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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-588V

UNPUBLISHED

BYRON WILSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: February 22, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Matthew B. Vianello, Jacobson Press P.C., Clayton, MO 63105, for petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On May 12, 2020, Byron Wilson 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 he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a 

result of an influenza (flu) vaccine administered to him on October 2, 2019. Petition at 1. 

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 8, 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 determined that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth 

in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

(“QAI”), which afford [P]etitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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

between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent 

alternative cause”. Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that the scope of damages to be 

awarded is limited to [P]etitioner’s GBS and its related sequelae only. 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
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SONYA CASE HARRIS

No. 25P06

ORDER

The Attorney General’s Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d-(2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Timmons-Goodson. J. For the Court
U.S. flag
        An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know **Official websites use .mil**
              A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization.
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
              A **lock** (A locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.




Menu


close site.logo-mark-desc
 Home
          
        AboutAbout UsNGA LocationsHistoryMissionStrategyNGA KidsPolicies and ProgramsNext NGA WestNewsNewsContract Announcements2023 Industry Strategy Summit2023 DoDIIS Worldwide Conference2024 Esri Federal GIS Conference2024 GEO Resilience SummitCareersYour CareerHiring ProcessBenefits & PayStudent OpportunitiesSenior Executive PositionsMilitary Career OpportunitiesWork With UsIndustryAcademiaGovernmentInternationalWork With UsResourcesOffice of the Inspector GeneralProducts & ServicesMoonshot LabsPublic ReleaseContact Us Facilities Operating Status
          Employee Resources Search small
        Search Site


Nautical Publications


Home
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
						
							
							
							Resources
								
							
						
					
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				Nautical Publications


The U.S. Government Printing Office manages the public sale of NGA navigation publications.**U.S. Government Printing Office** Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-1954 Tel: 202-512-1800 Internet: http://bookstore.gpo.gov





Home
              HomeAbout
							  About UsNGA LocationsHistoryMissionStrategyNGA KidsPolicies and ProgramsNext NGA WestNews
							  NewsContract Announcements2023 Industry Strategy Summit2023 DoDIIS Worldwide Conference2024 Esri Federal GIS Conference2024 GEO Resilience SummitCareers
							  Your CareerHiring ProcessBenefits & PayStudent OpportunitiesSenior Executive PositionsMilitary Career OpportunitiesWork With Us
							  IndustryAcademiaGovernmentInternationalWork With UsResources
							  Office of the Inspector GeneralProducts & ServicesMoonshot LabsPublic ReleaseContact Us
							  Contact Us
 Connect With Us


nga.mil
          An official website of the
            National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
          7500 GEOINT DriveSpringfield, VA 22150 About NGAAccessibility supportFOIA requestsNo FEAR Act dataOffice of the Inspector GeneralPerformance reportsPrivacy policyPrivacy program Looking for U.S. government information and services?
        Visit USA.govLast Site Build: 2024-04-19 07:09 UTC
Exhibit 99(g)

CERTIFICATE REGARDING 

PPL MONTANA, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL  Montana, LLC (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2002,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Covered Report"), I, the principal executive officer of the Company,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

-  The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements            of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,            as amended; and       -  The information contained in the Covered Report fairly            presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results            of operations of the Company.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of    this 13th day of August, 2002.        /s/ James H. Miller                                     James H. Miller  President  PPL Montana, LLC
#### Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Sirius America Insurance Company, Also Known as Sirius Insurance Company, Respondent, and Thomas Johnson, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted October 19, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 1234.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,018,028
<SECURITIES>                                   400,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,581,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                   285,819
<INVENTORY>                                  4,430,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,633,934
<PP&E>                                       5,357,201
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,638,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,877,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,719,261
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                        59,913
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,782,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,877,147
<SALES>                                      5,353,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,290,035
<CGS>                                        3,260,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,022,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             310,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (289,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (87,829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (202,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (202,075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00131-CV

In re Pamela Mehl

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Filed: March 4, 2015
I EARNED MY ACTIVITY BADGE BY: 

I EARNED MY VIDEO BADGE BY: 

I EARNED MY MAP BADGE BY: 

EARN YOUR NGA BADGE!

Complete an activity and describe what you learned from each 

section of our interactive pages and recieve an official NGA badge!
Exhibit 32



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 Quarterly Report of Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), we,
John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our
knowledge:



(1) The report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|August 11, 2005        
|                       
|/s/ John B. Wood       
|John B. Wood           
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/s/ Michele Nakazawa   
|Michele Nakazawa       
|Chief Financial Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3259

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER J FORRESTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

June 13, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the “Report”) for the period ended December 31, 2004 of Banco Latinoamericano de Exportaciones, S.A. (the “Company”).

I, Carlos Yap, the Senior Vice President – Finance of the Company, certify that:

|   | (i)    | The Report   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the   Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|   | (ii)   | The   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at   the dates and for the periods presented. |

June 22, 2005

| By:    | /s/ CARLOS YAP                    |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                   |   |
|   | Carlos Yap                        |   |
|   |                              |   |
|   | *Senior Vice President - Finance* |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          36,878
<SECURITIES>                                     9,294
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,766
<PP&E>                                       1,202,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,207,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,664
<BONDS>                                        360,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    271,679
<COMMON>                                        38,260
<OTHER-SE>                                     489,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,207,443
<SALES>                                         47,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,782
<CGS>                                           12,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,292
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,178
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,178
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 18, 2019

No. 04-19-00543-CV

Elsa PRADO, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Rolando Prado, Jr., Deceased, 

and as Next Friend of A.P., Minor; Elizabeth Prado; Rolando Prado; and Maria Prado,

Appellants

v.

LONESTAR RESOURCES, INC.; Union Pacific Railroad Company; and Ezra Alderman 

Ranches, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-07-00095-CVL

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is denied.

We note that both the motion to dismiss and the response state there were two summary 

judgment orders involving two separate defendants that were severed into two different trial 

court cause numbers. However, both severance orders in the clerk’s record, a July 2, 2019 order 

involving defendant Ezra Alderman Ranches, Inc., and a June 11, 2019 order involving Lonestar 

Resources, Inc., show the claims against those two defendants were transferred to the same cause 

number, 16-07-00095-CVL-A. This appeal will therefore proceed as one appeal unless the 

parties demonstrate the appeals should proceed separately as appeals from two separate trial 

court causes.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES v. ARENS.

Civ. A. No. 3070.

District Court, E. D. New York.

June 5, 1947.

*481J. Vincent Keogh, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Frank J. Parker, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Morton Singer, of New York City (P. Bateman Ennis, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant, noticed for May 21, 1947, to vacate a judgment dated January 28, 1943, entered upon his written consent acknowledged January 28, 1943, that the certificate of naturalization granted to him on March 15, 1940, he vacated, cancelled and set aside. Thus more than four years elapsed between the judgment and the attempt to vacate it.

Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, gives the Court power to relieve a party from a judgment or proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, but such a motion must be made within six months. Thus it follows that power to grant the motion must be sought elsewhere.

A bill of review in equity lies to vacate a consent decree where it is voidable because of fraud or duress. Restatement— Judgments, § 121; Thompson v. Maxwell, 95 U.S. 391, 24 L.Ed. 481.

The statements made by Alrich Arens to the Assistant U. S. Attorney and to the Special Assistant to the Attorney General, which antedated the complaint and the consent herein, have been examined, and are quite destructive of any contention that he executed the consent as the result of fraud practiced upon him, or because he was under duress, mental or physical.

The motion is denied for failure to present any facts which would justify granting it.

Settle order.
#### D&A Construction, Inc., Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 172]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 17, 2010, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and denied its alternative request to consolidate this action with a related lien foreclosure action pending in Kings County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion to dismiss denied, and the request for consolidation granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 5, 2011, *465which denied plaintiffs motion for renewal and reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The motion for renewal and reargument presented neither new facts nor a change in the law and was therefore a motion for reargument only *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). An order that denies a motion for reargument is not appealable *(see Cuebas v Smith,*24 AD3d 200 [2005]).

This action and the pending lien foreclosure action arise out of work done on the same two projects for defendant, and present competing claims to the same monies. Plaintiffs subcontractors are the lienor plaintiffs, and the parties in this action are named codefendants in the lien foreclosure action *(see*CPLR 602 [a]; *Paddock Constr. v Thomason Indus. Corp.,*133 AD2d 20, 23 [1987]). Moreover, plaintiff did not oppose defendant’s request for consolidation.

It should be noted that defendant’s motion for consolidation was made in the alternative to its motion to dismiss the complaint based on, inter alia, untimeliness and failure to join necessary parties. The motion court found that the first cause of action was time-barred and dismissed the second cause of action without prejudice to renew the claim in the lien foreclosure action. There are, however, factual issues that should be given further consideration, including whether D&A and the subcontractors are united in interest for the purpose of asserting the relation back doctrine *(see Buran v Coupal,*87 NY2d 173, 177 [1995]). Based on the existence of factual issues, the preference for consolidation *(see Geneva Temps, Inc. v New World Communities, Inc.,*24 AD3d 332, 334 [1st Dept 2005]), and the fact the defendant has not articulated any prejudice, the motion to dismiss can be re-asserted in the consolidated Kings County action where the court can determine the entire matter before it.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.