alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 

6981982.1

 

Clarice A. Spicker, Bar #029964

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 

40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Telephone: (602) 263-1700 

Fax: (602) 200-7810 

cspicker@jshfirm.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Kwak and PKD 

Trucking, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Guilford Insurance Company a/s/o Inman 

Trucking, Inc., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Sang Guk Kwak and Jane Doe Kwak, husband 

and wife; et al., 

Defendants.

NO. 3:18-CV-08028-GMS

STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE 

The parties hereto, by and through undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree 

that the above-captioned action may be dismissed, with prejudice, each party to bear their 

own fees and costs. 

DATED this 25th day of September, 2018.

HAMMERMAN & HULTGREN, P.C.

By: /s/ Jon R. Hultgren 

Stanley M. Hammerman 

Jon R. Hultgren 

3101 North Central Ave., Suite 500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By: /s/ Clarice A. Spicker 

Clarice A. Spicker 

40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Attorneys for Defendants Kwak and PKD 

Trucking, Inc. 

Case 3:18-cv-08028-GMS Document 27 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-0428V 

Filed: June 30, 2016

Unpublished

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

MARSHA CRAWFORD, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

 * Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine; 

v. * Prevnar 13; Shoulder Injury Related

 * to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”);

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Justine E. Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On April 4, 2016, Marsha Crawford (“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” or “Program”). Petitioner alleges that she developed shoulder 

injuries as a result of a pneumococcal conjugate (Prevnar 13) vaccination she received

on April 16, 2015. Pet. at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

(“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 30, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Rep. at 1. Specifically, 

respondent stated that the evidence establishes that petitioner’s injury is consistent with 

a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that the injury is not 

 

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. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). 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 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

due to factors unrelated to her April 16, 2015, pneumococcal conjugate vaccination. Id.

at 3. Respondent further stated that petitioner has met all statutory and jurisdictional 

requirements, including having suffered the condition for more than six months. Id. at 3-

4. Respondent concludes that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the 

terms of the Vaccine Act. Id. at 4.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

 Chief Special Master
Exhibit 13.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company, as amended, 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 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: May 14, 2018.   /s/ Jonel Nazareno Iurk

   Name: Jonel Nazareno Iurk

   Title: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.22



February 17, 2004



D-Max West LLC

1495 Ridgeview Drive, Suite 220

Reno, NV 89509-6334

Attn: Joel Crownover



Re: Termination of Distribution Agreements



Dear Mr. Crownover:



The purpose of this correspondence is to advise you that each Distribution Agreement between Mirenco, Inc and D-Max West LLC originally dated January 24, 2003 will be
terminated effective as of March 1, 2004.



The Board of Directors has
determined the termination of each of the Agreements is necessary at this time as it has come to the attention of representatives of Mirenco that neither you nor your facility are properly trained or equipped to provide the services required of
D-Max West in the Agreements as you had represented to the Company, and it is the Boards belief that the contracts are therefore null and void. Specifically, D-Max West has failed to demonstrate DISTRIBUTOR has the ability to service and
repair Diesel powered vehicles and equipment and secure contracts for the sale of Mirenco Products in the states of California, Arizona and Texas and has failed to demonstrate DISTRIBUTOR has working knowledge of diesel vehicle
electronics and the installation and service of Mirenco Products.



As
noted above, this termination shall be deemed effective March 1, 2004 and on or prior to that date, D-Max West shall return all property, equipment and confidential information of Mirence that is in its possession as of the date of termination of
the Agreements.



Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the
undersigned.



|                         
|-------------------------
|Sincerely,               
|                         
|/s/ Richard A. Musal     
|Richard A. Musal         
|Chief Operating Officer  
|                         
|cc: Gregory P. Page, Esq.
#### Patricia HUELSMANN, Employee/Appellant, v. DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, Employer, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Custodian for the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 65595.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 27, 1994.

Carla G. McBride, Kessler & Kessler, St. Louis, for appellant.

*579Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Maria W. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals that portion of the award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her claim against the Second Injury Fund. We affirm. The award of the Commission is supported by substantial and competent evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).
#### Debbie Jean JEROME, Appellant, v. Daniel Baptise JEROME, Respondent.

No. 64178.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 22, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 23, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied April 26, 1994.

Deborah J. Fredericks, Ballwin, for appellant.

David 0. Danis, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals the judgment modifying a prior dissolution of marriage decree. We find the judgment supported by substantial evidence is not against the weight of the evidence. Further, no error of law appears. We also determine an opinion would have no precedential value and affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b)(1) and (5). A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6632

FRANK G. RENDON

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Defendant

- Appellee

,

a nd

OFFICER FOSTER

,

Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

, at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. ( 5:19

- ct

- 03227

- BO )

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, C ircuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank G. Rendon, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, USCA4 Appeal: 22-6632 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6632 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:

Frank G. Rendon appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action under

the Federal Tort Claims Act and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

orders. Rendon v. United States , No. 5:19

- ct

- 03227

- BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2021 & May

9, 2022). We dispense with oral argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6632 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Exhibit
32.1- 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






The
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of TrinityCare Senior Living, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date
hereof:




(a)
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


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


Date: May
19, 2009


/s/ Joe M. Wiley
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ATMI, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Eugene G. BanucciName: Eugene G. Banucci, Ph.D.Title: Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 12, 2004
 /s/ Daniel P. SharkeyName: Daniel P. SharkeyTitle:
Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 12, 2004
 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.
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shawn Dale Moore,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Unknown Anderson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00859-PHX-ROS (ESW)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s (i) response to the Court’s Order (Doc. 150) 

requesting that the Plaintiff show cause why his case as to Defendant Central Unit Medical 

Staff Doe #1 should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 

80) requiring Plaintiff to file a timely Notice of Substitution, and (ii) Plaintiff’s “Motion to 

Reconsider of Legal Counsel, Relief from Judgment or Order Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P.” 

(Doc. 154), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of prior Orders 

denying Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel (Docs. 18, 68, 143). 

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See 

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F. 3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if 

the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error 

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” School Dist. No. IJ, Multonomah County, 5 F. 3d at 1263; see also LRCiv 

7.2(g)(1) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent 
- 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

a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have 

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”). Such motions should not 

be used for the purpose of asking a court “to rethink what the court had already thought 

through—rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp 1342, 1351 

(D. Ariz. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 154) does not present any basis that warrants 

reconsideration of the Court’s prior Orders (Docs. 18, 68, 143) and will be denied. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause why his case as to 

Defendant Central Unit Medical Staff Doe #1 should not be dismissed. The Order to show 

cause shall be quashed. The Court will extend the time within which Plaintiff shall file a 

Notice of Substitution identifying the true name of Defendant Central Unit Medical Staff 

Doe #1 to May 14, 2020. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider of Legal Counsel, 

Relief from Judgment or Order Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Doc. 154). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED quashing the Court’s Order to show cause why the 

case as to Defendant Central Unit Medical Staff Doe #1 should not be dismissed. The 

Court extends the time for Plaintiff to file a Notice of Substitution identifying the true name 

of Defendant Central Unit Medical Staff Doe #1 to May 14, 2020. 

Dated this 13th day of April, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Roderick Bartlett, President and Chief Executive Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) 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 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: May 6, 2008  /s/ Roderick Bartlett Roderick Bartlett President and Chief Executive Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 HopFed Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on

Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. Peck, 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:



| | 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 the result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 31, 2009



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. Peck                     
|John E. Peck, Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HopFed Bancorp, Inc.
and will be retained by HopFed Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The information furnished herein shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PACIFIC GOLDRIM RESOURCES, INC. (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date here of (the "Report"), I, Jason Schlombs, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.



JASON SCHLOMBSJason SchlombsPrincipal Executive and Financial Officer

March 7, 2007

















---
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 

RECEIVED ---:----,- LODGED -r=~~~=--- copy 

NOV 2 0 '2019 

'v , CL5~\~~CTDIOSTFRICT COURT 

BY (J · ARIZONA 

DEPUTY . 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

) 

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

Defendant. 

· No. CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC(DTF) 

JURY QUESTIONS 

DURING TRIAL 

Jury questions during trial. 

Day5 
·l~ 
\ oOy JPfJ'J~ i· 

I 

·1 .·~(~. I . 

I ~--------,f-f-'-~-~---~--1-~ 

! l r7 V 1/ ;, ~WW. ~ .. 

--~~~-~--t----~--'----1 

i 

I 

I 
, -

I 

I I -~------=--~~~~~~~!...IL...!._ 

I 

/.'.lice . 6 J· A->ct TRA!_ · Tb TJt(~;/2'_ 

--r , 
l--=--i=-· ~~-

_:,,._,J,_~1(....__jJ,,J~~~~~$.._--,..Jj(Li.e_~' ' ~· 

u&d \ ~-~~~=\--~~~~~~~-

~ 

i 

. - i 

C"\ - .- ' . ' I I\ ~ .:. '-~ ,· ~~ 

' ' 

·~- -~ .\ - . ? . +-'~-o.-Q,,, 

j 

l ·-•~-Q.__~ . 

~~~~~~~M· ·bl• ~~~--sI!_··~)_ 

f<... 

---------+-___,__--~----

-/ 
- . . . ' 

dso11 1 tpj1

(f) ~-110 - _ 'ti~ 

~· 

t I f "YU- z. .4,J~ •--- 0 -_ l1 
- -- -- --- .. - - - - - -. -- -- - -

- -

.. 

,. 

'. 

' 

-· 

. \ 

I -· 

~ ' 

.. 

'?,1h .-. - ' 

-~-f '\.A->'---0'19 ,,:-9 --;LY"'J -~t ~..J..J-'O 1f~ ~'~ ., l 11 "'-

-

~u:'2 V\ .. 

lJ ~ ~t- V i 0 q"U YV'c 

' -

1~ J; --VVJ ~J(r ~g \~&. S".--f~o~-:-O 

-
I 1--

1 

_o(: I -I 

\ 

( 

1----------~-----------

I 

[ 

i-------------+-----'--------

,· .. .\ \ , --- - _,___ !... •.. 
-------'-----------+-------------1 

I 
j 

I 

- 1--

I 

' 
.) ' .. . I 

------~-~~----! 

I 

----''-------------'-----'----I ___________ ::..__. _____ . __________ . ______________ : -------------- -------- --·-_,:_ __ .
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Robert Mintak, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dussault Apparel
      Inc. for the period ended April 30, 2009 (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 Dussault Apparel Inc.                                                                 

Dated: June 18, 2009



| | /s/
      Robert Mintak                                             
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Robert Mintak                                                       
| | Chief Financial Officer                                             
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
| | Dussault Apparel Inc.                                               

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 Dussault
Apparel Inc. and will be retained by Dussault Apparel Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---