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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17 -0994V Filed: June 27, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

REGINA STENBERG

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On July 24, 2017

, 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”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused in fact by the influenza vaccination she received on September 15, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 5. Petitioner further alleges she received the vaccination in the United States, suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months and that neither she nor any other party has received compensation for her

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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

e ase of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).injury alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 5-6. The case was assigned to the

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 25, 2018

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent “believes that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with

a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. ” Id. at 4-5.

In view of respondent’s position 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-54-PB

Walter Nichols

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 3, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations or prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to June 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00054-PB Document 8 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 27, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

May 24, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 19, 2007

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00054-PB Document 8 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr.

d/b/a Resource Management Company

v. Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD

Janet Peschong, Personal

Representative for the Estate

of Frank Gregory

O R D E R

Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a motion to

compel Janet Peschong to direct her counsel in the probate

proceeding in Oklahoma to transfer funds held in counsel’s trust

account to the court’s account, opened for this case. Peschong

objected to the motion to compel. Riggs filed a motion for leave

to file a reply to the objection. Peschong objected to the

motion for leave to reply because Riggs failed to comply with

Local Rule 7.1(c) and argued that Riggs’s reply missed the point

of the objection. Riggs moved to strike Peschong’s objection to

his motion for leave to file a reply.

Local Rule 7.1(c) applies to all motions filed in this

court, including motions for leave to file a reply. If the reply

is to an objection to a dispositive motion, however, the filing

party provides notice of an intent to file a reply but does not

move for leave to reply. LR 7.1(e)(1). A notice of intent to

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 172 Filed 09/24/08 Page 1 of 3
2

file a reply is not governed by Local Rule 7.1(c) because a

notice is not a motion seeking relief. Because Riggs filed a

motion for leave to file a reply to Peschong’s objection to

Riggs’s nondispositive motion, he was required to follow the

requirements of Local Rule 7.1(c).

Failure to comply with the requirements of local rules can

result in sanctions. LR 1.3(a). The court, however, may excuse

a failure to comply with a local rule. LR 1.3(b). In this

instance, the court will excuse Riggs’s failure to seek

concurrence. 

Riggs argues in part that Peschong’s objection to his motion

for leave to reply should be stricken because it includes a

substantive response to his proposed reply, which would require

leave of the court to file a surreply. The court agrees that

Peschong’s substantive arguments are not properly presented in

her objection. That part of the objection will not be considered

for purposes of deciding Riggs’s motion to compel.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 172 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a reply (document no. 168) is granted. The plaintiff’s

motion to strike (document no. 170) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 24, 2008

cc: Peter G. Callaghan, Esquire

Douglas N. Gould, Esquire

Resource Management Company, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 172 Filed 09/24/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-115-01-SM

Daniel Carl Hicks

O R D E R

The government’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 14). Trial has been rescheduled for the August 2008 trial

period. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: July 25, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: August 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

Case 1:07-cr-00115-SM Document 15 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 2
2

June 23, 2008

cc: David Ruoff, Esq.

Clyde Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00115-SM Document 15 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-63-01-SM

Shea Beaumont

O R D E R

Defendant Beaumont’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 26). Trial has been rescheduled for the October 

2007 trial period. Defendant Beaumont shall file a waiver of speedy trial

rights not later than August 10, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: September 21, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: October 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00063-SM Document 28 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

August 1, 2007

cc: Mark Howard, Esq.

John Kacavas, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00063-SM Document 28 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Diane Corrado, Appellant, v Marilyn C. Rubine et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 878]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered September 16, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action and denied her *749cross motion to stay all proceedings in the action pending resolution of an action entitled *Corrado v Corrado,*pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 203816/01.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the cross motion to stay all proceedings in the action pending resolution of an action entitled *Corrado v Corrado,*pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 203816/ 01, is granted.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the complaint adequately alleged the damages sought so as to state a cause of action, thus warranting the denial of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see *generally Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan v Ellenberg,*199 AD2d 45 [1993]). Furthermore, since some or all of the components of the damages alleged by the plaintiff may ultimately be addressed in the divorce action, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for a stay of all proceedings pending the resolution of that action (see *generally Stettner v Bendet,*227 AD2d 202 [1996]; *Lupoli v Lupoli,*205 AD2d 595 [1994]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### Jerry L. BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPPERTREE RESORTS, LTD., a/k/a Equivest Resorts Incorporated, a/k/a Equivest Finance, a/k/a Equivest Financial, Incorporated, a/k/a Equivest, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-2099.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Jerry L. Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Earl Thomison Holman, Adams, Hendon, Carson, Crow & Saenger, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jerry L. Bishop appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his age discrimination and retaliation suit and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Bishop v. Peppertree Resorts, Ltd.,*212 F.Supp.2d 518 (W.D.N.C.2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EX-10.27





 Exhibit 10.27 

THE SYMBOL “[***]” DENOTES PLACES WHERE CERTAIN IDENTIFIED 

INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (i) 

NOT MATERIAL, AND (ii) WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE 

COMPANY IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED 
 This
document is an English translation of a document prepared in German. In preparing this document, an attempt has been made to translate as literally as possible without jeopardizing the overall continuity of the text. Inevitably, however, differences
may occur in translation and if they do, the German text will govern by law. 
 In this translation, German legal concepts are expressed in English
terms and not in their original German terms. The concepts concerned may not be identical to concepts described by the English terms as such terms may be understood under the laws of other jurisdictions. 

Amendment no. 3 - Agreement regarding an extension to the lease agreement 

to the lease agreement of 17.08.2011 for commercial premises and Amendment no. 1 of 17.02.2012, as well as Amendment no. 2 of 01.02.2013 

between: 
 As the Lessor: 

Wolfram Richter 
 Kupferbergterrasse 15, 17-19 
 55116 Mainz 
 Tel.:
[***]; Fax: [***] 
 Lessor tax registration number: [***] 

As the Lessee: 
 BioNTech AG 

Represented by the Chair of the Board of Directors [***], (with German business degree) 

Hölderlinstraße 8 

D-55131 Mainz 
 registered
in the Commercial Register held at Mainz District Court, registration number: HRB 41865 
 for the office space on the property Kupferbergterrasse 15, 17-19; 55116 Mainz, on the second floor of the front building, the third floor of the front building (loft), the second floor of the original building and the ancillary areas. 

With immediate effect, by way of deviation from sections 3 (1) and (2) of the lease of 17.08.2011 and from the agreement in Amendment no. 1 of
17.02.2012, the Parties agree as follows: 
 The leasehold is extended to 31.03.2014. Within an appropriate timeframe and before the end of the leasehold,
the parties shall come to an agreement on the possibility of further extending the lease and on the duration of any such extension. 
 All other provisions
laid down in the lease of 17.08.2011 and Amendments nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in place and continue to apply without amendments. 
 Signature and stamp of
the Lessor: 
 Mainz, on 11.04.2013 pp. [signature] 
  

			
	 Signature and stamp of the Lessee;
 [***], Chair
of the Board of Directors of BioNTech AG     
	  	 [Stamp: BioNTech AG

Hölderlinstraße 8
 55131 Mainz

Tel.: +49 (0) 6131 / 57 62 70 0 –
 Fax: +49 (0) 6131 /
[illegible]

	
	Mainz, on 06.03.2013 [signature]
U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF N F I^ FD N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ?OL1 J

JAN

1 9

A

II. 2I

Steven A. Swan

V.

Paul J. Barbadoro, et al.

O R D E R

Civil No. 07-fp-1

All of the judges in this district were recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case shall be

referred to the District of Maine; sitting by designation.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an "emergency" with respect to the referred case as that term is

used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the assignment

of a magistrate judge from the designated district to perform the

duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

January 12, 2007

cc: Clerk, USDC, Maine

Steven A. Swan, pro se

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00001-GZS Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 2
Concurring Order

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him by the district judge to whom this case

is assigned.

Date: f 7

0 7

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00001-GZS Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RIC O

In. re : U .S . DISTRICT COUR T

DISTRICT OF N .H.

CASTELLANOS BATOUTH , ALFREDO A . : Case No . : 04-11496 ( 5§k.-F D

Debtor

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter : 07 1OQb SEP -b A II : 2 5

TRUSTEE ' S NOTICE RE SETTLEMENT OF CIVIL SUIT

AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT :

1110 Comes now, John A . Zerbe , duly appointed, qualified and acting

trl

1 . That a settlement agreement has been reached in a case in

Federal District Court which will produce $100 ,000 for

the estate , payable over a twelve (12) month period .

That trustee and special counsel for the trustee (also

debtor in case at bar) understand that accepting this

0t1 ettlement is in the best interest of the estate

and creditors .

3 . That if no objections are filed within 20 days the

Bankruptcy Court may grant this motion without further

notice or heaaring and the settlement agreement will be

filed in Federal District Court .

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Honorable Court

take notice and authorize trustee to proceed with filing of

agreement if no objections are received .

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in San Juan, Puerto Rico this 13th day of

July 2006 .

NOTICE IS RERESY GIVEN: That if no objections are filed within

twenty (20) days from the filing of this motion, the Bankruptcy

court may grant this motion without further notice or hearing .

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have electronically filed the foregoingwith theClerk ofthe Court using

the CM/ECF system which will send notification of said filing to parties appearing in said system.

I hereby certifythat the document has been mailed by United States Postal Service to all parties on

the master address (ist.

A

Is! J . Zerbe Y

John A . Zerbe, T tee

165 Ave . De Diego

Urb. San Francisco

Rio Piedras , PR 00927

(787) 765-887 7

067333

Case 1:05-ds-00021-JD Document 72 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2007 (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 780(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: August 10, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS       
|                      |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels           
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|                      |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1643

To provide for the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To provide for the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital

of Israel.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Israeli Capital Rec5 ognition Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING JERUSALEM

7 AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.

8 (a) CONSULATE IN JERUSALEM.—Notwithstanding

9 any other provision of law, the United States shall not

10 operate a United States consulate or diplomatic facility

11 in Jerusalem unless such consulate or diplomatic facility
2

•HR 1643 IH

1 is under the supervision of the United States Ambassador

2 to Israel.

3 (b) IDENTIFICATION OF JERUSALEM AS THE CAP4 ITAL OF ISRAEL IN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICA5 TIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any

6 official government document which lists countries and

7 their capital cities shall identify Jerusalem as the capital

8 of Israel.

9 (c) RECORD OF PLACE OF BIRTH AS ISRAEL FOR

10 PASSPORT PURPOSES.—For purposes of the registration

11 of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a pass12 port of a United States citizen born in the city of Jeru13 salem, the Secretary of State shall, upon the request of

14 the citizen, record the place of birth as Israel.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-114-01-PB

Andrew Innes

O R D E R

On August 8, 2012, defendant appeared for a probable cause 

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on one alleged violation of 

conditions of supervision, as charged in the government's 

petition dated August 7, 2012 (doc. no. 45). Defendant is on 

release from his conviction in 2008 on five counts of 

distribution of cocaine base “crack,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

841(a)(1).

Defendant stipulated to probable cause on the violation. I 

therefore find probable cause that defendant has violated the 

condition as charged in the petition.

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. At the hearing, the court 

summarized its findings orally from the bench. Those oral 

findings are incorporated herein. Based on the evidence 

presented at today's hearing, and for the reasons stated on the 
2

record, defendant has failed to meet his burden of persuading 

the court that he poses no danger to any other person or to the 

community. 

In sum, the court finds that defendant did not meet his 

burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that his

release, even on strict conditions, would pose no danger to any 

other person or the community. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

the defendant be detained pending a final revocation hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

August 9, 2012 

cc: Robert J. Veiga, Esq.

Matthew G. Stachowski, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation