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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1411V

UNPUBLISHED

ALAINA GUYMON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: March 1, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 13, 2019, Alaina Guymon 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

October 5, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of 

the Office of Special Masters.

On March 1, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, Respondent “has concluded that [P]etitioner suffered a right SIRVA injury as 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I 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

defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner 

suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Id.

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

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.E.O., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date: May 13, 2008 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| Signature:              |  /s/  Calvin A. Wallen, III |   |
|                    |  Calvin A.  Wallen, III, C.E.O. |

 

----
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3845 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

301 Commerce Street in Commerce, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Mickey Mantle 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Mickey Mantle Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MICKEY MANTLE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Com6 merce, Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Mickey Mantle Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3845 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mickey Mantle Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### National Institutes of Health

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

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; SBIR Simple and Robust Progress Analyzer.                    

*Date:*                         March 30, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barbara J. Nelson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Grants Management & Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1080, 1 Dem. Plaza, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0806,                         *nelsonbj@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 14, 2015.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00813 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITEDSTATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM10-Q**

 

(Mark One)

[X]   QUARTERLYREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For thequarterly period ended September 30, 2010

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number0-10256

 

**SHELTER PROPERTIESII**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

(864)239-1000

(Registrant’s telephonenumber, including area code)

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.  

[X] Yes  [ ]No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitionsof “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reportingcompany” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel; Avenir Award Program for Research on Substance Abuse 
and HIV/AIDS (DP2).
    Date: March 9, 2015.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Hiromi Ono, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 
4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6020, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 14, 2015.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-00815 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Carmelo M., Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 896]

*819In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Carmelo M., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Carmelo M. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), dated April 4, 2012, which, upon a finding, made after a jury trial, that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and upon a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly allowed the petitioner’s expert to testify regarding the appellant’s admission, as reported in a social worker’s notes contained in his Department of Correctional Services records, that he had committed additional sexual offenses against children with which he had not been charged, since the purpose of the testimony was to explain the basis for the expert’s opinion (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [b]; *Matter of State of New York v Anonymous,*82 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2011]; *Matter of State of New York v Wilkes,*77 AD3d 1451, 1453 [2010]). Further, the admission of the social worker’s notes did not violate the social worker-patient privilege set forth under CPLR 4508, as Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (c) requires the disclosure of communications that would ordinarily be privileged under CPLR 4508 (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [c]; *Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y.,*102 AD3d 80, 88 [2012]).

The Assistant Attorney General’s summation remarks, to the extent they were improper, were not so flagrant or pervasive as to have the effect of depriving the appellant of a fair trial (see *Matter of State of New York v Anonymous,*82 AD3d at 1251; *Short v Daloia,*70 AD3d 1384, 1385 [2010]; *Wilson v City of New York,*65 AD3d 906, 909 [2009]; *Ritz v Lee,*273 AD2d 291, 291 [2000]).

Further, the Supreme Court properly found, after the dispositional hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant’s level of dangerousness requires that he be confined rather than being subject to strict and intense supervision *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; *Matter of State of New York v Clarence D.,*82 AD3d 776, 777-778 [2011]; *Matter of State of New York v Anonymous,*82 AD3d at 1252). Rivera, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
SEVERANCE ARRANGEMENT WITH DAVID SOMMERS



 Exhibit 10.25 
 Severance Arrangement with David P. Sommers 
 NetScout Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
has a severance arrangement with David P. Sommers, the Senior Vice President, General Operations and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Pursuant to this arrangement, if Mr. Sommers is terminated by the Company for any reason other than Due
Cause or if Mr. Sommers terminates his employment with the Company for Good Reason, Mr. Sommers will receive severance equal to twelve (12) months of his base salary at the time of such termination. If Mr. Sommers’
employment is terminated for Due Cause or if he elects to terminate his employment with the Company for any reason other than a Good Reason, he will not be entitled to any severance payment. 
 The Company will pay any required severance payment over six equal monthly payments commencing six (6) months after such termination of employment.
It is the intent of the Company and Mr. Sommers that any payments to be made under this arrangement be made without any adverse tax consequences under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and any rules or
regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Company and Mr. Sommers will interpret and, to the minimum extent necessary, amend this arrangement accordingly. 
 “Due Cause” means any of the following: (i) criminal conviction for willful fraud, embezzlement or theft against the Company or any of its affiliates; (ii) Mr. Sommers is convicted of, or
pleads guilty or no contest to, a felony; (iii) willful, material nonperformance by Mr. Sommers (other than by reason of illness) of his material duties and failure to remedy such nonperformance within 30 days following written notice from
the Board of Directors identifying the nonperformance and the actions required to cure it; or (iv) Mr. Sommers commits an act of gross negligence, engages in willful, material misconduct or otherwise acts with willful disregard for the
Company’s best interests, and he fails to remedy such conduct within 30 days following written notice from the Board of Directors identifying the gross negligence, willful misconduct or willful disregard and the actions required to cure it (if
such conduct can be cured). 
 “Good Reason” means any of the following: (i) a material adverse change in his title, position
and responsibilities; or (ii) a material reduction in Mr. Sommers’ base salary or benefits, unless a similar reduction is applicable to other executive officers of the Company.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert A. Brown, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 291]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered February 1, 2012, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in *651which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, *JJ.,*concur.
#### Ambrose *v.*Ambrose, administratrix.

1. The case was not within the statute of frauds. Code, §1951; Little *v.*McCarter, 89 ÍT. Car. 233.

2. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial. . *Judgment affirmed.*

July 30, 1894.

Complaint. Before Judge Hutchins. Gwinnett superior court. September term, 1893.

Juhan & McDonald, for plaintiff in error.

C. H. Brand, *contra.*

The administratrix of J. D. Ambrose sued B. S. Ambrose for-$100, her claim being, in substance, as follows: Two parcels of land were for sale, one at $1,500, the other at $900. They would not be sold without selling both. B. S. Ambi’ose wanted to buy the land, but his father would furnish only $1,500, and h.e procured his brother J. D. to buy the second place and give his notes for $900, upon the oral agreement that he was to pay only $800 for it and B. S. would pay him the $100 difference. Plaintiff has paid off' the notes for $900 since the death of J. D., and defendant refuses to pay the $100. There were pleas of the general issue and the statute of frauds. On conflicting evidence the jury found for the plaintiff) and defendant’s motion on the general grounds for a new trial was overruled.
#### James Gass et al., Appellants, v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Doing Business as America’s Wholesale Lender, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[964 NYS2d 561]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered September 12, 2011, as granted the motion of the defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., doing business as America’s Wholesale Lender, Bank of America Home Loans, and Bank of America Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, which alleged fraud.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., doing business as America’s Wholesale Lender (hereinafter Countrywide), Bank of America Home Loans, and Bank of America Corp. (hereinafter collectively the Bank defendants). The third cause of action, which alleges fraud, arose after Countrywide refused to accept delinquent mortgage payments. Instead, Countrywide chose to fully accelerate its note and commence a foreclosure proceeding. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of Countrywide’s conduct, they were forced to obtain a reverse mortgage to pay back the loan.

The Bank defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third cause of action by submitting evidence demonstrating that they did not make material misrepresentations that induced the plaintiffs to enter into a reverse mortgage *(see H.L. & F.H. Realty Corp. v Gulf Ins. Co.,*19 AD3d 646 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Bank defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action.

*1000The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit.

Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Cohen and Miller, JJ, concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steve Rosado, Appellant.

Submitted June 15, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee will meet in 
closed session on June 16, 2009 from 0800 hrs until 1800 hrs and on 
June 17, 2009 from 0800 hrs until 1000 hrs at the Pentagon.
    The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Secretary of Defense, 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
with independent, informed advice on major matters of defense policy. 
The Board will hold classified discussions on national security 
matters.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law No. 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. App II (1982)], it has 
been determined that this meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
552B (c)(1)(1982), and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to 
the public.

    Dated: May 12, 2009.
Morgan E. Frazier,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-11348 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P