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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-383V

Filed: May 20, 2013

Not for Publication

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

STEPHEN J. HUJARSKI, *

*

 Petitioner, * 

 * Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Decision

v. * Based on Stipulation

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

John R. Liber, II, Cleveland, OH, for petitioner.

Chrysovalantis P. Kefalas, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On May 20, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation in which they agreed on an appropriate 

amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner’s counsel asserts that 

petitioner did not incur any costs in pursuit of his petition.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 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's 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 redact 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 

redact such material from public access.
2

Petitioner informally provided respondent with a draft application for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. Respondent reviewed petitioner’s application. Following informal discussions, petitioner 

now requests $25,855.82 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent does not object to the amount. 

The undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $25,855.82,

representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a 

check payable jointly to petitioner and Thrasher Dinsmore & Dolan in the amount of $25,855.82.

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: May 20, 2013 /s/ Laura D. Millman by /s/ Nora Beth Dorsey 

 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.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Interpore
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

| | (i)     the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.                                                                                                                     

| | Dated: August 8, 2003 | /s/ DAVID C. MERCER                                               | 
| | --------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                       |                                                                   | 
| |                       | David C. Mercer Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Interpore International, Inc. and will be retained by Interpore International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Astati HALIM, et al., petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-1224.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
# L_2009073EN.01004901.xml

| 19.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 73/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 73/49

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 13/2009

of 5 February 2009

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 129/2008 of 5 December 2008 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 129/2008 of 5 December 2008 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2008/87/EC of 22 September 2008 amending Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2008/87/EC of 22 September 2008 amending Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 47a (Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32008 L 0087: Commission Directive 2008/87/EC of 22 September 2008 (OJ L 255, 23.9.2008, p. 5).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32008 L 0087: Commission Directive 2008/87/EC of 22 September 2008 (OJ L 255, 23.9.2008, p. 5).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2008/87/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 6 February 2009, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 5 February 2009.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 25, 29.1.2009, p. 36.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 255, 23.9.2008, p. 5.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO (UNAUDITED), AS DEFINED AND
INCLUDED IN THIS FILING ON PAGES 3 THROUGH 7, FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED
30 APRIL 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   0.67
<CASH>                                          58,042
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,406
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,464
<BONDS>                                      3,191,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,118,456
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,196,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,406
<SALES>                                          4,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,055
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (151,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (151,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (151,362)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Release: #4128-98 (Civ 3-97-638)

For Release: March 31, 1998

ENNESSEE COURT ISSUES PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN CFTC
    ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST RONALD BARBACK OF KNOXVILLE

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission
    (CFTC) announced today that on March 24, 1998, the Honorable Leon Jordan of
    the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
    entered a consent order of permanent injunction against Ronald
    Barback of Knoxville, Tennessee.

The court's order enjoins Barback from violating the
    anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), requires
    him to pay restitution to customers, prohibits him from ever soliciting,
    accepting or trading new client funds, and for a period of three years
    prohibits him from trading any commodity futures and options account for
    himself. Barback's restitution payments to customers will be monitored by
    the National Futures Association.

The court's order of permanent injunction stems from a
    civil injunctive complaint filed by the CFTC on August 27, 1997, which
    alleged that since at least 1987 Barback defrauded at least seven of his
    clients by guaranteeing profits and misrepresenting both his track record
    and the risks associated with commodity futures trading, all in violation
    of the anti-fraud provisions of the CEA. (See CFTC News Release
    #4045-97, August 28, 1997). The court previously entered a consent order of
    preliminary injunction against Barback on September 15, 1997.

�
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-610

In Re: OTTO WITHERSPOON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-91-288-2)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otto Witherspoon, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Otto Witherspoon brought this petition for mandamus relief

seeking an order compelling the United States District Court for

the District of South Carolina to rule on his petition under Fed.

R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(c)(ii) for disclosure of the proceedings of the

grand jury. In the alternative, Witherspoon seeks a writ of prohibition preventing his further prosecution. Because the district

court docket sheet reflects that Witherspoon's petition was granted

on August 6, 1996, we conclude that Witherspoon has already received the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we deny the petition for

writ of mandamus or prohibition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
PRIME INCOME ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., et al., petitioners, v. HOMETOWN 2006-1 1925 VALLEY VIEW, L.L.C.

No. 17-226.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Robert E. EASTWOOD, petitioner, v. Wendy KNIGHT, Superintendent, Correctional Industrial Facility.

No. 17-8658.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2011103EN.01000902.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Rouen — France) — Marc Berel and Others v Administration des douanes de Rouen, Receveur principal des douanes du Havre, Administration des douanes du Havre

(Case C-78/10) (1)

1

(Community Customs Code - Articles 213, 233 and 239 - Joint and several liability of several debtors for the same customs debt - Remission of import duties - Extinction of the customs debt - No possibility for a jointly and severally liable debtor to rely on a remission granted to another debtor)

2011/C 103/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Rouen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Berel, acting as agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Emmanuel Hess, acting as court-appointed administrator of the company Port Angot Développement, Rijn Schelde Mondia France SA, Receveur principal des douanes de Rouen Port, Administration des douanes — Havre port, Société Port Angot Développement, successor to Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers Maprochim SAS, Asia Pulp & Paper France EURL

Applicants:

Defendants: Administration des douanes de Rouen, Receveur principal des douanes du Havre, Administration des douanes du Havre

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Rouen — Interpretation of Articles 213, 233 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Remission of import duties — Whether a co-debtor of a customs debt may rely on joint and several liability for customs obligations in order to benefit from a remission of import duties previously accorded to another co-debtor

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 213, 233 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as precluding the application, in the context of joint and several liability for a customs debt within the meaning of Article 213 such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a principle of national law which has the effect that a partial remission of duty granted on the basis of Article 239 to one of the debtors may be relied on by all the other debtors, so that the extinction of the debt provided for in point (b) of Article 233 of that Code relates to the debt as such and thus releases all the jointly and severally liable debtors from payment of the debt to the extent of the amount remitted.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 01. 05. 2010.

1

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

KENNETH CLYDE SHOPTAW, 

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 36076-8-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, J. — Kenneth Shoptaw appeals from the judgment and sentence 

imposed for his Kittitas County convictions of possession of a controlled substance, 

methamphetamine, and two counts each of residential burglary, second degree burglary, 

and first degree theft. On appeal, he solely assigns error to the imposition of a $200 

criminal filing fee and a $100 DNA collection fee as legal financial obligations at 

sentencing. We remand for the sentencing court to strike those fees. 

After a jury found Kenneth Shoptaw guilty of the crimes, the trial court imposed 

an 84-month sentence followed by twelve months of community custody. The court 

found Shoptaw indigent and imposed financial obligations of a $500 victim assessment, a

$200 criminal filing fee and a $100 DNA collection fee. 

Kenneth Shoptaw ask that we direct the striking of the $200 criminal filing fee and 

FILED

MAY 30, 2019

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 36076-8-III

State v. Shoptaw

2

the $100 DNA fee from his judgment and sentence based on State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 

732, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). The State concedes that the fees should be struck. 

House Bill 1783, effective June 7, 2018, prohibits trial courts from imposing the 

certain financial obligations on defendants who are indigent at the time of sentencing. 

LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 6(3); State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d at 746. Ramirez held that 

the amendment applies prospectively to cases pending on direct review and not final 

when the amendment was enacted. State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d at 747. The changes 

included an amendment to former RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) to prohibit the imposition of the 

$200 criminal filing fee on indigent defendants and an amendment to former RCW 

43.43.7541 to make the DNA database fee no longer mandatory if the State has 

previously collected the offender’s DNA as a result of a prior conviction. LAWS OF 2018, 

ch. 269, §§ 17(2)(h), 18. 

Kenneth Shoptaw’s case is controlled by Ramirez. He was indigent at the time of 

sentencing and remains indigent on appeal. The State acknowledges that his DNA has 

previously been collected pursuant to a felony conviction. Accordingly, the $200 

criminal filing fee and $100 DNA collection fee should be struck pursuant to Ramirez. 

We accept the State’s concessions and remand for the trial court to strike the $200 

filing fee and $100 DNA collection fee from the judgment and sentence. 
No. 36076-8-III 

State v. Shoptaw 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

Fearing, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

Pennell, J. 

3
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-61036 and 333-89943)
pertaining to the InsWeb Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan, 1997 Stock Option Plan, Senior Executive Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our reports dated
January 25, 2002, except for Note 19, as to which the date is March 28, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of InsWeb Corporation included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Sacramento,
California
March 28, 2002

---

QuickLinks
Andy BUXTON, petitioner, v. Lee J. ESTOCK, Acting Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mercer, et al.

No. 17-8975.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

*2691Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0064

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RONALD ALAN HUMMEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 2, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2020

08/26/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0064
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Telephone Call with COPE
  
    



  Discussed clearing implementation.
      
  When
              04/19/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              VIII. Process for Review of Swaps

  CFTC Staff
              Camden Nunery

  Visitor(s)
              David Pearlman (Bracewell & Giuliani)

  Organization(s)
              COPE


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000