alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered March 14 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 0 0224
- CR JORGE SUAREZ , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. MA10
- 72305
- N 

### O RDER On January 14, 2013, this Court ordered the court reporter to file the reporter’s record within thirty days. When we did not receive the record by February 22, 2013, we ordered Vearneas Faggett to file the reporter’s record wi thin fifteen days. To date, Ms. Faggett has neither filed the reporter’s record nor communicated with the Court regarding the record. The appeal cannot proceed until the record has been filed, and the Court has already determined that appellant is entit led to proceed without payment of costs for that record. Accordingly, we ORDER Vearneas Faggett, official court reporter of the County Criminal Court No. 11, to file the reporter’s record, including all exhibits, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order

. If the record is not filed within the time specified, the Court will order that Vearneas Faggett not sit as a court reporter until she has filed the record in this case.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to th e Honorable Elizabeth Frizzell, Presiding Judge, County Criminal Court No. 11; Vearneas Faggett, official court reporter, County Criminal Court No. 11; and to counsel for all parties.

/s / DAVID EVANS J USTICE
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 10065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-802]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2008, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 31 new 
standards have been initiated and 23 existing standards are being 
revised. More details regarding these changes can be found at: http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/08-22-07.html, http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/09-27-07.html and http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/12-05-07.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 27, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on May 27, 2007 (72 FR 25781).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 08-802 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21

- 1454 V

UNPUBLISHED

GARY KOELDER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 23, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Jessi Carin H uff, M aglio, Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA , for Petitioner.

Matthew Murphy , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On June 9, 2021

, Gary Koelder 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 he suffered from Guillain

- Barr e Syn drom e ( “ GBS ” ) as a result

of an inf l uenza v accine he received on December 9, 2019 . Petition at ¶¶ 2, 4, 18

. Petitioner further alleges that his vaccine inj ury has lasted more than six months . Petition

at ¶ 12

. T he case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special

Masters.

On May 19, 2022

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent states that “ it is R espondent ’ s pos ition that Petitioner suffered

1 Because this unpublished R uling 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 R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I wil l redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury 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 ).2 from GBS, and tha t he has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table ( “ Table ” ) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretat ion ( “ QAI ” ) which afford him a presumpt ion o f vaccine causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and fo rty

- two

d ays after a seasonal flu vaccine and there is no more likely alternative diagnosis and no

appar ent alternative cause

. Id. at 10 . Respondent further agrees that “ the medical records

demonstrate that P e titioner has experienced the residual e ffects of his GBS for more than

six months

. ” Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [FDA No. 225-08-8002]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the Division of Select Agents and Toxins (DSAT) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The purpose of this MOU is to establish a procedure to allow CDC/DSAT to confirm that FDA has accepted or approved, under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq), an Investigational New Drug application (IND), a request to establish an Investigational New Animal Drug file (INAD), or an Investigational Device Exemption application (IDE) for a clinical trial involving the use of an investigational product that is, bears, or contains a select agent or toxin.

# DATES:

The agreement became effective January 25, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jarilyn Dupont, Director of Regulatory Policy, Office of Policy and Planning (HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD  20857, 301-827-5906.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , the agency is publishing notice of this MOU.                

Dated: February 8, 2008.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

      ( print page 9123)          ( print page 9124)          ( print page 9125)          ( print page 9126)    

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[FR Doc. 08-686 Filed 2-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
#### Complaint of Robert A. TITTLE for exoneration from or limitation of liability as the owner of the M/V ADIOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas ALDACOSTA et al., Defendants Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike TITTLE, Third-Party Defendant Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., Cross Defendant.

No. 75-1119.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1978.

Edward A. Perse, J. Arthur Hawkesworth, Jr., Miami, Fla., for defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants.

Mercer K. Clarke, Miami, Fla., for Robert A. Tittle.

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion January 3, 1977, 5 Cir., 1977, 544 F.2d 752).

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and GEE, Circuit Judges.

*13PER CURIAM:

After reconsideration of the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, the Court is still of the opinion that the reversal of the lower Court decision was proper. The dissent raises the point that the majority opinion never reversed the District Court’s finding that Brenda Aldacosta missed the step, rather than she slipped. In spite of our failure to use the word slip, the Court is of the opinion that no harm was done to the proximate cause aspects of the case. There is evidence in the record that Brenda slipped. She testified that she slipped, that the deck was slippery to her and that she became aware of the slipperiness of the transom as she fell. The lower Court did not find that she did not slip. It found merely that she missed the deck. We fail to see how it could hold that she did not slip on the basis of this record. In any case, our use of the lower Court’s wording in our statement of the facts was simply for convenience and was not meant to be a stamp of approval for the particular finding of the Court. It seems clear to us that she slipped because the deck was slippery and because the towel had not been placed on the transom for her safety.

After reconsideration, the Court adheres to its original disposition of the case.

The petitions for rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

GEE, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

The court’s opinion on rehearing explicitly reinstates proximate cause as a requisite for liability in such matters as this. Since it does, the damage done here is only to justice in the case — not to the fabric of the law — and en banc consideration would be inappropriate to correct it.

And so the case goes off on a mere matter of appellate fact-finding. The plaintiffs testified that Mrs. Aldacosta slipped on the transom because it was *wet.*Other witnesses testified that it was not. The trial court, which heard all of them, believed the latter witnesses and found the transom was “dry or virtually so and consequently not unreasonably slippery.” This court prefers to believe the plaintiffs. It is the higher court. Q.E.D.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00586-CR

Michael Anthony Polizzi, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 64697, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). 

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: January 29, 2010

Do Not Publish
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

92 

KA 11-01060 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

PETER J. VIANA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, TREVETT CRISTO SALZER

& ANDOLINA P.C. (ERIC M. DOLAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P.

Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered March 2, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pro Touch Construction, LLC, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>TLG and Son Contracting Corp. ,-S-Corp., Appellant, and Three Star Construction Company, C-Corp., Defendant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Joseph A. Altman, P.C. (Joseph A. Altman, Esq.), for appellant.Pro Touch Construction, LLC, respondent pro se.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered April 8, 2014. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500 on its cause of action against defendant TLG and Son Contracting Corp.-S-Corp.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial of plaintiff's cause of action against defendant TLG and Son Contracting Corp.-S-Corp.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action for breach of contract against defendants "TLG and Son Contracting Corp. -S-Corp" (TLG) and "Three Star Construction Company, C-Corp." (Three Star). Three Star defaulted and, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, following a nonjury trial, a judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500 as against TLG.</p><p>In a commercial claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807-A; <i>see</i> CCA 1804-A;<i> Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). As the relevant documentary exhibits were not made part of the record, it is impossible for this court to provide meaningful review as to whether the judgment afforded TLG with substantial justice in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (<i>see</i> CCA 1804-A, 1807-A; <a href="../2011/2011_50613.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Garrido v Grasso</i>, 31 Misc 3d 133</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50613[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2010]; <a href="../2010/2010_52121.htm" target="_blank"><i>Feldman v Chugunov</i>, 29 Misc 3d 140</a>[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52121[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2010]; <i>Dekhtyar v Destination Travel and Tours</i>, 2001 NY Slip Op 40541[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d &amp; 11th Jud Dists 2001]).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial of plaintiff's cause of action against defendant TLG.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: April 12, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Research Resources Initial Review Group, Research Centers in Minority Institutions and Institutional Development Award Review Committee. RCMI and C.O.B.R.E Type I/Parent Mtg.                    

*Date:*                         March 25-26, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Linda C. Duffy, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Rm. 1082, MSC 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, (301) 435-0810,                         *duffy@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 08-442 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE  4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of H & H Imports, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Francis A. Rebello, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Date: July 8, 2009                      By: /s/ Francis A. Rebello
                                            ----------------------
                                            Francis A. Rebello, President
                                            (Principal Executive and Financial
                                            and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1


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



In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Monet Entertainment, Group Ltd.
(the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen Replin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






March 2, 2005                    /s/ Stephen Replin
-------------                    -----------------------
                                 Stephen Replin
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5868 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5868

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 530 Claremont Avenue in Ashland, Ohio, as the ``Bill Harris Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. BILL HARRIS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 530 Claremont Avenue in Ashland, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Bill Harris Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bill 
Harris Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```