively, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

 Mr. Johnston introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to manage the Strategic 
      Petroleum Reserve more effectively, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be 
cited as the ``Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments Act of 
1994''.

SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
Amendments of 1994''.

SEC. 102. TITLE I AMENDMENTS.

    Part D of title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is 
amended in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251), by striking ``September 30, 
1994'' each time it appears and inserting ``June 30, 1996''.

SEC. 103. TITLE II AMENDMENTS.

    Part D of title II of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is 
amended in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285), by striking ``September 30, 
1994'' each time it appears and inserting ``June 30, 1996''.
```
#### People v Campbell (Christopher)

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 531 (NY)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
# Budget, cost-saving approaches discussed at DLA Cost Summit

/ Published March 9, 2016
FORT Belvoir, Virginia,
#### Jessica Parrilla, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Michele Parrilla, et al., Appellants, v Gary Saphire, D.P.M., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[49 NYS3d 922]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for podiatric malpractice and lack of informed consent, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Weston, J.), dated November 17, 2015, which denied their motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue their opposition to the prior motion of the defendants Gary Saphire and Parkway Podiatry Group for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Motion by the defendants Gary Saphire and Parkway Podiatry Group, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among other things, that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 21, 2016, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see Rosendale v Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc.,*78 AD3d 680 [2010]; *Nasr v Schwartz,*288 AD2d 197 [2001]).

Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
***Exhibit
      32.1*** ****




**Section 1350
      Certification,**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant To**


**Section 906
      of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 6, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rajeev
      Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods
      presented therein.


****/S/
                        RAJEEVMADHAVAN**Rajeev
                        Madhavan**
                      **Chief
                        Executive
                        Officer**February
                  14, 2008




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.
#### Fran Schiff, Respondent, v ABI One LLC et al., Appellants.

[65 NYS3d 714]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered September 21, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to whether defendants, the owner and manager of a building in which plaintiff’s decedent lived, installed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in decedent’s apartment and whether such failure, if it occurred, was a proximate cause of his injuries. Although the building superintendent testified that he installed the device in decedent’s apartment, conflicting testimony from other witnesses was presented, the documentary evidence is unclear, no smoke detector was observed in the debris following the fire, and neither the neighbors nor the firefighters heard an alarm *(see Mero v Vuksanovic,*140 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2016]). Further, evidence was presented that a smoke alarm could have alerted decedent in sufficient time to escape before being overcome by smoke inhalation.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff to amend the bill of particulars, after the filing of the note of issue, to add additional statutory violations; mere delay is not a sufficient basis to deny the relief and defendants failed to show prejudice or likely surprise *(see Flowers v 73rd Townhouse LLC,*149 AD3d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2017]).

*544We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Richter, J.R, Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
# DOD leader visits Troop Support, learns about capabilities, warfighter support 

/ Published Aug. 18, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics Leigh Method visited Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support on August 14 to learn more about the organization’ s capabilities and warfighter support. 

During the visit Method received supply chain briefings, as well as tours of the Flag Room and Product Test Center. 

Method, a 24-year Air Force veteran, serves as the principal advisor to the Department of Defense assistant secretary for sustainment. A member of the Senior Executive Service, Method works to promote collaboration between top presidential appointees and the federal workforce.  

On her way to the Flag Room and Product Test Center facilities, Method explained she is “appreciative of DLA and its mission to support warfighters’ needs around the globe.” 

“As a veteran and logistician, I understand this is a huge undertaking, [and] I personally thank you for your hard work supporting servicemembers around world.”
No. 10-399.

#### Glenn Smith, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1063, 131 S. Ct. 654,

178 L. Ed. 2d 481,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9077.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2633 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2633

 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
            submit a report on the Office of Rural Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2019

Mr. Cox of California (for himself, Ms. Finkenauer, and Mrs. Radewagen) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
            submit a report on the Office of Rural Affairs.

    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 ``Study of Office of Rural Affairs, 
within the Small Business Administration''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON THE OFFICE OF RURAL AFFAIRS.

    Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall 
submit to Congress a report analyzing the cost and potential benefits 
of creating a successor office to the Office of Rural Affairs, in 
accordance with the requirements under section 26 of the Small Business 
Act (15 U.S.C. 653). Such report shall include--
            (1) the dates on which the prior Office of Rural Affairs 
        was created and dismantled;
            (2) the rationale justifying the decision to dismantle the 
        Office;
            (3) a list of the year's funds that were appropriated to 
        the Office; and
            (4) the cost and potential benefits to establishing an 
        Associate Administrator for a successor office to the Office of 
        Rural Affairs.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016136EN.01004903.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission

(Case F-56/13) (1)

1

(2016/C 136/71)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 29.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99

                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  Quarterly  Report of Praxis  Pharmaceuticals  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
David  Stadnyk,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial  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:

(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/ DAVID STADNYK
----------------------------------
David Stadnyk
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-1110.

#### Alex B. Park, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 594,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8967.

178 L. Ed. 2d 433,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, denied.

Same case below, 321 Wis. 2d 477, 774 N.W.2d 476.