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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

MATTHEW GORSKI, *

* No. 13

- 224V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: March 11

, 2014

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

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

Anne Carrion Toale

, Maglio Christopher and Toale

, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner;

Ann Donohue Martin , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On March 5

, 2014, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final

atto rney’s fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner informally

submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent for review . In

this draft application, petitioner requested $12,311.54 for attorneys’ fees an d costs , an

amount to which respondent does not object. The Court awards this amount.

On March 29, 2013, Matthew Gorski filed a petition for compensation alleging

that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine that he received on October 22, 2010, caused h im to

suffer a radial nerve injury

. Petitioner received compensation based upon proffer

. Decision , filed Jan. 22, 2014 . Because petitioner received compensation, he is entitled to

an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

Petitioner seek s a total of $12,311.54 in att orneys’ fees and costs for his counsel.

Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner state s that he incurred

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), 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.no out

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. Respondent has no

objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $12,311.54 in the form of a check made payable to petitioner

and petitioner’s attorney, Ann e Carrion Toale of the law firm of Maglio

Christopher and Toale , for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs available

under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter.

The Clerk shal l enter judgment accordingly. 2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes , at (202) 357

- 6353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Purs uant 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.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K/A), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Michael K. RobinsonMichael K. RobinsonChief Executive Officer, President and Assistant
Treasurer
#### Dennis SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 46643.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 23, 1993.

*799Mary K. Anderson, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Aundrea R. Alexander, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the dismissal of a Rule 24.-035 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### John DYSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52439.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 1, 1996.

Rosemary E. Pereival, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before HANNA, *P.J.,*and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

*PER CURIAM.*

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHAEL PARTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-111 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed May 23, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County; Kimberly Bonner, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Parton v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 226 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

ANDREW C. STONE 

Arizona State Bar No. 026543 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Two Renaissance Square 

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Telephone: 602-514-7500 

Email: andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Amber Nicole Lamb, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00071-001-PHX-JJT 

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

Counsel for the United States has reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report 

(Doc. 31) (“PSR”), and has no objections, additions, or corrections. The PSR calculates a 

total offense level of six with a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility that 

results in a total offense level of four. (PSR at ¶¶ 48-56.) The PSR also calculates that 

Defendant’s criminal history establishes a criminal history category of III. (PSR at ¶¶ 58-

66.) With a total offense level four and criminal history category III, Defendant’s 

applicable guideline range is 0-6 months’ imprisonment. 

 The PSR recommends a sentence of six months’ imprisonment. (PSR at 24.) The 

United States agrees with this recommendation. Six months’ imprisonment is appropriate 

given the nature and circumstances of the offense and Defendant’s history and 

characteristics. Here, Defendant stole several packages that were located outside the 

victim’s home. (PSR ¶ 5.) These packages are estimated to be valued at just under $600. 

(Id.) While this is not a huge dollar amount, the crime is significant for both its brazenness 

Case 2:18-cr-00071-JJT Document 32 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and timing. That said, even with Defendant’s criminal history, her guideline range for this 

crime is 0-6 months. A sentence at the high end of the guidelines provides just punishment 

for the offense, affords adequate deterrence, and promotes respect for the law. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). 

 For these reasons, the government asks the Court to follow the PSR’s 

recommendation and sentence Defendant to six months’ imprisonment. The government 

also recommends Defendant serve a three-year term of supervised release after she is 

released from prison. Finally, the government moves to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the 

Indictment. 

 Respectfully submitted this 15th day of May, 2018. 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

s/Andrew C. Stone

ANDREW C. STONE 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the 

Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of 

Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Loyd C. Tate 

s/Gaynell Smith 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 2:18-cr-00071-JJT Document 32 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF

VYYO INC.



In connection with the Annual Report of Vyyo Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Davidi Gilo,
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Arik Levi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    DAVIDI GILO     
|Davidi Gilo            
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|February 10, 2005      



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    ARIK LEVI       
|Arik Levi              
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|February 10, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Summer Infant, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2007 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jason Macari, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|November 13, 2007 |  | /s/JASON MACARIJason Macari Chief Executive Officer
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 4156

_____________________________
T HOMAS P ATRICK C ROSBY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. February 12, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2544-2545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1359]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL


National Education Goals Panel Meeting

AGENCY: National Education Goals Panel.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the date and location of a forthcoming 
meeting of the National Education Goals Panel. This notice also 
describes the functions of the Panel.

DATES: February 3, 1996 from 8:00 a.m.-9:45 a.m.

ADDRESS: J.W. Marriott Hotel, Salon I, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20004. The ``E'' Street entrance to the hotel is 
accessible for persons with disabilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Dixon, Program Assistant, 1255--22nd Street, N.W., Suite 502, 
Washington, D.C. 20037. Telephone: (202) 632-0952.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Education Goals Panel, a 
bipartisan panel of governors, members of the Administration, members 
of Congress and state legislators, was created to monitor and report 
annually to the President, Governors and Congress on the progress of 
the nation toward meeting the National Education Goals adopted by the 
President and Governors in 1989.
    The meeting of the Panel is open to the public. The agenda 
includes: consideration of a long-term strategic data plan; 
announcement of a new Goals Panel initiative, A Report on State 
Assessments and Results; discussion of the Education Summit and its 
implications for the Goals Panel; presentation and discussion of the 
relation between academic standards and charter schools; and, 
presentation and discussion of international world-class standards as 
benchmarks.
    Records are kept of all proceedings and are available for 
inspection at the Goals Panel office, 1255-22nd Street, N.W., Suite 
502, Washington, D.C. 20037.


[[Page 2545]]

    Dated: January 23, 1996.
Ken Nelson,
Executive Director, National Education Goals Panel.
[FR Doc. 96-1359 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4010-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit (4)(h)

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                               CMS ENERGY TRUST V

              The undersigned, the trustees of CMS ENERGY TRUST V, desiring to
form a business trust pursuant to Delaware Business Trust Act, 12 Del. C.
Section 3810 hereby certify as follows:

         1.   The name of the business trust being formed hereby is CMS ENERGY
              TRUST V (the "Trust").

         2.   The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a
              principal place of business in the State of Delaware is as
              follows:

                           The Bank of New York (Delaware),
                           a Delaware banking corporation
                           White Clay Center, Route 273
                           Newark, Delaware  19711

Dated:  November 22, 2000


                                             /s/Alan M. Wright
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Alan M. Wright, as Trustee


                                             /s/Thomas A. McNish
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Thomas A. McNish, as Trustee



                                            The Bank of New York (Delaware)
                                                 as Trustee

                                            /s/ William T. Lewis
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Name:
                                            Title: Authorized Signatory
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerry Dale HAYS, Appellant.

No. WD 40746.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 31, 1989.

John A. Klosterman, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, C.J., and SHANGLER and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from conviction upon jury tried case of involuntary manslaughter, § 565.024.1(1), RSMo 1986, and driving a motor vehicle with a revoked license, § 302.321, RSMo 1986. Appellant was sentenced to consecutive sentences of four years’ imprisonment and one year imprisonment respectively.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Rule 80.-25(b).
Case 2:17-cr-01458-DGC Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cr-01458-DGC Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 2 of 2
#### Victor B. Faine, Plaintiff, *v.*Imported Brands, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

February 15, 1954.

*814
      *Robert Okin*for plaintiff.

*Louis M. Brass*for defendant.

James T. Hallinan, J.

Motion by plaintiff for an order vacating defendant’s notice of examination, dated January 18, 1954, and its amendatory notice, dated January 25, 1954. Cross motion by defendant for an order directing that the examination of defendant, pursuant to plaintiff’s notice, dated January 22, 1954, be held after the examination of plaintiff by the defendant.

Defendant’s notice of examination required the plaintiff to appear for examination before a notary public in Kings County. Since plaintiff neither resides nor has an office for the regular transaction of business in person in such county, he could not be required to attend there (Civ. Prac. Act, § 300). Defendant’s amendatory notice required plaintiff to attend in Queens County. Plaintiff contends that the first notice was so defective that it gave the court no jurisdiction and therefore could not be amended.

Improper venue does not divest the court of jurisdiction. Rule 124 of the Rules of Civil Practice specifically provides that if the court deem it proper that the testimony be taken at a time or place other than that specified in the notice, it may so order. *(Isenburger*v. *Arrowhead Mills,*212 App. Div. 121.) Accordingly, the motion to vacate is granted to the extent of modifying the notice to provide that the examination be held in Queens County at the Supreme Court examination room. If the parties cannot agree upon the date, the court will fix it in the order hereon.

In the absence of special circumstances the party who first serves a notice of examination is entitled to examine first.

Defendant’s notice was served on January 18, 1954; plaintiff’s notice on January 22, 1954. Had defendant’s notice been *815proper, he would have been entitled to examine first. Since, however, it designated the wrong county, it did not take effect as of the date of its service. The cross motion to direct that defendant’s examination of plaintiff be held first is denied.

Settle order.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GPS Insight LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00063-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 The Court has considered the parties’ Stipulation for Insurance Representatives to 

Appear Telephonically at Settlement Conference (Doc. 86). Good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 86). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that representatives from Defendants’ insurers 

involved in the defense of this lawsuit may appear telephonically at the settlement 

conference set for August 27, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Representatives shall initiate a 

conference call to Chambers (602-322-7620) promptly at 1:30 p.m. Mountain Standard 

Time on August 27, 2018. Due to the quality of phone call reception in the courtroom, 

all representatives must be on a land line; cell/mobile phones are not permitted and 

speaker phones are discouraged. 

 Dated this 17th day of August, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 89 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 1
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 Annual Report of Hudson's Grill International, Inc., (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David L. Osborn, the President of
Hudson's Grill International, Inc., certify that:

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

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

| | (Registrant)

HUDSON'S GRILL INTERNATIONAL,
INC.

By: s/s David L. Osborn

David L. Osborn, President

Date: April 4, 2007
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original 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.

f\sec\o01.061231
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of TrueYou.Com
Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007
(the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 7, 2007

| |                                                       |                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------- | --------------------
| |                                                       | /s/ Matthew
  Burris
| |                                                      
| | Matthew
  Burris                                     
| | Chief
  Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

---
EXHIBIT 10.28


                                   Allan Wolk
                            c/o URT Industries, Inc.
                        1180 East Hallandale Beach Blvd.
                            Hallandale, Florida 33009




                                                       October 27, 2000


URT Industries, Inc.
1180 East Hallandale Beach Blvd.
Hallandale, FL  33009

Gentlemen:

     It is the purpose of this letter to confirm our understanding with respect
to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1994,
between URT Industries, Inc. and myself, as amended to date (the "Employment
Agreement"). Pursuant to paragraph 9(a) of the Employment Agreement, URT would
be required to make certain payments to me under certain circumstances described
therein, including, without limitation, the expiration of the Employment
Agreement in accordance with its terms and the refusal of URT to continue my
employment upon terms and conditions no less favorable than those contained in
the Employment Agreement. This letter confirms as follows:

     1. URT and I are currently in negotiations concerning the terms and
conditions of the proposed continuation of my employment with URT. In
recognition of such negotiations, I have agreed that provided that such
negotiations are still ongoing, I will not assert my rights under paragraph 9(a)
of the Employment Agreement before December 1, 2000.

     2. You agree that all of my rights under such paragraph 9(a) of the
Employment Agreement are preserved, and shall not be deemed to have been waived
or abrogated in any manner as a result of my agreement to the foregoing, or any
alleged delay in the assertion of my rights under such paragraph 9(a).

     3. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall obligate either party to
continue negotiations for any period of time, or to agree to any continued
employment on my part.


<PAGE>


         Please sign below to evidence our agreement.

                                                 Sincerely yours,

                                                 /s/ Allan Wolk

                                                 Allan Wolk


Agreed:

URT Industries, Inc.

By:  /s/ Brian Wolk
     -------------------------------
     Executive Vice-President