alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re WHITE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 21, 1907.)

In the matter of the application of Patrick F. White for leave to open and examine the contents of the boxes and envelopes of ballots of the four election districts of the Eighth Ward of the city of Albany used at the general election held on the 5th day of November, 1907.

PER CURIAM.

Order modified by striking out all thereof after the words “at their respective places of residence,” and inserting in lieu thereof, “and that upon such examination the custodian of such boxes may separate and inclose in unsealed envelope or envelopes such ballots therefrom as said petitioner or said Patrick H. McDonald may desire, or claim to be void or marked for identification; that such envelopes may be marked by such custodian as either party may desire, but that the ballots *1150themselves shall not be marked, and upon the completion of such examination all ballots taken from such boxes, together with the envelopes in which any of them may be inclosed, shall be forthwith returned to the boxes from which they came, and such custodian shall forthwith relock and reseal such boxes, and shall retain possession thereof as required by law, subject to the further order of the court; ordered, further, that the ballots returned to and filed with the county clerk as custodian shall, at the completion of the examination thereof hereby authorized, be resealed by him in the envelopes from which they came, and that he retain possession thereof, as required by law, subject to the further order of the court”—and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-987V

Filed: November 25, 2014

Not for Publication

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

HUGO D. GUTIERREZ, *

*

Petitioner, * 

 * Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * influenza (flu) vaccine; Guillain-Barré 

* Syndrome (GBS)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

Peter M. Young, Wausau, WI, for petitioner.

Justine E. Daigneault, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On November 24, 2014, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to 

settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that he suffers from 

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) that was caused by his receipt of influenza (“flu”) vaccine on 

December 27, 2010. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s GBS, any other 

injury, or his current condition. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master 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, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

delete such material from public access.
2

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby 

adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and 

on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$180,000.00, representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa-15(a) (2006). The award shall be in the form of a check for $180,000.00 payable to

petitioner.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### Wendell STUART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-16127.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

Ann Catherine Mcclintock, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, *323FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Stephen Peter Acquisto, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Wendell Stuart appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Stuart contends that the Board of Prison Term’s 2001 .decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); *Roberts v. Hartley,*640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Stuart raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32



                            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 Annual Report of Cirracor, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Reed
Fisher, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cirracor, Inc., and will be retained by Cirracor, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ Reed Fisher
--------------------------
Reed Fisher
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
January 6, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Morris, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), both rendered July 7,1982, one convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, under indictment No. 81-00359-01, and the other convicting him of burglary in the third degree, attempted grand larceny in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and possession of burglar’s tools, under indictment No. 81-01211-02, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgments affirmed.

By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited any right to appellate review of the denial of his motion to dismiss indictment No. 81-00359-01 on the ground that the People were not ready for trial within the period prescribed by CPL 30.30 *(see, People v O’Brien,*56 NY2d 1009; *People v Howe,*56 NY2d 622; *People v Friscia,*51 NY2d 845). Moreover, “our interests of justice powers (see CPL 470.15, subd 6) [do not] authorize review of issues waived by a plea of guilty *(People v Howe,*56 NY2d 622)” *(People v Macy,*100 AD2d 557). Defendant’s further claim that the issue was preserved at the time he entered his pleas is without merit. “A defendant cannot by a unilateral recital of an intention or desire to preserve a legal contention evade what would otherwise be the consequences of his guilty plea” *(People v Mack,*53 NY2d 803, 806). The record does not support the contention that defendant had secured the consent of the prosecutor and the approval of the court to preserve his statutory speedy trial claim for appellate review. In any event, such attempt at preservation would have been ineffectual *(People v O’Brien, supra,*at p 1010).

In addition, the claim that the pleas were involuntary has not been preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Willie,*101 AD2d 819) and we find no reason to set the pleas aside in the interest of justice. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM METRIKA
SYSTEM CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER
2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                                  2,401
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          23,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                            5,054
<INVENTORY>                                            14,887
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       69,356
<PP&E>                                                 16,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                          5,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        112,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  40,380
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                   83
<OTHER-SE>                                             65,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          112,023
<SALES>                                                52,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       52,166
<CGS>                                                  31,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          31,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        3,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          404
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         4,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                            1,702
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     2,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            2,448
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.33


</TABLE>
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lorrie Ann Archibald, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Ireland Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                       

| | By:    | /s/
      Lorrie Ann Archibald
| | ------ | ------------------------------
| |        |                               
| | Name:  | LORRIE ANN ARCHIBALD          
| |        |                               
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer       
| |        | Chief Financial Officer       
| |        |                               
| | Date:  | April 11, 2006                

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corr i ga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

s0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140692

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140692 COA: 287475 Wayne CC: 07-024598-FH JOSEPH THOMAS PAUPORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Y OUNG



### , J., not participating because he is cl osely acquainted with a relative of a
party.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, George E. Daddis Jr., the Principal
Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate
Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, which
this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be
retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





Dated:  November
      15, 2010
            
            /s/  George
      E. Daddis Jr.George
      E. Daddis Jr.Chief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard
Root, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


                         /s/ Howard Root
                         -------------------------------------------------------
                         Howard Root
                         Chief Executive Officer and
                         Acting Chief Financial Officer
                         August 7, 2003
**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 Annual Report of Bullion River Gold Corp. (“Bullion River”)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter
M. Kuhn, President and Chief Executive Officer of Bullion River and a member of
the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.
   
   */s/
Peter M. Kuhn*
 Peter M.
Kuhn
 Chief
Executive Officer
   March 31,
2005
  
 
  **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 Annual Report of Bullion River Gold Corp. (“Bullion River”)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dan
Graves, Chief Financial Officer of Bullion River, certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.
   
   */s/
Dan Graves*
 Dan
Graves
 Chief
Financial Officer
   March 31,
2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD DEAN GEATHERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(8:04-cr-00472-PJM-2; 8:07-cv-00201-PJM)

Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Dean Geathers, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edward Dean Geathers seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Geathers has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED