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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0589 V

UNPUBLISHED

SCOTT B. HEARTH, M.D.

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: July 6, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Admini stration (SIRVA)

William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren et al. , P.C., Memphis, TN , for petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi

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

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On April 22, 2019

, Scott B. Hearth, M.D. 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of a tetanus

- diphtheria

- acellular pertussis ( “ Tdap ” )

vaccination he re ceived on June 15, 2016 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 6, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 Managemen t 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 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012 ).2

Specifically, R espondent concludes that Petitioner ’ s claim meets the Table cr iteria for

SIRVA Id. at 4 . Respondent further agrees that “ [P]etitioner ’ s SIRVA and its sequela persisted for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine ”

. Id.

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

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement Forms S-8 (No. 33-99216 and 333-62207) and Forms S-3 (Nos. 33-88670,
33-93812, 333-42543 and 333-46684) of Chelsea Property Group, Inc. and Form S-3
(Nos. 333-36487 and 333-39324) of Cheslea Property Group, Inc. and CPG Partners,
L.P. and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated February 27, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Chelsea
Property Group, Inc. and CPG Partners, L.P. included in the Annual Reports (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 23, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9824-9825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3498]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Part 225, Foreign Acquisition and Related Clauses at 
Part 252.225; DD Form 2139; OMB Number 0704-0229.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 31,347.
    Responses Per Respondent: 7.
    Annual Responses: 223,942.
    Average Burden Per Response: 1.6 hours (average).

[[Page 9825]]

    Annual Burden Hours: 374,268 (74,173 reporting hours; 300,095 
recordkeeping hours).
    Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to ensure compliance 
with restrictions on the acquisition of foreign products imposed to 
statute or policy to protect the industrial base; to ensure compliance 
with U.S. trade agreements and memoranda of understanding that promote 
reciprocal trade with U.S. allies; and to prepare reports for 
submission to the Department of Commerce on the Balance of Payments.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Lewis W. Oleinick.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD (Acquisition), Room 10236, New 
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: January 30, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-3498 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50452

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICENTE ROCHA-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-646-ALL-HLH

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Vicente Rocha-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into

the United States following deportation. Rocha-Hernandez was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 57 months to be followed

by three years of non-reporting supervised release.

Rocha-Hernandez argues for the first time on appeal that in

light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the

district court plainly erred in sentencing him under a mandatory
No. 04-50452

-2-

guideline system based on facts that were not admitted by Rocha

or found by a jury. He contends that the district court’s

comments at sentencing indicate that it would have imposed a

different sentence if it had sentenced him under an advisory

guideline scheme. 

Rocha’s claim that the district court plainly erred by

enhancing his sentence based on facts not determined by a jury

and which he did not admit is unavailing because he failed to

show that “the sentencing judge--sentencing under an advisory

scheme rather then a mandatory one--would have reached a

significantly different result.” See United States v. Mares,

402 F.3d 511, 520-522 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed

(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). His argument that the district

court’s application of the guidelines as mandatory was error also

fails because he did not show that the district court would have

imposed a different sentence had the guidelines been advisory

only. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728,

732-34 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Rocha concedes that the issue whether his sentence under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (b)(2) was rendered unconstitutional by

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and subsequent

Supreme Court precedent is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), and he raises it solely

to preserve it for further review by the Supreme Court. Apprendi

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at
No. 04-50452

-3-

489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000). We therefore must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and

until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” 

Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotations and citation

omitted). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,066
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    164,306
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,066
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        120,019
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           41,908
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   254,066
<SALES>                                         30,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,768
<CGS>                                           19,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,816
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (251)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,966
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.82
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2901-008 and 2902-009]


Nekoosa Packaging Corporation; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Assessment

February 7, 2001.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Big 
Island Hydroelectric Project and the Holcomb Rock Hydroelectric 
Project, located on the James River in Bedford and Amherst Counties, 
Virginia, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for 
the project. No federal lands or Indian Rservations are occupied by 
project works or located within the project boundary.
    The DEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the 
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not 
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review at the Commission's 
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 
20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The DEA may be viewed on the web 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for 
assistance).
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 
20426. Please affix Project No. 2901-008 and Project No. 2902-009 to 
all comments. For further information, contact James T. Griffin at 
(202) 219-2799 or Monte TerHaar at (202) 219-2768.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of 
paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the 
Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3576 Filed 2-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 23.3

March 1, 2010

PartnerRe Ltd.

Wellesley House

90 Pitts Bay Road

Pembroke HM 08

Bermuda

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial information of PARIS RE Holdings
Limited and its subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report dated August 10, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in the Proxy Statement of PartnerRe Ltd., is incorporated by reference in Registration
Statements No. 333-158531 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of
1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



|             
|-------------
|/s/ Mazars   
|Mazars       
|Paris, France
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10483-10484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3868]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 010501A]


Marine Mammals; File No. 545-1562-00

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Olga von Ziegesar, North Gulf 
Oceanic Society, P.O. Box 15191, Homer, Alaska 99603, has been issued a 
permit to take humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) for purposes of 
scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289); and
    Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, 709 West 9th Street, 
4th

[[Page 10484]]

Floor, Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907/586-7221).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Lewandowski or Trevor Spradlin, 
301/713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 9, 2000, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (65 FR 6360) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take humpback whales had been submitted by the 
above-named Olga von Ziegesar, North Gulf Oceanic Society. The 
requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 
Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 
CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, 
importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 
parts 222-226).
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: February 9, 2001.
Eugene T. Nitta,
Acting Chief, Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-3868 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2005

To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on p-Acetanisidide.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 6, 1993

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on pAcetanisidide.

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

3 SECTION 1. ACET-P-ANISIDINE.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 p-Acetanisidide

(CAS No. 51–

66–1) (provided

for in subheading

2924.29.09) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/94 ’’.
2

•HR 2005 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
HUGO ARISTIZABAL

,

Appellant,

v.

AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND

GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

,

Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0 104

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. W. James Condry, II , Judge

.

Date of Accident: July 15, 2011.

Monte R. Shoemaker of Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.A., Altamonte Springs, and Richard W. Ervin, III of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee , for Appellant.

H. George Kagan of Miller, Kagan, Rodriguez & Silver, P.L., West Palm Beach , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SmithBarney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the yearending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership.

/s/David J. Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.Vogel Citigroup Managed Futures LLC President andDirector

March 31,2005

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Date

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7017

CHRISTOPHER LEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VICTOR LORANTH, M.D.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(4:12-cv-02547-DCN)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Lee v. Loranth, No. 4:12-cv-02547-DCN (D.S.C. June 12, 

2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
|   | **Exhibit 23.2** |
|--------|------------------|

 

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S CONSENT**

 

 

To Board of Directors

Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the December 31, 2006, annual report on Form 10-K of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8  (No. 333-43462) of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc., of our report dated February 2, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc., and subsidiary, as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the period ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Mitchell, Wiggins & Company LLP

 

Richmond, Virginia

April 12, 2007