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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17 -0225V Filed: July 20, 2017 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NATHALIE COLLADO, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Causation- in -Fact; Influenza (Flu) * Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (SIRVA ); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit ( SPU )

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On February 16, 2017

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered left shoulder injuries caused in fact by the influenza vaccination she received on October 22, 2015. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 13

. Petitioner further alleges that s he received the vaccination in the United States, has suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that neither s he nor any other party has filed an action or received compensation for her injury alleg ed
as vaccine caused. I d. at ¶¶ 2, 13- 15

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

On July 17, 2017

, 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 “ has concluded that petitioner ’ s alleged injury is consistent with

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amende d at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

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

e ase of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

SIRVA . . . caused- in -fact by the flu vaccination she received on October 22, 2015 .” Id. at 2. Respondent further indicates that “ based on the current record, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. ” Id. at 3.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2014 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2014

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 30, 1999

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                             nonresidents.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY COMMUTER TAX ON 
              NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--A State may not impose a tax on the income earned 
in the State by nonresidents unless the tax is of substantial equality 
of treatment for the citizens of the State and the nonresidents so 
commuting.
    (b) State.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``State'' 
includes the District of Columbia and any political subdivision of a 
State.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 29, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1959

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 643

East Durango Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas,as the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1959

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘Adrian

A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1959 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 643 East Durango

3 Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Cen5 ter’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

10 a reference to the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training

11 Center’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350**

 

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form10-Q for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2006 of Lincoln Benefit Life Companyfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of LincolnBenefit Life Company.

 

 

May 8, 2006

 
|   | /s/ Casey J. Sylla        |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Casey J. Sylla            |
|   | Chairman of the Board and |
|   | President                 |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ John C. Pintozzi      |   |
|   | John C. Pintozzi          |
|   | Senior Vice President and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer   |
|        |                           |        |  |

 

E-4

----
ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., petitioners, v. UCB, INC., et al.

No. 18-441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7820
WOOSTON OSBORNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1066-R) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wooston Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wooston Osborne appeals the dismissal without prejudice of hispro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court dismissed Osborne's complaint for failure to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because Osborne may be able to save this action by amending his complaint in compliance with the district court's order, the order which Osborne seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064 (1993). We note that Osborne can save this action by amending his complaint to include allegations against specific prison employees or officials who acted under color of state law, or against private individuals who were willful participants in a joint action with a State or agent of a State. See West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. 42, 48-50 (1988); Dennis v. Sparks , 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980). Accordingly, we 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
NEW WEST, L.P., et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF JOLIET, ILLINOIS, et al.

No. 18-231.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

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

*342Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The J. Jill Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended
September 25, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the
signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/GORDON R. COOKEGordon R. Cooke
President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 4, 2004 |  | /s/OLGA L. CONLEYOlga L. Conley
Executive Vice President/
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)Date: November 4, 2004
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Ricardo LIMON-URENDA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5928.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

p0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146439 & (20)(21)(22)(26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146439

COA: 312673

Wayne CC: 07

- 013433

- 01

- FH

MARK DANIEL MARVIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court. The motions for appointed counsel, appeal b ond, and

an order to show cause are DENIED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00711-CV

Raghunath Dass, P.E., Appellant

v.

Texas Board of Professional Engineers, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-003397, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Raghunath Dass, P.E. has informed this Court that he no longer wishes to

pursue this appeal and has filed a motion to withdraw it. Appellant states that he has conferred with

counsel for appellee Texas Board of Professional Engineers, and it does not oppose this motion. We

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: December 18, 2013
Jamal STREETER, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-9238.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-14595 and 333-02522) of Sun Communities
Operating Limited Partnership of our report dated March 12, 2003 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K .

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 28, 2003


<PAGE>

CONSENT OF GRANT THORNTON LLP

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Sun Communities Operating Limited Partnership on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-14595 and 333-02522) of our report dated March 7, 2003, except for note
I, as to which the date is March 27, 2003, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Origen Financial L.L.C. which appear in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Southfield, Michigan
March 27, 2003
Tommie Lee HENDERSON, petitioner, v. VIP TAXI LLC, et al.

No. 18-6170.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Curtis Lee DALE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5663.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         402,383
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,359,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (93,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,921,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,120,694
<PP&E>                                         2,030,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (508,919)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,993,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,256,299
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       11,657
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,897,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,993,755
<SALES>                                        12,193,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,193,161
<CGS>                                          8,543,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,543,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,807,117
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               28,563
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             64,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (157,239)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (157,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (157,239)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.02)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Greg Grosvenor, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Telesource International,Inc.;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (thefourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Dated: April 2, 2007 |   | /s/ Greg Grosvenor      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
Audy PEREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5217.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, United States District Judge for **

the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL PAREJO, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

SCOTT FRAKES, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-35374

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05764-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2012

Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE, District

Judge.** 

FILED

DEC 04 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Appellant Manuel Parejo appeals the district court’s order dismissing as

time-barred his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Reviewing the order de novo, Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir.

2003), we hold that the petition was timely and reverse. 

In determining that Parejo was aware of the “factual predicate” of his habeas

claims as early as 1995, the district court misconstrued the applicable section of the

habeas limitations statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). Under this court’s decision

in Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2004), which was based on Redd and

reaffirmed in Mardesich v. Cate, 668 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012), when, as here, a

habeas petition challenges an administrative decision rather than the underlying

judgment of conviction, the “factual predicate” under section 2244(d)(1)(D)

triggering the one-year limitations period is ordinarily the administrative decision. 

See Mardesich, 668 F.3d at 1171-72; Shelby, 391 F.3d at 1062-66; Redd, 343 F.3d

at 1081-85. We find no reason for departing from that framework here. 

We further conclude that the administrative decision the petition challenges

is the then-latest denial of parole, issued by the Indeterminate Sentence Review

Board on December 27, 2007. Respondent conceded at oral argument and we now

hold that so construed, the petition is timely under Redd and Shelby.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/11/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      409,743
COMMITMENTS
  56,401  164,355   83,609  246,042  134,426  386,052  382,390   23,691   27,353

CHANGES FROM 12/04/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     13,612)
   1,674     -156    5,097   15,540   17,249   22,311   22,190   -8,699   -8,578

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.8     40.1     20.4     60.0     32.8     94.2     93.3      5.8      6.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      178)
      58       62       75       37       40      142      142
```

----

Updated December 14, 2012
G. Russell ROLLYSON, v. Jeffrey O'NEAL, et ux.

No. 18-114 (R46-001 / OT 2018).

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 5, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
```

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors
Americana Publishing, Inc.

I hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  previously  filed
Registration  Statements  of Americana  Publishing,  Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-48408,  333-105369)  of our report,  dated March 21, 2003  appearing in this
Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of Americana  Publishing,  Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002.

                                                      Philip H. Salchli, C.P.A.

Houston, Texas
October 23, 2003
```