alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Jackson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered August 4, 1976, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of *8 Vs*to 25 years is unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice to the extent of reducing the sentence to 5 to 15 years, and otherwise affirmed. The crime for which the defendant was convicted clearly merited substantial punishment. Under all the circumstances, however, we do not believe there was justification for the imposition of the maximum sentence. Indeed, it appears from the sentencing minutes that the Trial Judge was under the mistaken impression that the defendant would be able to receive time off for good behavior from the minimum fixed, reducing the minimum to some *5 Vs*years. For the foregoing reasons, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Lane and Sandler, JJ.
### §3766a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3766a was editorially reclassified as section 10202 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
**RVAA C**  **Sub -**  **committee on Rooms and Spaces**  **- Meeting #1**  **Conference Call –**  **May 29**  **, 2014 (1 to 3 pm ET)**  Agenda 1. Introductions

– Jim Pecht 2. Election of a Sub - committee Chair

– Billy Altom 3. Review sub - committee S cope and Objectives (See Below) * 4. Categorize elements in the various rooms and spaces requiring access – New Sub - committee Chair 4.1 Passenger Coaches 4.2 Dining and Food Service Cars 4.3 Lounges 4.4 Sleeper Car Compartments 4.5 Toilet and Bathing Rooms 5. Discuss possible scoping requirements for identified elements

– New Sub - committee Chair 6. Sub - committee Homework

– New Sub - committee Chair 7. Determine date of next conference call

– Jim Pecht 8. Closing remarks * Item 3 (above) For your convenience, the sub - committee’s scope and objectives are included below.**Rail Vehicles Ac**  **cess A dvisory**  **Committee Sub**  **- committee on Rooms and Spaces**  **Scope and Objectives February** 

**27, 2014 Scope:**  The scope of this subcommittee is to review the current requirements for certain accessible rooms and spaces (e.g., rest rooms, dining, and sleeping compartments) in the Access Board’s Rail Vehicles Accessibility Guidelines, which were originally issued in September, 1991 and have not been updated since that time. **Objective:** Recommend proposed revisions to update, improve or expand the scoping and technical criteria in order to ensure an acceptable level of access for individuals with disabilities on rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail and other fixed guideway vehicles and systems covered under the Board’s current guidelines. These recommendations will be based on current regulations and consideration of changes that have taken place in vehicle structure, technology and the needs and desires of people with disabilities. **Tasks:** The subcommittee will address: Rest Rooms  Consider alternate designs in existing accessibility standards and in use in other countries  Accommodate dependent and independent transfers  Examine PRIIA, CAL train, and Acela restroom designs vs. existing standards Sleeping Compartments  Communications needs  Ensure that controls and amenities are accessible e.g. locations, clearances, turning spaces, reach range  Bed heights that permit transfer from a wheelchair  Minimum space requirements with and without bed deployed  Egress and emergency operation of doors  Evaluate bathroom design, including showers, when located within the compartment  Space for service animals Acc ess to other sleeping car amenities outside of the sleeping

compartment Dining and Lounge  Accessible tables  Accessible service counters  Accessible self- service, e.g., vending machines, condiments, coffee, etc. **Timetable:** Complete the review and recommendations by October 2014, for consideration by the full committee.
### §270. Quarantine regulations governing civil air navigation and civil aircraft

The Surgeon General is authorized to provide by regulations for the application to air navigation and aircraft of any of the provisions of sections 267 to 269 of this title and regulations prescribed thereunder (including penalties and forfeitures for violations of such sections and regulations), to such extent and upon such conditions as he deems necessary for the safeguarding of the public health.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §367, 58 Stat. 706.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Office of Surgeon General abolished by section 3 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, eff. June 25, 1966, 31 F.R. 8855, 80 Stat. 1610, and functions thereof transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 1 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, set out as a note under section 202 of this title. Office of Surgeon General reestablished within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, see Notice of Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Mar. 30, 1987, 52 F.R. 11754.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.13

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                           EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT effective as of the 30th day of day of September 2004
(hereinafter "Amendment"), amends the Exclusive License Agreement dated May 19,
2003 ("Agreement") by and between ILEX Products, Inc. (ILEX") and QuatRx
Pharmaceuticals Company ("QuatRx").

     WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to eliminate ILEX's
commitment to provide product liability insurance coverage under Section 10.1 of
the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement Is hereby amended as follows:

     In Section 10.1, the final sentence of the Section is modified to read as
follows:

     "Such comprehensive, general liability Insurance shall be limited to broad
     form contractual liability coverage (not including product liability
     coverage), for ILEX's indemnification of Licensee under Section 9.1 of this
     Agreement."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the forgoing Amendment
to be executed by their respective representatives.

Accepted for                            Accepted for
QuatRx Pharmaceuticals Company          ILEX Products, Inc.


/s/ Gary Onn                            /s/ Timothy M. Roane
-------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
Name: Gary Onn                          Name: Timothy M. Roane
Title: CFO                              Title: Senior VP, Business Management

Date: 11-11-04                          Date: 11-11-04

                                                                  EXECUTION COPY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS T. ALFORD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STEPHEN S. CARLTON, District

Attorney of Shasta County,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-15134

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01470-TLNCKD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Thomas T. Alford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of

post-conviction access to biological evidence for DNA testing. We have

FILED

DEC 08 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Intri-Plex Techs, Inc. v.

Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v.

Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Alford’s action was proper because Alford failed to allege facts

sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.

Ct. 1289, 1293, 1298 (2011) (a prisoner can state a cognizable § 1983 claim by

alleging a general constitutional challenge to a state post-conviction DNA testing

statute, but not by challenging such statute’s application in his case); Dist.

Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69-72

(2009) (due process requires only that the state’s procedures for post-conviction

relief do not offend fundamental principles of justice or transgress any recognized

principle of fundamental fairness in operation).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal). See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-15134
§ 1500.6 Procedure for announcing meetings. ( a ) In the case of each meeting of the Board of Directors, the Foundation shall make public, at least one week before the meeting, the following information: ( 1 ) Time of the meeting;
( 2 ) Place of the meeting;
( 3 ) Subject matter of the meeting;
( 4 ) Whether the meeting or parts thereof are to be open or closed to the public; and
( 5 ) The name and telephone number of the person designated by the Board to respond to requests for information about the meeting.
( b ) The period of one week for the public announcement required by paragraph (a) of this section may be reduced if a majority of the Board of Directors of the Foundation determines by a recorded vote that the Foundation requires that such a meeting be called at an earlier date, in which case the Foundation shall make public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of such meeting, and whether open or closed to the public, at the earliest practicable time.
( c ) Immediately following the public announcement, the Foundation shall publish the announcement in the Federal Register.
( d ) The *earliest practicable time,* as used in this subsection, means as soon as possible, which should not be later than the commencement of the meeting or portion in question.
( e ) The Secretary of the Foundation shall use reasonable means to assure that the public is fully informed by the public announcements required by this section. Such public announcements may be made by posting notices in the public areas of the Foundation's headquarters and mailing notices to the persons on a list maintained for those who want to receive such announcements.
2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-20-2004 

# U S A v . R i ve r a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3067

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . R ive r a " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 947. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/947* The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior Dist rict Judge for the District of Columbia, s itting by designation. PRECE DENTI AL UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 02-3067

UNIT ED STA TES OF AMERI CA, Appellee
v. IS AAC RI VERA, Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Distric t Cou rt Judg e: Ho nora ble Jer om e B. S iman dle

(D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr- 00373-5) Argued: December 4, 2003 Be for e: S LO VI TE R a nd A LIT O, Circuit Judges , and OBERDORFER, * Distri ct Judge
.
ORDER AMENDI NG OPI NIONIT IS ORDE RED that the sl ip opini on in the above case, file d February9, 2004, be

amended as follows: Footnote 4 should be revised to read as follows: The availabili ty of de novo review o n appe al regardless of w hether R ivera formall y obj ected t o the government ’s advocacy makes it unne cessary for us to pursue the question of whether this indir ect notice entitl es Rivera to de novo review on independent ground s. Footnote 6 s hould be del eted i n its entiretyand prior footnote s 7, 8 and 9 s hould be
re nu m be re d a cc or di ng ly. By the C ourt,

/s/ Louis F. O berdorfe r Distri ct Judge
Dated: February 20, 2004
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1025 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Memorandum of Understanding between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AUSTRALIA 

Signed at Brisbane October 25, 2006 

with 

Annexes 

 and 

Appendix 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
AUSTRALIA 

Defense: Cooperation 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Brisbane October 25, 2006; 

 Entered into force October 25, 2006. 

 With annexes and appendix.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 371PA18

Filed 3 April 2020

CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEACHERS’ and STATE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT 

SYSTEM; DALE R. FOLWELL, STATE TREASURER, in his official capacity; 

STEVEN C. TOOLE, DIRECTOR, RETIREMENT SYSTEMS DIVISION, in his 

official capacity

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, 

unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, No. COA17-1019, 2018 WL 4441260

(N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018), affirming a judgment entered on 30 May 2017 by 

Judge James E. Hardin Jr., in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme 

Court on 9 December 2019.

Michael Crowell; and Tharrington Smith, LLP, by Deborah R. Stagner and 

Lindsay V. Smith, for petitioner-appellee.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General,

Blake W. Thomas, Deputy General Counsel, and Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor 

General, for respondent-appellants.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Elizabeth L. 

Troutman and Jill R. Wilson; and Allison Brown Schafer for North Carolina 

School Boards Association, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in Cabarrus Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Dep’t of State Treasurer, 

No. 369PA18 (N.C. Apr. 3, 2020), the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
CABARRUS CTY. BD. OF EDUC. V. BD. OF TRS. TEACHERS’ AND STATE EMPS.’ RET. SYS.

Opinion of the Court

-2-

AFFIRMED.

Justice NEWBY dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in 

Cabarrus Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Dep’t of State Treasurer, No. 369PA18 (N.C. Apr. 3, 

2020).
### §238e. Transfer of funds

For the purpose of any reorganization under section 203 of this title, the Secretary, with the approval of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is authorized to make such transfers of funds between appropriations as may be necessary for the continuance of transferred functions.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title II, §236, formerly title V, §508, 58 Stat. 711; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. July 1, 1970, 35 F.R. 7959, 84 Stat. 2085; renumbered title XXI, §2108, Pub. L. 98–24, §2(a)(1), Apr. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 176; renumbered title XXIII, §2308, Pub. L. 99–660, title III, §311(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3755; renumbered title XXV, §2506, Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §201(1), (3), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3062, 3063; renumbered title XXVI, §2606, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2620(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4244; renumbered title XXVII, §2706, Pub. L. 101–381, title I, §101(1), (2), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 576; renumbered title II, §236, Pub. L. 103–43, title XX, §2010(a)(1)–(3), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 213.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 300aaa–5 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 103–43, to section 300cc–7 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 100–607, to section 300aa–7 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 99–660, and to section 226 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 98–24.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by law (including reorganization plan) in Bureau of the Budget or Director of Bureau of the Budget transferred to President of the United States by section 101 of Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1970, eff. July 1, 1970, 35 F.R. 7959, 84 Stat. 2085, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Section 102 of Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1970 redesignated Bureau of the Budget as Office of Management and Budget.

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.
§ 224.13 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and A.I.D.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.
Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 72 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 72 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 4
The motion and case management conference shall be continued to Friday, November

5, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. and 3:000 p.m., respectively

Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 72 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 72 Filed 07/27/10 Page 4 of 4
#### Charles Branham for use of Brice Squires, appellant, v. Mary L. Gerrard and William Gerrard, appellees.

Assumpsit to recover back an advance payment upon a land contract. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. Walter Brewer, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 10, 1922.

Rehearing, denied October 4, 1922.

Rearick *&*Meeks, for appellant. Charles Troup, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### CHRISTENFELD, Respondent, v. DAVIDSON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 3, 1905.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District. Action by Samuel H. Christenfeld against Max Davidson and another. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed. Joseph J. Harris, for appellants. Steuer & Hoffman (Max D. Steuer, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We are unable to distinguish the contract involved in this action from that which was considered in Jacobs v. Cohen (Sup.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 854, and was condemned by the Appellate Division of the Second Department as contrary to public policy and void. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment must be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in this court and the court below.

GIEGERICH, J.

(concurring in result only). Although I agree with the dissenting opinion in Jacobs v. Cohen (Sup.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 854, I nevertheless feel constrained by the decision of the majority in that case to vote for a reversal.
§ 224.9 Answer. ( a ) The defendant may request a hearing by filing an answer with the reviewing official within 30 days of service of the complaint. An answer shall be deemed to be a request for hearing.
( b ) In the answer, the defendant: ( 1 ) Shall admit or deny each of the allegations of liability made in the complaint;
( 2 ) Shall state any defense on which the defendant intends to rely;
( 3 ) May state any reasons why the defendant contends that the penalties and assessments should be less than the statutory maximum; and
( 4 ) Shall state the name, address, and telephone number of the person authorized by the defendant to act as defendant's representative, if any.
( c ) If the defendant is unable to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section within the time provided, the defendant may, before the expiration of 30 days from service of the complaint, file with the reviewing official a general answer denying liability and requesting a hearing, and a request for an extension of time within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. The reviewing official shall file promptly with the ALJ the complaint, the general answer denying liability, and the request for an extension of time as provided in § 224.11. For good cause shown, the ALJ may grant the defendant up to 30 additional days within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.