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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

VICTOR MORALES, *

* No. 17-694V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. *

* Filed: December 21, 2018

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Stipulation; flu vaccine; transverse

* myelitis.

Respondent. *

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

Diana L. Stadelnikas, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner;

Glenn A. MacLeod, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On December 18, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Victor Morales on May 25, 2017. Petitioner 

alleged that the flu vaccine he received on or about September 3, 2015, which is 

contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused 

him to suffer transverse myelitis. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the 

residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that 

there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on his 

behalf as a result of his condition.

Respondent denies that the vaccines either caused or significantly 

aggravated petitioner’s alleged injury or any other injury, and denies that 

petitioner's current disabilities are the result of a vaccine-related injury. 

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $100,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner.

This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be 

available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

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

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 17-694V according to this decision 

and the attached stipulation.2

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
IN RE Fox Joseph SALERNO, Petitioner

No. 19-5724

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 31, 2017

t0328

Order 

Clerk

March 31, 2017

155399

In re MORFORD/ELLISON-MORFORD, 

Minors.

SC: 155399

COA: 332541

Monroe CC Family Division: 14-023167-NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of In re Hicks/Brown, Minors (Docket No. 153786) is pending on appeal before this 

Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present 

application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE 

pending the decision in that case.
Glen B. CLAY, aka Glenn B. Clay, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6884

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# Official Journal C 41/5 Fe

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 41 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 585 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 41

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 585 February 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 041/01 | Six-Monthly Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (2014/II) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2015/C 041/01

Six-Monthly Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (2014/II)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 
 AOL INC. 
 AOL INC. 2010 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

NOTICE OF GRANT OF NON-QUALIFIED
STOCK OPTION 
 AOL Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby grants to Participant named
below the number of options specified below (the “Award” or the “Options”), upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Notice, the AOL Inc. 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and the
Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”) provided to Participant, each as amended from time to time. This Award is granted pursuant to the Plan and is subject to and qualified in its entirety by this Notice and the
Option Agreement. Capitalized terms that are not defined within this Notice shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Option Agreement. 
  

			
	Name of Participant:	  	
		
	Date of Grant:	  	
		
	Total Number of Shares Subject to Option:	  	
		
	Type of Option:	  	Non-Qualified Stock Option
		
	Option Price Per Share:	  	
		
	Vesting Schedule:	  	Subject to continued Employment of the Participant, 25% of the Options will vest and become exercisable on the first anniversary of the Date of Grant and the remaining Options
will vest on a pro-rata monthly basis thereafter, such that all will be fully vested and exercisable on the fourth anniversary of the Date of Grant.
		
	Expiration Date:	  	

 By accepting this Notice, you and the Company both agree that this Award is granted under and governed by all of the
terms and conditions of this Notice, the Plan and the Option Agreement, each as amended from time to time, provided to you with this Notice. Your acceptance of this Award confirms that you have carefully read and understand this Notice, the Plan and
the Option Agreement and that you have had an opportunity to obtain the advice of counsel before accepting this Award. By accepting this Award, you agree to accept as binding, conclusive and final all decisions or interpretations of the Committee
regarding any questions relating to the Plan, this Notice or the Option Agreement. You also agree to promptly notify the Company in writing if your address as shown below changes. 

 

							
	PARTICIPANT:	 	 	 	AOL INC.
				
	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	Participant’s Signature	 		 	Name:	 	
		 		 	Title:	 	
	Address (please print):
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00129-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at 

Law No. 1

of Parker County (CIV-17-0037)

October 24, 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s Final Order of Termination. It is ordered that the 

Final Order of Termination of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 21, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00485

- CV

IN RE Maria Del Socorro GONZALEZ and Cesario Gonzalez

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On July 18, 2014, real party in interest Francisco Tovar Jr. filed a motion for extension of

time to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. The motion is GRANTED. A

response on behalf of the real party in interest is now due July 31, 2014.

It is so O RDERED on July 21 st , 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 7,848, styled In the Interest of C.J.V., A Child , pending in the 49th Judic ial

District Court, Zapata County, Texas, the Honorable H. Paul Canales presiding.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 1108

- C R

Style: Alan Nelson Crotts

v

. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : February 21, 2017

Type of motion: Motion to Transfer Venue

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If documen t is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a dditional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

To the extent that appellant’s February 21, 2017 motion requests transfer of his appeal to the Fourteenth

Court of Appeals, it is denied.

Judge’ s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: March 2 1 , 2017
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135816 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135816 

 COA: 271789 

Genesee CC: 06-011762-FC 

SAM JUNIOR IVY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0421 

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. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
**
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 on Form 10-K of BC Partners LendingCorporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Graeme Dell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

Date: February 7, 2019 

 

/s/ Graeme Dell
Graeme Dell*Chief Financial Officer***
Independent Auditors' Report



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Smith
Barney Premier Selections Large Cap Fund of Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc.
(the "Fund") for the year ended April 30, 2001, we considered its internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR,
not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments
by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs
of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America. Those controls include the
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or fraud may occur
and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control
to future periods is subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all
matters in internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A
material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or
more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may
occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal
course of performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters
involving internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above as of April 30, 2001.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the
Board of Directors of the Fund, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.




New York, New York
June 8, 2001
Exhibit 5





LEGAL DEPARTMENT


P.O. Box 245008


Milwaukee, WI 53224-9508


Direct Dial Number: (414) 359-4031


E-Mail Address: jstern@aosmith.com





April 4, 2024














A. O. Smith Corporation


11270 West Park Place


Milwaukee, WI 53224





Gentlemen:





I have acted as counsel for A. O. Smith Corporation (the “Company”) in connection with the preparation of a Registration Statement on Form S-8 (“Registration Statement”) to be filed by you with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), relating to 2,400,000 shares of Common Stock, $1 par value per share (“Common Stock”), of the Company, which may be issued pursuant to the A. O. Smith Combined Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).





In this connection, I have examined (a) signed copies of the Registration Statement; (b) the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws, as amended to date, of the Company; (c) copies of resolutions of the Board of Directors and stockholders of the Company relating to the Plan; (d) the Plan and applicable forms of awards agreements under the Plan; and (e) such other proceedings, documents and records as I have deemed necessary for purposes of giving this opinion. In addition, I have made such investigations and have reviewed such other documents as I have deemed necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. With respect to all of the foregoing documents, I have assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the authenticity of all documents submitted to me as originals and the conformity to originals of all documents submitted to me as certified or reproduced copies.





Based upon the foregoing, I am of the opinion that:





1. The Company is a corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.





2. The shares of Common Stock covered by the Registration Statement have been duly authorized and, when issued by the Company pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Plan, and as contemplated in the Registration Statement, will be validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.





I hereby consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement. In giving this consent, I do not admit that I am an expert within the meaning of Section 11 of the Securities Act or within the category of persons whose consent is required by Section 7 of said Act.








Very truly yours,





A. O. SMITH CORPORATION





/s/James F. Stern


Executive Vice President,


General Counsel and Secretary
days

ORDERED that remand results shall be filed no later than 60

after the date of this order; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file papers with the Court

indicating whether they are satisfied with the remand results no

later than 30 days after the remand results are filed with the

Court; and it is further

.

Defendant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the defendant's consent motion for

voluntary remand, it is hereby

ORDERED that the consent motion is granted;.and it is further

ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Department of

Labor to conduct a further investigation and to make a

redetermination as to whether petitioners are eligible for

certification for worker adjustment assistance benefits; and it is

further

CHAO, U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR, :

;

: Court No. 01-00883 :

.

:

:

.

.

141

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HENDERSON

SEWING MACHINES,

Plaintiffs,

V .

Slip Op. Ol-
-ALAS

SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: December 7, 2001

New York, New York

NICHOLAS 

(1) and Rule 72(a), shall be

extended to 30 days after the plaintiffs indicate whether they are

satisfied or dissatisfied with the remand results.

V

U.S.C. § 2653(d) 

(1) the answer

Rule 12(a)(l) (A); and (2) the administrative record

28 

Court No. 01-00883 Page 2

ORDERED

pursuant to

pursuant .to

that the deadline for the filing of:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORT  OF  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C.
SS.SS. 1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), the
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
July 30, 2009

|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ STEVEN J. JANUSEK   |  | 
|Steven J. Janusek,      |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  | 

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the Form 10-Q to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 2

REDACTED IN ITS 

ENTIRETY

To Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to 

Dismiss Complaint

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-3 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 838
# Sll-tS ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 05-14-01291-CR OFFENSE: 10.01 

## STYLE: Ex ParteTonyYuan Liv. COUNTY: Collin COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: County Court at Law No. 5 DATE: 12/22/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 005-80387-2013



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STYLE: Ex Parte Tony YuanLi v. 

# APPELLANT'S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: /fij/jlwir JUDGE: fa UM^^ CCA#: 

### CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

# 51I-/S

SIGNED: PUBLISH: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
IB 

Union Calendar No. 202 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1241 

[Report No. 113–281] 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands 

in the Inyo National Forest, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Mr. COOK (for himself and Mr. MCKEON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

DECEMBER 2, 2013 

Additional sponsor: Mr. COSTA

DECEMBER 2, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1241 RH

A BILL 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo National Forest, and for 

other purposes. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1241 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULES FOR INYO NATIONAL FOREST 

4 LAND EXCHANGE. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT LANDS OUTSIDE

6 BOUNDARIES OF INYO NATIONAL FOREST.—In any land 

7 exchange involving the conveyance of certain National 

8 Forest System land located within the boundaries of Inyo 

9 National Forest in California, as shown on the map titled 

10 ‘‘Federal Parcel’’ and dated June 2011, the Secretary of 

11 Agriculture may accept for acquisition in the exchange 

12 certain non-Federal lands in California lying outside the 

13 boundaries of Inyo National Forest, as shown on the maps 

14 titled ‘‘DWP Parcel – Interagency Visitor Center Parcel’’ 

15 and ‘‘DWP Parcel – Town of Bishop Parcel’’ and dated 

16 June 2011, if the Secretary determines that acquisition 

17 of the non-Federal lands is desirable for National Forest 

18 System purposes. 

19 (b) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENT; USE.—In an ex20 change described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Agri21 culture may accept a cash equalization payment in excess 

22 of 25 percent. Any such cash equalization payment shall 

23 be deposited into the account in the Treasury of the 

24 United States established by Public Law 90–171 (com25 monly known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a) and shall 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1241 RH

1 be made available to the Secretary for the acquisition of 

2 land for addition to the National Forest System. 

3 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec4 tion shall be construed to grant the Secretary of Agri5 culture new land exchange authority. This section modifies 

6 the use of land exchange authorities already available to 

7 the Secretary as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 202 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1241 

[Report No. 113–281] 

A BILL 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain NaForest, and for other purposes. tional Forest System lands in the Inyo National 

DECEMBER 2, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS