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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-1085V 

Filed: December 14, 2015 

Unpublished 

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

CAROL ENNIS, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

 * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination; Shoulder 

 * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”) 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, for petitioner. 

Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On September 28, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

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

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that her September 9, 2014 influenza 

vaccination caused her to suffer from shoulder injuries. Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On December 11, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has concluded that a preponderance of the 

evidence established that petitioner’s injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’),” and “is compensable as a ‘caused-in-fact’ injury 

under the Vaccine Act.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner’s claim was 

timely filed, and involved a vaccination received in the United States and covered by the 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended 

at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 5. Respondent also agrees that petitioner has suffered 

from her condition from more than six months, and that the petition indicates that 

petitioner has received no prior compensation, award, or settlement for her injury. Id.

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
effect they had on his mental state, or how they rendered his plea

involuntary. Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying these claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing. 2 See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Second, appellant contends that the district court erred by denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). We conclude that no relief is warranted on these claims. See Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005) (explaining that we give deference to the district court's factual findings but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo). Appellant does not specify what alternative defenses counsel should have pursued or what laws counsel should have explained to him before he pleaded guilty. Similarly, appellant does not explain how requesting an accommodation for his intellectual disabilities during the plea canvass would have caused him to reject the plea. Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying these claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove, 100 Nev. at 502, 686 P.2d at 225.

2 For the same reasons, appellant fails to demonstrate that counsel were ineffective for failing to address the issue of his medications in the guilty plea agreement, plea canvass, or motion to withdraw his plea.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1907A 

### eGibbons J.

J. Pickering Finally, appellant contends that the district court erred by (1) denying• his claim that the sentencing scheme in existence at the time of his sentencing was unconstitutional, and (2) "provid[ing] an incorrect analysis of the belated appeal and successive petition issue." Appellant's arguments regarding these claims are not clear and he suggests they are only being raised for preservation purposes. Accordingly, we decline to consider these claims.

Having concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A .43N:D
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: KERMIT ALEXANDER;

BRADLEY WINCHELL, 

______________________________

KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY

WINCHELL, 

Movants-Petitioners,

 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, 

Respondent,

MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES;

TIEQUON AUNDRAY COX; ALBERT

GREENWOOD BROWN; MITCHELL

CARLTON SIMS; DAVID A. RALEY;

ROBERT G. FAIRBANK; KEVIN

COOPER; SCOTT LYNN PINHOLSTER;

WILLIAM CHARLES PAYTON;

ROYAL HAYES; RICHARD DELMER

BOYER; RONALD LEE DEERE;

HARVEY LEE HEISHMAN III;

ANTHONY J. SULLY; ALBERT

CUNNINGHAM; DOUGLAS S

MICKEY; HECTOR JUAN AYALA;

RICHARD GONZALES SAMAYOA;

RAYNARD PAUL CUMMINGS;

No. 19-70232

D.C. Nos. 3:06-cv-00219-RS

3:06-cv-00926-RS

ORDER

FILED

SEP 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CONRAD ZAPIEN; RONALDO

AYALA; JOHN LOUIS VISCIOTTI, 

PlaintiffsReal Parties in Interest,

RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for

the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation; RONALD DAVIS,

Warden, Warden of San Quentin Prison;

GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State

of California, 

DefendantsReal Parties in Interest.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Submitted September 16, 2020* 

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, FORREST**,

 and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners, who are family members of the victims of plaintiffs Michael

Morales and Tiequon Cox, ask this court for a writ of mandate or prohibition. 

Petitioners sought an order requiring the district court to (1) vacate all stays of

execution; (2) conditionally refrain from issuing further stays or injunctions of

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** Formerly known as Danielle J. Hunsaker.

2
executions or preparations; and (3) include in any future stay order an expiration

period of 90 days. After Petitioners filed their petition in this court, Governor

Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order imposing a moratorium on all

executions, repealing California’s lethal-injection regulations, and closing the

death chambers. In light of the Executive Order, all Plaintiffs and all Defendants

filed a stipulated dismissal in the district court. Thereafter, Defendants filed a

motion to dismiss Petitioner’s mandamus petition.1 (Dkt. No. 41). Petitioners do

not oppose this motion. 

We therefore GRANT the motion to DISMISS this petition. Each party

shall bear its own costs and fees. The petition is DISMISSED.

1

 Before filing their motion to dismiss, Defendants filed a request for

judicial notice regarding their answer to Petitioner’s writ of mandamus. (Dkt. No.

17). Because we dismiss Petitioners’ appeal as moot, we need not rule on the

request for judicial notice.

3
No. 10-22.

#### Elaine Karas, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

562 U.S. 890, 131 S. Ct. 392,

178 L. Ed. 2d 136,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6549.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 298.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KIMBERLY ANN STRUTHERS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3585

)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; PHILIP SCOTT )

STRUTHERS; CITRUS STEEPLECHASE )

HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; )

LESTER MALLET; MELVIN JEFFERSON; )

BRENDA JEFFERSON; BRANDAN )

MATIVI; GROW FINANCIAL FEDERAL )

CREDIT UNION f/k/a MacDill Federal )

Credit Union; HIBU, INC. f/k/a Yellow Book )

Sales and Distribution Company, Inc.; and )

UNKNOWN TENANT #1 n/k/a Jason )

Naegel, )

)

Appellees. )

)

Opinion filed October 19, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Martha J. Cook, 

Judge.

Jared M. Krukar and Dineen Pashoukos 

Wasylik of DPW Legal, Tampa, for 

Appellant.

Jennifer Lima-Smith of Gilbert Garcia 

Group, P.A., Tampa; and Mary J. Walter of 

Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for 

Appellee Bank of America, N.A.
- 2 -

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

BLACK, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Opinion issued November 17, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 6 - 00 91 6 - C V

——————————— IN RE JORGE MEDINA , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Jorge Medina , filed a petition for writ of mandamus , late on November 16, 2016, seeking to compel the respondent , the Honorable John Phillips, t o grant a hearing on relator’s r equest for d e n ovo h earing and to hear his trial on the merits in his underlying petition to modify the parent

- child relationship
. 1 With his petition, relator also filed a n emergency motion , also late on November 16, 2016, to

1 The underlying ca se is In the Interest of J.M.J., A Child , No. 2014

- 04700J, in the 314th District Court of Harris County, the Honorable John Phillips presiding.2

stay his trial on the merits scheduled for N ovember 17, 2016, before the associate judge, pending resolution of his petition
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.10(a). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus and dismiss the emergency motion as moot
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a) , (d)
. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Higley, and Lloyd
.
<PAGE>
                                  Exhibit 99.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of Morgan's Foods, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
            ended November 10, 2002, (the "Report"), which this certification
            accompanies, 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.


                                    /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the
                                    Board and Chief Executive Officer
December 23, 2002


                                       16
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Perez, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 115]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ann M. Donnelly, J.), rendered February 24, 2015, resentencing defendant to an aggregate term of 10 years, with an aggregate term of 5 years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

On this Court’s remand for resentencing (123 AD3d 592 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*25 NY3d 1169 [2015]), the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment. Without a showing of mitigating factors, defendant would be ineligible due to his convictions of armed felonies in this case *(see*CPL 720.10 [2] [a] [ii]; [3]). Defendant’s principal claim of mitigation is essentially a justification defense, but on the prior appeal this Court has already found that a justification charge would not have been supported by any reasonable view of the evidence and that counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise such a defense (123 AD3d at 593). The remaining mitigating factors cited by defendant, including his family support, employment history, deportation risk, and lack of a prior record, do not “bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” (CPL 720.10 [3] [i]). “In any event, regardless of defendant’s eligibility, youthful offender treatment was not warranted” *(People v Jordan,*143 AD3d 524, 525 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1125 [2016]), in light of the heinousness of the crime, which involved shooting two people, causing extensive injuries to one of them.

We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.
No. 10-6023.

#### Roosevelt Johnson, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 510,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8613.

178 L. Ed. 2d 378,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 36 So. 3d 88.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Franklin Perez, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 494]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen Barrett, J.), rendered September 5, 2014, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed *515from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Oing, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**774 CA 12-00674**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

TODD M. HOBIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V ORDER
CANDICE L. HOBIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CANDICE L. HOBIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. GETNICK, LIVINGSTON, ATKINSON & PRIORE, LLP, UTICA (THOMAS L. ATKINSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
JOHN G. KOSLOSKY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, UTICA.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered December 15, 2011. The order, inter alia, granted plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ youngest child. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
No. 09-11218.

#### David N. Pressley, Petitioner v. Kansas.

562 U.S. 961, 131 S. Ct. 457,

178 L. Ed. 2d 287,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8118.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.

Same case below, 290 Kan. 24, 223 P.3d 299.
# C_2016106EN.01003001.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italian International Film v EACEA

(Case T-676/13) (1)

1

((Support programme for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) - Measures of support for the transnational distribution of European films - Call for proposals in connection with the ‘selective’ scheme 2013 - EACEA act informing the applicant of the rejection of its application for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ - EACEA act confirming the rejection but stating new reasons - Powers - Distribution of tasks between the Commission and the EACEA - Circumscribed powers - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Permanent Guidelines 2012-2013 - Material or physical distribution agreement - Not communicated in advance to the EACEA - Application not eligible))

(2016/C 106/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian International Film Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, B. Bettelli and M. Bottino, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and D. Homann, acting as Agents, and D. Fosselard and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ following call for proposals EACEA/21/12 MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘Selective’ scheme 2013 (OJ 2012 C 300, p. 5), published pursuant to Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 12) for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Italian International Film Srl and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Italian International Film Srl and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-921-41-5700; WYW126102]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

June 10, 1998.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW126102 for lands in Natrona County, Wyoming, was timely filed 
and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date 
of termination.
    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and 
royalties at rates of $5.000 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year 
and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 
to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management 
is proposing to reinstate lease WYW126102 effective February 1, 1998, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Mavis Love,
Acting Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.
[FR Doc. 98-16305 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
No. 10-6197.

#### Kenyatta Latchison, Petitioner v. T. Felker, Warden.

562 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 525,

178 L. Ed. 2d 387,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8486.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 542.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-46-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 5, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 2, 1998, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
July 1, 1998:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1401
Third Revised Sheet No. 4100
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4200
Third Revised Sheet No. 4300
Third Revised Sheet No. 4400
Third Revised Sheet No. 4500
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4600
Second Revised Sheet No. 4700
Second Revised Sheet No. 4803
Third Revised Sheet No. 4804
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 4900
Second Revised Sheet No. 4901
First Revised Sheet No. 4902
Third Revised Sheet No. 5000
Eight Revised Sheet No. 5200

    Koch states that it is revising the above tariff sheets to reflect 
a change in the phone numbers of its Customer Service Department, 
effective July 1, 1998.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15520 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M