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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1834V

UNPUBLISHED

EUGENE MONTGOMERY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 29, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On November 29, 2018, Eugene Montgomery filed a petition for compensation 

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

2

(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) 

as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on January 17, 2017. Petition at 1. 

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 25, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set 

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

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

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

(QAI), which afford [P]etitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs 

between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent 

alternative cause”. Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that no other causes for 

Petitioner’s GBS were identified and the statutory six month sequela requirement has 

been satisfied. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                          96,798
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,218,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                   899,748
<INVENTORY>                                 18,285,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,570,126
<PP&E>                                       6,675,777
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,071,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,475,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,203,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,343
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,565,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,475,718
<SALES>                                     64,994,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,147,867
<CGS>                                       51,667,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,667,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,703,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,024,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,752,472
<INCOME-TAX>                                   100,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,651,872
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,651,872
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24863-24864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11430]



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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 24]


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank).

action: In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980, Ex-Im Bank has submitted a proposed collection of 
information in the form of a survey to the Office of Management and 
Budget for review.

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

purpose: The proposed Ex-Im Bank ``Customer Service Satisfaction 
Survey,'' to exporters of U.S. goods and services, is to be completed 
by U.S. exporters who have used Ex-Im Bank's services. This survey is 
one of Ex-Im Bank's tools of providing an evaluation of the 
effectiveness, utility, strengths and weaknesses of, the relationships 
established between Ex-Im Bank and the exporting community.
    The collection of the information will enable Ex-Im Bank to assess 
and report to the Executive Branch and the U.S. Congress the private 
sector's view of its Customer Service and its competitiveness, as 
required by Executive Order 12862.

summary: The following summarizes the information collection proposal 
submitted to OMB:

(1) Type of request: new
(2) Number of forms submitted: one
(3) Form Number: EIB 95-7
(4) Title of information collection: Customer Service Satisfaction 
Survey
(5) Frequency of use: annual
(6) Respondents: Exporters of U.S. goods and services
(7) Estimated total number of annual responses: 1,000
(8) Estimated total number of hours needed to fill out the form: 333.

additional information or comments: Copoies of the proposed application 
may be obtained from Tamzen Reitan, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 
565-3333. Comments and questions should be directed to Mr. Jeff Hill 
Office of Management and Budget, Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 
395-3176. All comments should be submitted [[Page 24864]] within two 
weeks of this notice. If you intend to submit comments, but are unable 
to meet this deadline, please advise by telephone that comments will be 
submitted late.

    Dated: May 4, 1995.
Tamzen C. Reitan,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11430 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12722]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 050995B]


Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application to modify permit no. 917 (P774#2).

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. John B. Pearce, NMFS, 
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Waters Street, Room 312, Woods 
Hole, MA 02543-1097, has requested a modification to permit No. 917.

DATES: Written comments or requests for a public hearing must be 
received on or before June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The modification request and related documents are available 
for review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289;
    Director, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, 
MA 01930-2298 (508/281-9250).
    Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this 
request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits Division, F/PR1, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 
13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kellie Foster, (301/713-1401).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Those individuals requesting a hearing 
should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular 
modification request would be appropriate.
    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine 
Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.
    The subject modification to permit No. 917, issued on May 11, 1994 
(59 FR 25891) is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 
Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 
CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, 
importing, and exporting of endangered fish and wildlife (50 CFR part 
222).
    Permit No. 917 authorizes the permit holder to conduct a number of 
studies on several cetacean species as well as gray and harbor seals in 
the notheastern U.S. and Canadian waters. The research activities 
include: Vessel surveys, aerial surveys and photogrammetry, photo-
identification studies, and the collection of biopsies. The permit 
holder requests additional authorization to collect biopsy samples from 
sei whales for genetic analyses, which will provide information on 
stock structure.

Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits & Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-12722 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

The Boeing Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W911 W6-05-2-0006 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59541 

Andrew E. Shipley, Esq. 

Donald J. Camey, Esq. 

Seth H. Locke, Esq. 

Perkins Coie LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Lawrence S. Rabyne, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Arlington Heights, IL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeal has been settled. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket 

with prejudice. 

Dated: 1 April 2015 

,/-7 

/, !,. iii( . / ( v -/(' -;J . IX Y..A--~/) .~~J 

v DIANA s/bICKINSON 

Administfative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59541, Appeal of The Boeing 

Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

JONATHAN WALLACE GURR

VERSUS NO. 

### 2021 CW 1255

ROBERT PORTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

### NATURAL TUTOR OF HIS MINOR CHILD, R. P., BOH BROS. 

### CONSTRUCTION CO., L. L. C., 

### AND/OR JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L. L.C., 

### BONE SAFETY SIGNS, LLC, 

### SAFEAUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022 

### ABC INSURANCE COMPANY AND DEF INSURANCE COMPANY

In Re: G. E. C., Inc., 

### Philip K. Meyers, P. E. 

### and XL Specialty

Insurance 

### Company, applying for 

### supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 660066.

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s 

### September 23, 2021 

### judgment which 

### denied the motion for 

### summary judgment 

## filed by defendants, G. E. C., Inc. and XL 

## Specialty Insurance 

## Company, is reversed. We 

### find the peremptive 

### period in La. R. S. 9: 5607 is applicable to plaintiff, Jonathan Gurr's, 

### claims against G.E.C., Inc., a firm licensed to practice 

### engineering in the State of Louisiana, 

## andXL Specialty Insurance Company, and the claims 

### in this action arise out of an engagement to provide 

### engineering services. 

### Plaintiff, Jonathan Gurr, 

### filed his suit on August 1, 2017, more than five years after the time the owner, the 

## Department of Transportation and Development, took possession of 

### the improvement with its March 4, 2005 Notice of Completion. We further 

### find that the 

## indemnity provision in the contract 

### between G. E. C., Inc. and the Department of Transportation and Development 

### does not affect the 

### applicability of the peremptive period set forth 

### in La. R. S. 9: 5607. Boes 

### Iron Works, Inc. v. M.D. Descant, Inc., 2014-

### 0270 ( La. 

### App. 1st Cir. 9/ 19/14), 154 

### So.3d 555, 559; and Ebinger v. 

### Venus Const. 

### Corp., 2008-379 ( La. 

### App. 3rd Cir. 10/ 1/ 08), 

### 995 So.2d 1224, 

### 1226. Plaintiff, 

### Jonathan Gurr, failed to produce 

### tactual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine 

### issuer of material fact or 

# thatdefendants arenotentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw. Accordingly, we grant the motion 

### for 

### summary judgment 

## finding plaintiff' s claims against G. E.C., Inc., and 

### its 

### insurer, XL 

## Specialty Insurance 

## Company, are perempted, and 

### dismiss plaintiff' s claims against 

### defendants, G.E.C., Inc. and XL 

## SpecialtyInsuranceCompany.

JMM WIL EW O PPIPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPUT4EIRKOF COURT FOR THE COURT
#### Perry L. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. TURPIN; Susan McNeely; Mary Steins, Defendants—Appellees, and North Carolina Department Of Corrections; The Utilization Review Board, Defendants.

No. 04-6564.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2004.

Decided: May 20, 2004.

Perry L. Crawford, Appellant pro se.

Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina; Roy Asberry Cooper III, Marry S. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*922Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Perry L. Crawford appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Crawford v. Turpin,*No. CA-01-40-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-29-TLS 

)

MICHAEL R. EBERLE )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 26], filed on October 29, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 26] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on November 20, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 15 filed 04/08/13 page 1 of 2
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 15 filed 04/08/13 page 2 of 2
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43341

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GARRETT RAY ASHFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 501

Filed: April 27, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Elmore County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Garrett Ray Ashford pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho 

Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified life sentence, with twenty years 

determinate. Ashford appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.1

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

 

1

In the Appellant’s Brief, Ashford raised the issue of whether the district court erred by 

failing to include a specific expiration date for the no contact order, but Ashford withdrew the 

issue in his Reply Brief. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Ashford’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Салат, ради которого можно умереть?

Однажды я делал два дела одновременно.Я готовил мясо...

...затем я нарезал салат на той же разделочной доске, без надлежащей предварительной очистки и дезинфекции. 

Поскольку я не вымыл, не прополоскал и не продезинфицировал разделочную доску, 20 посетителполучили сильное отравление, один человек погиб, а наш ресторан был закрыт. 

Защищайте людей повсюду. Всегда мойте, ополаскивайте дезинфицируйте оборудование и утварь после каждого применения.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<CASH>                                  29,943
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        64,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            357,616
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  15,626
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    15,785
<LOANS>                                829,491
<ALLOWANCE>                             (8,833)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,343,422
<DEPOSITS>                             829,029
<SHORT-TERM>                           218,532
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     77,752
<LONG-TERM>                             65,108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                26,531
<OTHER-SE>                             126,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       1,343,422
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         57,375
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       16,815
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         5,427
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        79,617
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      23,945
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      37,043
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   42,574
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          59
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         32,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         19,552
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              19,552
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            13,447
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.51
<LOANS-NON>                              2,125
<LOANS-PAST>                             3,004
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         13,619
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         9,167
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              467
<RECOVERIES>                               133
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        8,833
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     8,833
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0

</TABLE>
Tommy MORGAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5351.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1998
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-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                    563
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          563
<PP&E>                                      3
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       8
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              566
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          439
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           253
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       253
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           28.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                           28.95
        

</TABLE>