alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DAVID K. MCQUINN
, Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: June 7, 2022
Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement ; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu); Guillain

Barr é syndrome ( “ GBS ” ).

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC , for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On February 1, 2021
, David K. McQuinn 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 alleged that he suffered injuries, including Guillain

- Barr é syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered in his left deltoid on November 27, 2018 . Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 3, 2022
, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that P etitione r has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”)
, which afford Petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty

- two days

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 ha s 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or oth er 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 I njury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ). 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No

. 21
- 0829 V UNPUBLISHED2

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master aft er a seasona l flu vaccinatio n and there is no appar ent alter native cause. Rul e 4(c) Re port at 5-6 (citing Vaccine Act sections 14(a)(XIV)(D), (c)(15).

In view of R espondent’ s position and th e eviden ce of record, I find that Petiti oner is entitled to compensation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MERITAGE HOMEOWNERS' 

ASSOCIATION, an Oregon domestic 

nonprofit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 

Defendant. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

Case No. 6:14-cv-01747-TC 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation in the above-captioned 

action on March 21, 2016. Magistrate Judge Coffin recommends that the court grant defendants' 

motions for dismiss and for summary judgment on plaintiffs claim for breach of the covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing and deny the motions in all other respects. The matter is now before 

me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). 

1 -ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01747-TC Document 65 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 2
Defendant objects to the Findings and Recommendation and argues that the court should 

grant the motions on all claims, arguing that plaintiff presents no evidence to support the 

remaining claims for declaratory relief, quantum meriut, or equitable subordination. Upon de 

novo review of Magistrate Coffin's ruling, I agree that questions of fact preclude summary 

judgment, and I find no error. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and 

Recommendation (doc. 59) filed March 21, 2016, is ADOPTED. Defendant's motion to dismiss 

and motion for summary judgment (docs. 27, 37) are GRANTED as to plaintiffs claim for 

breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and DENIED in all other respects. 

Dated this q day of September, 2016. 

~CL./ Ann Aiken - United States District Judge 

2-0RDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01747-TC Document 65 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001001188
<NAME> CARNEGIE GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      14,819,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,936,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,423,019
<PP&E>                                       2,603,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,438,785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,732,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,638
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,641,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,438,785
<SALES>                                        723,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,989,925
<CGS>                                        9,129,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,688,569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,510,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                   600,302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            909,756
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   909,756
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Amire B., and Infant. Selika B., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 17]—

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, brings up for review a fact-finding determination that respondent abused and neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of abuse and neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). Petitioner made a prima facie showing that a spiral fracture of the infant’s right humerus would ordinarily not have been sustained except by reason of respondent mother’s acts or omissions, a showing which respondent failed to adequately rebut “with a credible and reasonable explanation of how the child suffered [the injury]” *(Matter of Nakym*S., 60 AD3d 578, 578 [2009]; *see also Matter of Nasir J.,*35 AD3d 299 [2006]). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations with respect to the mother’s varying accounts of the occurrence, nor the court’s decision to credit petitioner’s expert over respondent’s expert. It is well settled that “the court’s determination regarding credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal” *(Matter of Ashanti*A., 56 AD3d 373, 373 [2008]; *Matter of Nakym S.,*60 AD3d at 578). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Modeling of sand bar response to 

Stephen Wiele
Processes that build and erode sa

-- wind-- slumping-- sapping-- interaction with flow and sediment 
2/4/2005

Model application5-20k and 5-25k cfs fluctuating flows fflow of 16,800 cfs
Model inputs:

• Channel shape – NAU and GCMR• Stage-discharge relations – NAU • Sand boundary condition – ToppiWright• Hydrograph – Clark Burbidge
y = 0.92x0.58

R2 = 0.73

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 

Stevens river mile, normalized by 87

Sand concentration, normalized by concentration at 87-mile

May 2000September 2000

Normalized river mile (river mile/

Normalized sand concentration

data – Topping and Melis; function – Wright 
30-mile; t = 0
2/4/2005

30-mile; t = 0
2d model of flow, sand transport, 

-- calculate vertically averaged flo-- calculate 3d suspended sand fie-- calculate local sand discharge-- calculate change in bed elevatiotime step

2/4/2005
Deposition above 25,000 cfs stage Net change in sand deposit volum
2/4/2005
2/4/2005
2/4/2005

Net change in sand volume above 2
Conclusions

•short term response to fluctuating flow•export of sand will increase•long term response – ongoing decline o

accelerated without replenishment
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 171 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 171

  To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

Mr. Smith of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
    to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the 
  Committees on Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, the 
  Budget, Oversight and Government Reform, Ways and Means, and Small 
Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
                                  Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(Public Law 111-203) is repealed and the provisions of law amended by 
such Act are revived or restored as if such Act had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2009164EN.01003801.xml

| 26.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 164/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 164/38

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 556/2009

of 25 June 2009

on the allocation of import rights for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 for frozen meat of bovine animals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 of 19 May 2008 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 of 19 May 2008 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products.

| (2) | The applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import right applications covered by the quota with the serial number 09.4003 have been lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 431/2008 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 29,943487 %.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 June 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 June 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 130, 20.5.2008, p. 3.

3

---
#### William CRAWFORD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 84-5037.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 1, 1984.

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

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Alla Bershadskaya, Appellant, v Roman Nemirovsky, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 171]—

*1210In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated June 29, 2011, as, upon renewal, adhered to a determination in an order dated January 28, 2011, denying her objections to so much of an order of the same court (Fasone, S.M.), dated October 15, 2010, as, after a hearing, determined that additional income should not be imputed to the father, and granted her petition for upward modification of the father’s child support obligation only to the extent of directing the father to pay child support in the sum of $404 per month.

Ordered that the order dated June 29, 2011, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, upon renewal, the determination in the order dated January 28, 2011, denying the mother’s objections to the determinations in the order dated October 15, 2012, that additional income should not be imputed to the father and directing the father to pay child support in the sum of only $404 per month is vacated, those objections are sustained, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a de novo determination of the appropriate amount of the father’s child support obligation in accordance herewith, and a new determination on the petition thereafter; and it is further,

Ordered that pending the new determination on the petition, the father shall continue to pay child support in the sum of $404 per month.

Under the circumstances of this case, where the father admitted that his company paid for him to lease a late model BMW, where BMW Financial Services documents revealed that he was a general manager with a gross annual salary of $95,000, and where he failed to submit compulsory financial disclosure, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Support Magistrate to fail to impute additional income to the father, and instead accept his trial testimony that his income was between $500 and $600 a week, as such a determination was not supported by the record *(see Matter of Ambrose v Felice,*45 AD3d 581, 582 [2007]; *Matter of Gravenese v Marchese,*57 AD3d 992, 993 [2008]; *Matter of Lutz v Lutz,*50 AD3d 906 [2008]). Accordingly, upon renewal, the Family Court should have sustained the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s determinations that additional income should not be imputed to the father and directing the father to pay child support in the sum of only $404 per month.

*1211The mother’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 25, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50353 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BYRON LAMONTE MCCUTCHEON, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 6:05-CV-49) (USDC No. 6:92-CR-26-5)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### Byron Lamonte McCutcheon seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his

### conviction and sentence. Because the present 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is

McCutcheon’s fourth § 2255 motion, and McCutcheon failed to obtain permission from this Court to file a successive § 2255 motion, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider McCutcheon’s § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 & 2244(b); United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we deny the COA, vacate the judgment of the district court, and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. COA DENIED; JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
# C_2006051EN.01000301.xml

| 1.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/3

---

Group of experts on the property consequences of marriage and other forms of union and on succession and wills in the European Union (‘PRM-III/IV’)

(2006/C 51/03)

| Name | Country |
| --- | --- |
| Alice PERSCHA | AT |
| Hélène CASMAN | BE |
| Lenka LESZAY | CZ |
| Christian BALDUS | DE |
| Félix ODERSKY | DE |
| Barbara REINHARTZ | DE |
| Hubertus ROHLFING | DE |
| Olivier REMIEN | DE |
| António GALLARDO PIQUERAS | ES |
| José Luis IGLESIAS BUHIGUES | ES |
| Juan Francisco DELGADO DE MIGUEL | ES |
| Edmond JACOBY | FR |
| Paul LAGARDE | FR |
| Cyril NOURISSAT | FR |
| François TREMOSA | FR |
| Dervla BROWNE | IE |
| Domenico DAMASCELLI | IT |
| Emanuele CALO | IT |
| Franco SALERNO CARDILLO | IT |
| Patrick GALEA | MT |
| Bente BRAAT | NL |
| Guilherme FREIRE FALCAO DE OLIVEIRA | PT |
| Ulf BERGQUIST | SE |
| Richard FRIMSTON | UK |
| Clare RENTON | UK |
| Francis BARLOW | UK |
| Roslyn Ann INNOCENT | UK |
| Paul MATTHEWS | UK |
| Gordon WYLLIE | UK |

Name

Country

Alice PERSCHA

AT

Hélène CASMAN

BE

Lenka LESZAY

CZ

Christian BALDUS

DE

Félix ODERSKY

DE

Barbara REINHARTZ

DE

Hubertus ROHLFING

DE

Olivier REMIEN

DE

António GALLARDO PIQUERAS

ES

José Luis IGLESIAS BUHIGUES

ES

Juan Francisco DELGADO DE MIGUEL

ES

Edmond JACOBY

FR

Paul LAGARDE

FR

Cyril NOURISSAT

FR

François TREMOSA

FR

Dervla BROWNE

IE

Domenico DAMASCELLI

IT

Emanuele CALO

IT

Franco SALERNO CARDILLO

IT

Patrick GALEA

MT

Bente BRAAT

NL

Guilherme FREIRE FALCAO DE OLIVEIRA

PT

Ulf BERGQUIST

SE

Richard FRIMSTON

UK

Clare RENTON

UK

Francis BARLOW

UK

Roslyn Ann INNOCENT

UK

Paul MATTHEWS

UK

Gordon WYLLIE

UK

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certifications**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THESARBAENES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of American Commerce Solutions,Inc. (the ‘Company’) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended November 30,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the ‘Report’), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbaenes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officer’s knowledge: Section 13(a)

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13 (a) or Section 15 (d) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934: and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in theReport.

 

In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed belowby the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities andon the dates indicated.

 
| **Signatures**          |   | **Title** |                                                                | **Date** |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|                    |   |      |                                                                |     |
| /s/ Robert  E. Maxwell  |   |      | Chairman of  the Board and Director                                 |     |   | January 14,  2004 |   |
| Robert E.  Maxwell      |   |      |                                                                |     |   |
|                    |   |      |                                                                |     |   |
| /s/ Daniel  L. Hefner   |   |      |   Chief  Executive Officer, President and Director        |     |   |   |
| Daniel L.  Hefner       |   |      | January 14,  2004                                                   |     |
|                    |   |      |                                                                |     |   |
| /s/ Frank D.  Puissegur |   |      | Chief  Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director |     |   |   |
| Frank D.  Puissegur     |   |      | January 14,  2004                                                   |     |
|                         |        |           |                                                                     |          |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----