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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 0034 V

Filed: May 12 , 2015

Unpublished

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

RACHEL FAUCHER

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza or Flu Vaccine ; Shoulder

* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * ( “ SIRVA ” ) ; Special Processing Unit

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Ronald Homer, Esq. , Conway, Homer & Chin

- Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Claudia Gangi

, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Vowell

, Chief Special Master:

On January 12, 2015, Rachel Faucher 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”]. Peti tioner alleges that s he suffered a shoulder inj ury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) which was caused by the influenza vac cine

she received on September 11, 2013

. Petit ion at 1

. The case was assigned to the

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 12 , 2015 , respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 4 . Specifically, respondent “ concludes that petitioner suffered a non

- Table injury of

SIRVA and that the preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was

causally related to the flu vaccination she received on September 11, 2013. ” Id. at 3

- 4.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I inte nd to

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002, Pu b. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501

note (2006)) . In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 day s 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 withi n this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Chil dhood 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 (2006).2

Furthermore, respondent agrees that petitioner ’s injury lasted for more than six months

and is not due to factors unrelated to the adm inistration of the flu vaccine. Id. at 4.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that

petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

s/Denise K. Vowe ll

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc. (the “Registrant”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned , KariStefansson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,and Lance Thibault, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
|   | Dated: May 11,  2009 | /s/  Kari Stefansson                             |
|--------|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |                      | Kari Stefansson                                  |
|   |                      | Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                      |                                             |
|   |                      |                                             |
|   | Dated: May 11,  2009 | /s/ Lance Thibault                               |
|   |                      | Lance Thibault                                   |
|   |                      | Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer           |

 

----
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [NM-920-1310-08; TXNM 118212] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the Class II provisions of Title IV, Public Law 97-451, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease  TXNM 118212 from the lessee, Woodward Development LLC, for lands in Houston County, Texas. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico State Office, at (505) 438-7586. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    No valid lease has been issued that affect the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500.00 administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $166.00 cost for publishing this Notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    . The lessee met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate lease TXNM 118212, effective the date of termination, June 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Dated: September 9, 2008. 

Lourdes B. Ortiz, 

Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team.

[FR Doc. E8-21424 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DAISY FRANCO,

Defendant.

8:23MJ279

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED that Justin D. Eichmann is appointed as attorney of record for 

the above-named defendant in this matter and shall forthwith file an appearance in this 

matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender’s Office shall 

forthwith provide counsel with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the 

name and other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in 

accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska and Justin D. Eichmann.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00113-RFR-MDN Doc # 9 Filed: 05/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 14
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.54



FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
HORNBECK OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC.
INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


This FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED HORNBECK OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN  (this " Amendment ") is made effective as of the 20th day of June, 2019, by the Board of Directors (the " Board ") of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. (the " Company ").
WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the Second Amended and Restated Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended (the " Plan ");
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Plan, the Board may at any time amend the provisions of the Plan;
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock that may be delivered pursuant to awards granted under the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the stockholders of the Company have passed a resolution approving this Amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows:
1.     Section 4.1 shall be amended to increase the number of shares authorized under the Plan by 7,000,000 by replacing the first sentence with the following:
"The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan is 11,950,000 shares."


2.     Except as set forth herein and as previously amended, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.
* * * * *
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3684

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Reginald L. Ford

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: March 29, 2016

Filed: April 1, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Ford directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after 1

he pled guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western

1

District of Missouri.
waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ford’s sentence is unreasonable and

that Ford received ineffective assistance of counsel. Ford has filed a supplemental

brief, arguing that the district court misapplied the career-offender provisions of the

Guidelines, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). First, we

decline to reach the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States

v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance

claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be

properly developed). Second, as to the remaining arguments, we enforce the appeal

waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo

review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant

knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing

waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Finally, having independently

reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Order entered February 13, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01533
- CR JOSE CASAREZ JR., Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. F
- 11
- 52871
- K 

### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appe llant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial cour t shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effectiv e representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This a ppeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-5516.

David FORGIONE, as Assignee of Harry Tofel and Lena Tofel, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DENNIS PIRTLE AGENCY, INC., American States Insurance Company, an Indiana

Corporation, Defendants,

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, DefendantAppellee,

Herman B. Fine, Cerrato-Fine Agency, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendants-CrossDefendants Appellees,

Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, Defendant-Cross-Claimant.

Jan. 7, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 94-7254-CIVSJM ); Stanley J. Marcus, Judge.

Before DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We previously certified to the Florida Supreme Court the following dispositive question in

this case:

Can a claim for negligence by an insured against an insurance agent for failure to

obtain proper insurance coverage be assigned to a third party?

Forgione v. Dennis Pirtle Agency, Inc., 93 F.3d 758, 761 (11th Cir.1996). The Supreme Court of

Florida has now definitively answered that state law question in the affirmative, disagreeing with

the district court. See David Forgione v. Dennis Pirtle Agency, Inc., 701 So.2d 557 (Fla.1997). We

are indebted to the Florida Supreme Court for its authoritative resolution of the controlling state law
issue.

The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further

proceedings.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.17.2

                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                     INTEREST RATE SWAP GUARANTEE AGREEMENT

      This Second Amendment to the Interest Rate Swap Guarantee Agreement
("Second Amendment") is made effective as of August 5, 2003, by and among
Westcorp, a California corporation, Western Financial Bank, a federally
chartered bank ("WFB"), and WFS Receivables Corporation 2, a Nevada corporation
("WFSRC2"), and hereby amends the Interest Rate Swap Guarantee Agreement entered
into by the parties on May 10, 2001, as subsequently amended, with reference to
the following:

                                    RECITALS

      WHEREAS, the parties have previously entered into the original agreement
on May 10, 2001; and

      WHEREAS, the agreement was subsequently amended on March 3, 2003 (the
original agreement and first amendment is hereinafter collectively referred to
as the "Agreement");

      WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend and restate Schedule A to the
Agreement in order to update the swap agreement list;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set
forth herein, and in reliance upon the recitals set forth above, the Agreement
is amended as follows:

                                    AGREEMENT

   1.    Schedule A to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as Schedule
         A-1 and is attached hereto and is hereby incorporated and made part of
         the Agreement.

   3.    Except as specifically amended herein, all terms of the Agreement shall
         remain in full force and effect.

   4.    Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth
         in the Agreement.

<PAGE>

      WHEREFORE, the undersigned have executed this Second Amendment on the date
set forth below to be effective as of the date first set forth above.

WESTCORP

______________________________

WESTERN FINANCIAL BANK

__________________________________

WFS RECEIVABLES CORPORATION 2, INC

__________________________________

<PAGE>

                                  SCHEDULE A-1

1.    Prepayment Differential Interest Rate Swap Agreements between Western
      Financial Bank and Citibank, N.A., dated as of May 9, 2001.

2.    Interest Rate Swap Agreements between Western Financial Bank and Merrill
      Lynch dated as of March 3, 2003.

3.    Interest Rate Swap Agreement between WFS Receivables Corporation 2 and
      Bank of America dated as of August 5, 2003.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOSE E. VACA-SALDANA, 

Defendant.

8:23CR111

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant's Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadline [23]. 

For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant will be given an 

approximate 60-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by August 7, 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant's Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadline [23] is granted. Pretrial motions

shall be filed on or before August 7, 2023.

2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between June 8, 2023, and August 7, 2023, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial 

Act for the reason defendant's counsel required additional time to adequately prepare the case, 

taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. 

The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).

Dated this 9th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00111-BCB-SMB Doc # 24 Filed: 06/09/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 32
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 70

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CV-14-72

JENNIFER STEELE

APPELLANT

V.

JOHN LYON

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered February 11, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

TWELFTH DIVISION

[NO. 60DR-13-2293]

HONORABLE ALICE S. GRAY,

JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM

ORDERED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Jennifer Steele brings this appeal from the order of protection entered by the Pulaski

County Circuit Court on September 10, 2013, in favor of Steele’s former boyfriend, appellee

John Lyon. The issues on appeal are (1)whether the trial court erred in allowing appellee to

testify or erred in admitting certain evidence during his testimony that appellant argues was

not provided in discovery; (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that the case fell within

the scope of the Domestic Abuse Act; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing appellee’s

Exhibit 1 into evidence; (4) whether the trial court erred in allowing appellant to read text

messages into the record that she could not authenticate; and (5) whether sufficient evidence

supported the trial court’s ruling in favor of appellee. We are unable to reach the merits of

Steele’s arguments at this time due to deficiencies in her addendum. Because the addendum
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 70

is not in compliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8), we order appellant to file

a supplemental addendum.

Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires the addendum to contain all documents in the record that “are

essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to

decide the issues on appeal.” Specifically, the Rule requires “any order extending the time to

file the record on appeal” to be included in the addendum. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i)

(2014). Because appellant has not included the circuit court’s order granting the extension of

time to lodge the record, we direct her to correct this deficiency by filing a supplemental

addendum within seven calendar days from the date of this opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-

2(b)(4). See In re 4-2(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 2011 Ark. 141. We strongly

encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the supplemental addendum, to review our rules

as well as the addendum to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present.

Supplemental addendum ordered.

HARRISON and GLOVER, JJ., agree.

Scott A. Strain, for appellant.

Robertson Law Firm, by: Bonnie Robertson, for appellee.

2
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.5

June 12, 2003

The Millbrook Press, Inc.
Mr. David Allen, President and CEO
2 Old New Milford Road
Brookfield, CT  06804

Re:         Loan and Security Agreement by and between The Millbrook Press, Inc.
(The "Borrower") and People's Bank (the Bank) dated December 14, 1995, which was
been amended and modified on June 17, 1997; June 10, 1998; January 8, 1999;
January 31, 2000; October 26, 2001; July 31, 2002; October 25, 2002 and December
4, 2002.

Dear Mr. Allen:

You have advised the Bank that The  Millbrook  Press,  Inc. is not in compliance
with  certain  Financial  Covenants  contained  in  Section  6.13  of the  above
referenced  Loan and  Security  Agreement,  as amended,  for the  periods  ended
January 31, 2003 and April 30, 2003.  You have requested that the Bank waive the
specific non-compliance of these Financial Covenants.

This letter is to advise you that  People's  Bank has agreed to your  request to
waive the non-compliance  with the Financial Covenants contained in Section 6.13
of the above referenced Loan and Security Agreement, as amended, for the periods
ended January 31, 2003 and April 30, 2003.

In consideration for granting this waiver request,  the Borrower agrees that the
Bank may  charge to the  Borrower's  account a waiver  fee of $5,000 on June 13,
2003.

This waiver shall be effective  only for the periods shown above and in no event
shall  this  waiver  be deemed  to be a waiver  of any of the  Bank's  rights or
remedies with respect to any other event(s) of default now existing or hereafter
arising.  In all other  respects,  the Loan and Security  Agreement  and related
documents, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

People's Bank                                   The Millbrook Press, Inc.

/s/ Richard Harmonay, Jr.                       /s/ David Allen
-------------------------                       -------------------------
Richard Harmonay, Jr.                           David Allen
Assistant Vice President                        President and CEO
```