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

Order unanimously reversed and proceeding remanded to Oneida County Court for a hearing. Memorandum: In 1948 appellant, following a trial, was convicted of the crime of kidnapping. Immediately after the return of the jury’s verdict and on the same day appellant, apparently with the acquiescence of his assigned counsel, pleaded guilty to three additional indictments charging (1) sodomy, (2) burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, and (3) grand larceny, second degree. Thereafter appellant was sentenced to 40 years to life on the kidnapping charge and one sentence of 10 to 20 years and two sentences of 5 to 10 years on the three remaining indictments. Each sentence was directed to be served consecutively for a total of 60 years to life. The petition upon the present application for *coram nobis*relief contains the allegation that following imposition of these sentences assigned counsel told defendant that the former would like to appeal *“*but that it would be impossible to do so because of lack of funds to pay for transcription of the trial record and for printing of the papers on appeal.” This allegation stands undenied in the present record. The County Judge in denying a hearing as to this phase of the proceeding relied upon his prior decision in *People*v. *Roberts*(25 Misc 2d 321). That decision, however, was subsequently reversed by this court (13 A D 2d 719). The principle has been enunciated that if a defendant is prevented from filing a notice of appeal by the wrongful action of prison authorities, relief by *coram nobis*is available. *(People*v. *Hairston,*10 N Y 2d 92; see, also, *People*v. *Hill,*8 N Y 2d 935, affg. 9 AD 2d 451; *People*v. *Guhr,*5 A D 2d 688.) Here it might be found after a hearing that assigned counsel, with presumed knowledge of the law, which provides that upon filing a notice of appeal the trial minutes must be transcribed without cost to the appellant (Code Crim. Pro., § 456) and upon a proper showing of indigency that the appeal may be prosecuted upon a nonprinted record, advised appellant that lack of funds for these purposes prevented an appeal. A hearing is required to determine whether or not appellant was prevented by the acts of his assigned counsel from complying with the statutory requirements for the taking and perfecting of an appeal from the judgments of conviction. (Appeal from order of Oneida County Court denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction on June 8, 1948, without a hearing.) Present— Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §5674. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5674 was editorially reclassified as section 11184 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 229.550 Sex as a bona fide occupational qualification.

A recipient may take action otherwise prohibited by §§ 229.500 through 229.550 provided it is shown that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for that action, such that consideration of sex with regard to such action is essential to successful operation of the employment function concerned. A recipient shall not take action pursuant to this section that is based upon alleged comparative employment characteristics or stereotyped characterizations of one or the other sex, or upon preference based on sex of the recipient, employees, students, or other persons, but nothing contained in this section shall prevent a recipient from considering an employee's sex in relation to employment in a locker room or toilet facility used only by members of one sex.
Exhibit 10.1


 





 


September 7,
2010


 


Astellas
Pharma Inc.


3-11
Nihonbashi-Honcho 2-chome


Chuo-ku,
Tokyo 103-8411, Japan


 


Attn: Vice
President, Business Development


 


Dear Madam
or Sir,


 


Re: License Agreement on FR264205


 


Reference is
made to the license agreement (“License Agreement”) dated November 1, 2007
between Calixa Therapeutics, Inc. (“Calixa”) and Astellas Pharma Inc.
(“Astellas”) pursuant to which Astellas grants to Calixa a certain license to
commercialize its compound identified as FR264205 (“Compound”) in the world
except certain countries. Unless otherwise specifically provided hereunder, the
terms defined in the License Agreement shall have the same meaning and
definition in this letter agreement.


 


Calixa
recently expressed to Astellas its desire to conduct clinical studies for the
Compound outside of the Territory for the purposes of development of the
Product in the Territory, and Astellas is willing to accept such Calixa’s
desire.


 


Under such
circumstances, Astellas and Calixa hereby agree and confirm as follows:


 


1.               Notwithstanding
the provision of Section 2.1 of the License Agreement, Calixa is allowed
to conduct clinical studies in any and all countries outside of the Territory
for the purpose of development of the Product in the Territory under the
License Agreement.


 


2.               Unless as
otherwise expressly amended by this letter agreement, the License Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect between Astellas and Calixa.


 


1

















 


If the foregoing correctly reflects
your understanding, please so indicate by signing at the space provided below
and return to us one executed original of this letter agreement.


 


 


	
   

  	
  Sincerely yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CALIXA
  THERAPEUTICS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Michael W. Bonney

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Michael W. Bonney

  
	
   

  	
  President

  



 


 


	
  Agreed and confirmed by:

  
	
   

  
	
  ASTELLAS PHARMA INC.

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Chihiro Yokota

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Chihiro Yokota

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Vice President,
  Licensing & Alliances

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  September 13, 2010

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  CC: Vice President, Legal,
  Astellas Pharma Inc.

  



 


2
§ 1508.305 May I enter into a covered transaction with an excluded or disqualified person? ( a ) You as a participant may not enter into a covered transaction with an excluded person, unless the African Development Foundation grants an exception under § 1508.120.
( b ) You may not enter into any transaction with a person who is disqualified from that transaction, unless you have obtained an exception under the disqualifying statute, Executive order, or regulation.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2490 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2490

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ``Mayor 
               Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2005

   Mr. Dent (for himself, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Mr. 
 English of Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
 Gerlach, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, 
 Mr. Shuster, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Murtha, Ms. Schwartz of 
  Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Holden, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. 
   Platts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ``Mayor 
               Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MAYOR JOSEPH S. DADDONA MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor 
Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### WEN XING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-2228.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2007.

Decided: May 9, 2007.

Wen Xing Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Tracey Wood, Kristin Kay Edison, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*143PER CURIAM:

Wen Xing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. *Chen v. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); *INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). In addition, we uphold the finding that Chen failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Stefaniak, Respondent, v. Chudy Paper Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board making an award of death benefits. The deceased employee worked as a warehouse foreman and it was not unusual for him to help load trucks. There is. evidence indicating that on the morning in question he loaded bundles weighing 60 or 70 pounds and that within 15 minutes he complained of being sick. He was taken home and while there, according to the testimony of his widow and son, told them that he had gotten a pain in his chest from lifting at work. The decedent died the same day at the hospital. An electrocardiagram showed a myocardial infarction. Two doctors expressed the opinion that there was causal relationship between the lifting and the decedent’s death. They assumed an underlying heart disease and their testimony indicated that as a heart disease progresses, effort which was once normal can become abnormal and affect the heart. The appellants contend that there was no accident and that there is a lack of any substantial evidence indicating causal relationship. It makes no difference that the lifting was part of the decedent’s normal work if the strain and effort involved was more than the ordinary wear and tear of life *(Matter of Masse*v. *Robinson,*301 N. Y. 34; *Matter of Burris*v. *Lewis,*2 N Y 2d 323). The’ lifting of bundles weighing 70 pounds meets that requirement here and there was medical testimony of a substantial nature connecting the lifting to the heart attack which caused the decedent’s death. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
### §3910. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–448, title IV, §411, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 516, which related to real property taxation was omitted pursuant to section 4528 of this title, which terminated authority to guarantee bonds, debentures, notes, or other obligations under this chapter after Dec. 31, 1970, with exceptions now inapplicable.
### §4629. Public works programs and projects of District of Columbia government and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Whenever real property is acquired by the government of the District of Columbia or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for a program or project which is not subject to sections 4630 and 4631 of this title, and such acquisition will result in the displacement of any person on or after January 2, 1971, the Mayor of the District of Columbia or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, as the case may be, shall make all relocation payments and provide all assistance required of a Federal agency by this chapter. Whenever real property is acquired for such a program or project on or after such effective date, such Mayor or Authority, as the case may be, shall make all payments and meet all requirements prescribed for a Federal agency by subchapter III of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–646, title II, §209, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1899; Pub. L. 93–198, title IV, §421, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 789.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–646, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1894, known as the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4601 of this title and Tables.

Subchapter III of this chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "title III of this Act", meaning title III of Pub. L. 91–646, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1904, which enacted subchapter III of this chapter, repealed sections 3071 to 3073 of this title, section 141 of Title 23, Highways, and section 596 of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 4651 of this title. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Mayor" substituted for "Commissioner" pursuant to section 421 of Pub. L. 93–198, title IV, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 789. Office of Commissioner of District of Columbia, as established by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967, abolished as of noon Jan. 2, 1975, by Pub. L. 93–198, title VII, §711, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 818, and replaced by Office of Mayor of District of Columbia by section 421 of Pub. L. 93–198.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.25 NATO representatives, officials, and employees. ( a ) *Classification.* An alien shall be classified under the symbol NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, or NATO-5 if the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is seeking admission to the United States under the applicable provision of the Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, National Representatives and International Staff, or is a member of the immediate family of an alien classified NATO-1 through NATO-5. (See § 41.12 for classes of aliens entitled to classification under each symbol.)
( b ) *Armed services personnel.* Armed services personnel entering the United States in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces or in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters Set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty may enter the United States under the appropriate treaty waiver of documentary requirements contained in § 41.1 (d) or (e). If a visa is issued it is classifiable under the NATO-2 symbol.
( c ) *Dependents of armed services personnel.* Dependents of armed services personnel referred to in paragraph (b) of this section shall be classified under the symbol NATO-2.
( d ) *Members of civilian components and dependents.* Alien members of a civilian component accompanying a force entering in accordance with the provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement, and dependents, or alien members of a civilian component attached to or employed by an Allied Headquarters under the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters, and dependents shall be classified under the symbol NATO-6.
( e ) *Attendant, servant, or personal employee of an alien classified NATO-1 through NATO-6.* An alien attendant, servant, or personal employee of an alien classified NATO-1 through NATO-6, and any member of the immediate family of such attendant, servant, or personal employee, shall be classified under the symbol NATO-7.
### §§3871 to 3873. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Appropriations for this subchapter have not been authorized for fiscal years after 1975.

Section 3871, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §301, as added Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 535, related to technical assistance to agencies in matters relating to prevention of delinquency.

A prior section 3871, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §301, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 470, related to development of improved techniques and practices for prevention of juvenile delinquency, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 3872, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §301, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 470, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

Section 3872, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §302, as added Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 535, related to State assistance to local units concerning activities under this chapter.

A prior section 3872, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §302, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 471, related to technical assistance for prevention of juvenile delinquency, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 3873, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §303, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 471, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

Section 3873, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §303, as added Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 535, related to information and other services to the general public.

A prior section 3873, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §303, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 471, related to State assistance to local units, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

Provisions similar to those comprising section 3873 were contained in prior section 3874, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §304, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 471, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

A prior section 3874, Pub. L. 90–445, title III, §304, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 471, related to information services, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 535.
§ 96.13 Circumstances in which accreditation, approval, or supervision is not required. ( a ) *Home studies and child background studies.* Home studies and child background studies, when performed by exempted providers, may be performed without accreditation, approval, or supervision; provided, however, that an exempted provider's home study must be approved by an accredited agency in accordance with § 96.47(c), and an exempted provider's child background study must be approved by an accredited agency in accordance with § 96.53(b).
( b ) *Child welfare services.* An agency or person does not need to be accredited, approved, or operate as a supervised provider if it is providing only child welfare services, and not providing any adoption services, in connection with an intercountry adoption. If the agency or person provides both a child welfare service and any adoption service in the United States in an intercountry adoption case, it must be accredited, approved or operate as a supervised provider unless the only adoption service provided is preparation of a home study and/or a child background study.
( c ) *Legal services.* An agency or person does not need to be accredited, approved, or to operate as a supervised provider if it is providing only legal services, and not providing any adoption services, in connection with an intercountry adoption. If the agency or person provides both a legal service and any adoption service in the United States in an intercountry adoption case, it must be accredited, approved or operate as a supervised provider unless the only adoption service provided is preparation of a home study and/or a child background study. Nothing in this part shall be construed: ( 1 ) To permit an attorney to provide both legal services and adoption services in an adoption case where doing so is prohibited by State law; or
( 2 ) To require any attorney who is providing one or more adoption services as part of his or her employment by a public domestic authority to be accredited or approved or operate as a supervised provider.
( d ) *Prospective adoptive parent(s) acting on own behalf.* Prospective adoptive parent(s) may act on their own behalf without being accredited, or approved unless so acting is prohibited by State law or the law of the foreign country. In the case of a child immigrating to the United States in connection with his or her adoption, such conduct must be permissible under the laws of the State in which the prospective adoptive parent(s) reside and the laws of the foreign country from which the parent(s) seek to adopt. In the case of a child emigrating from the United States in connection with his or her adoption, such conduct must be permissible under the laws of the State where the child resides and the laws of the Convention country in which the parent(s) reside.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40633, July 14, 2014]
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Insurer Defendants are First American Specialty Insurance Company, Robert Dalton and Cindy Lloyd.

G:\CRBALL\2008\2261\judgment for id.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUGUSTINE FALLAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, et

al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 08-2261 CRB

JUDGMENT 

The Court, having granted Insurer Defendants’1 motion to strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (dkt. 180) and having granted Insurer Defendants’ motion

for attorneys’ fees (dkt. 199), hereby ENTERS JUDGMENT for Insurer Defendants, and against

Plaintiff, and awards Insurer Defendants attorneys’ fees and costs affixed by the Court at

$39,633.03.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02261-CRB Document 216 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 1