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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0960V

UNPUBLISHED

WILIAN MACHADO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 5, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Kristina E. Grigorian, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

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

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 2, 2019, Wilian Machado 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 that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

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

October 13, 2018. Petition at 1, 5. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 5, 2020, 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 “believes that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a 

SIRVA injury, as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table”. Id. at 3-4. Respondent further 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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

agrees that Petitioner has suffered the residual effect of his condition for more than six 

months. Id. at 4. 

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
#### Carlos CASANOVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jorge Luis MORALES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-14145

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2008.

Jamie H. Zidell, J.H. Zidell, P.A., Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We find no error in the District Court’s determination that Carlos Casanova has failed to establish coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-216, and thus, the Summary Judgment in favor of Jorge Luis Morales is

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERROL WINTER, a/k/a Tony Tubbs, a/k/a Smiley,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-93-90)

Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: November 25, 1996

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Errol Winter, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to obtain disclosure of a grand jury voting record.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Winter, No. CR-93-90 (E.D.

Va. Sept. 11, 1996). 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
<PAGE>
 
                                   Exhibit 21

                               CRAIG CORPORATION


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant



Craig Management, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by Registrant.

Dimension Specialty Company, a Delaware corporation, owned by Registrant.

James J. Cotter Company & Associates, Inc., a California corporation, wholly
         owned by Registrant.

Craig Food and Hospitality, Inc., a Delaware corporation, wholly-owned by
         Registrant.

Hope Street Hospitality, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, 50%
         owned by Registrant.

Reading Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 78% voting ownership by
         Registrant.

Citadel Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 33.4% direct and
         indirect voting ownership by Registrant.

The subsidiaries omitted from the foregoing list do not, considered in the
         aggregate, constitute a significant subsidiary.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REGINALD C. SAMPSON, SR.,

Petitioner,

 v.

 MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2013-3021 

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. DA4324120147-I-1. 

______________________ 

ON MOTION 

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R 

The United States Postal Service moves to dismiss 

Reginald C. Sampson, Sr.’s petition for review for lack of 

jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, to reform the caption 

to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as the 

respondent. 

It appears that Sampson’s petition stems from an initial decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(“Board”) and that Sampson has filed a petition for the 

same action with both the Board and this court. Sampson 

Case: 13-3021 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2013
2 REGINALD SAMPSON, SR. v. MSPB

may not simultaneously proceed in both fora. Therefore, 

if he wishes for his petition for review to proceed in this 

court, he must dismiss his Board petition. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The motion to dismiss is denied. If Sampson does 

not notify the court that he has dismissed his petition for 

review before the Board within 30 days of filing of this 

order, this petition will be dismissed. 

 (2) The motion to reform the caption is granted. The 

revised official caption is reflected above. 

 (3) The briefing schedule is stayed. 

 FOR THE COURT

 

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s25 

Case: 13-3021 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE FORM
10-Q/A FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      22,218,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,413,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,989,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,862,000
<PP&E>                                      21,413,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,893,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,802,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       43,526,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       153,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,223,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,802,000
<SALES>                                     49,379,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,681,000
<CGS>                                        5,317,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               72,375,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,895,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               590,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,004,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,469,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   599,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,068,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,068,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10092]


Renewal of International Security Advisory Board Charter

SUMMARY: The Department of State announces the renewal of the Charter 
of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB).
    The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a 
continuing source of independent insight, advice, and innovation on all 
aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, and 
international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The 
ISAB will remain in existence for two years after the filing date of 
the Charter unless terminated.
    For more information, please contact Christopher M. Herrick, 
Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, 
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.

Christopher M. Herrick,
Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, Department 
of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-17612 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-35-P
#### Osmer *v.*J. B. Sickles Saddlery Co.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

May 18, 1885.)

Patents—Horse- Coll abs.

Letters patent No. 157,367, issued to John M. Bright, for an "improvement in horse-collars,” *held*not infringed by a sweat-olotli, composed of a series of detachable sections.

In Equity.

*Paul*Bakewell, for complainant.

*W. B. Homer,*for respondent.

1

**Reported by Berrj- F. Rex, Fsq., of *the St.*Louis bar.

Treat, J.

The Bright patent, No. 157,367, December 1, 1874, is for “a horse-collar consisting of a frame, combined with a number of detachable pads,” as described therein. Defendant alleges that the same was anticipated by the Meyer patent, No. 61,016, January 8, 1867, and the Lovett & Lefevre patent, No. 133,786, December 10, 1872. In the light of the said anticipatory patents, it is more than doubtful whether the Bright patent contained any novelty of invention patentable under the law, unless rigidity of frame and consequent absence of hames, were essential. However that may be, it is apparent from whatever construction may be put .on the Bright patent that the defendant does not infringe the same, as the Bright patent is for a “horse-collar with detachable pads” arranged as in his patent described. It would seem that his patent was for a collar adjusted, as by him specified, without reference to hames. Separable pads were provided for by the Meyer and Lovette patents, and consequently in the state of the art there was no room open for invention unless the Bright patent was designed for a collar to which, in the absence of hames, separable pads might be attached by buckles and straps, thereby obviating the use of hames, and producing a new *725collar with pads. This proposition is not urged, because the defendant uses no such collar.

The contention on the part of the plaintiff, in order to succeed, must cover all use of detachable pads, or sweat-cloths with detachable pads, made so as to relieve sore or gall spots on the neck. Such was not the scope of the Bright patent, or if it had been, could he, within the rules of the patent law, have blocked the pathway for all contrivances, whereby such beneficial results could be effected? He must bo held to his special device in connection with a horse-collar, as by him stated. The defendant does not sell any such horse-collar, but only sweat-cloths independent of the collar, more like the Meyer and Lovett patents, though not exactly the same as either. Hence, without formally deciding that the Bright patent is void for want of novelty and patentability, it must suffice that under no construction of the Bright patent can the defendant be held to have infringed the same.

Bill dismissed with costs.
Exhibit 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provides that if any part of a registration statement at the time such part becomes effective contains an untrue
statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant
to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, among others, every accountant who has consented to be
named as having prepared or certified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared or certified any report or valuation which is used in connection with the registration statement,
with respect to the statement in such registration statement, report or valuation which purports to have been prepared or certified by the accountant.

On
July 19, 2002, Inamed Corporation dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent auditor and appointed KPMG LLP to replace Arthur Andersen. Inamed's understanding is that the staff of the
Securities and Exchange Commission has taken the position that it will not accept consents from Arthur Andersen if the engagement partner and the manager for the Inamed Corporation audit are no longer
with Arthur Andersen. Both the engagement partner and the manager for the Inamed audit are no longer with Arthur Andersen. As a result, Inamed has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written
consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements of its audit report with respect to Inamed's financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and for the years
then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits Inamed to file this Form 10-K without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. As a result,
however, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by
Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the
Securities Act for any purchases of securities under the Registration Statements made on or after the date of this Form 10-K. To the extent provided in Section 11(b)(3)(C) of
the Securities Act, however, other persons who are liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, including the Company's officers and directors, may still rely on Arthur Andersen's original
audit reports as being made by an expert for purposes of establishing a due diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE NET LOSS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three Months Ended June 30,                 Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                           1996               1997                    1996                1997
                                                    ----------------------------------           ---------------------------------


<S>                                                  <C>                   <C>                   <C>                   <C>         
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                             7,311,724             7,346,836             7,308,268             7,341,461

NET EFFECT OF ANTI-DILUTIVE STOCK AND STOCK
OPTIONS AND WARRANTS                                           0                     0                     0                     0
                                                    ----------------------------------           ---------------------------------

TOTAL                                                  7,311,724             7,346,836             7,308,268             7,341,461
                                                    ==================================           =================================

NET LOSS                                             ($1,780,007)          ($1,905,570)          ($2,957,119)          ($3,649,750)
                                                    ==================================           =================================

PER-SHARE AMOUNT                                          ($0.24)               ($0.26)               ($0.40)               ($0.50)
                                                    ==================================           =================================

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of Old Dominion Electric
Cooperative for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, I, Jackson Reasor, President &
CEO of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)   such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, fully complies with
      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
      2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.





August 9, 2002                            /s/ Jackson E. Reasor
--------------                            ---------------------
Date                                      Jackson E. Reasor
                                          President & CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 12 THROUGH 14 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,523
<PP&E>                                              58
<DEPRECIATION>                                      53
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               54
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           248
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,686
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   5,669
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    484
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.81
         

</TABLE>