alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(December 10, 1964)

#### Patricia A. Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents. Ronald A. Mavity, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents. Judith L. Mavity, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents. Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal- to either party. Memorandum: In affirming the denial .of a motion to suppress a statement obtained by a private person in.violation of section 270-to of the Penal Law we also desire to point out that there is no statutory-provision for this motion. As to the admissibility of the' statement in question (see *Sackler*v. *Sackler,*15 N Y 2d 40; *Neff*v. *Franklinville Roofing Co.,*308 N. Y. 946; *Bloodgood*v. *Lynch,*293 N. Y. 308; *Matter of Thanhauser*v. *Milprint, Inc.,*9 A D 2d 833). (Appeal from *1009order of Monroe Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion to suppress a statement given defendants by plaintiff, Patricia A. Mavity.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.
#### 1552.245-71 Government-furnished data.

As prescribed in 1545.107(b), insert the following contract clause in any contract that the Government is to furnish the Contractor data. Identify in the clause the data to be provided.

# Government-Furnished Data (SEP 2009)

(a) The Government shall deliver to the Contractor the Government-furnished data described in the contract. If the data, suitable for its intended use, is not delivered to the Contractor, the Contracting Officer shall equitably adjust affected provisions of this contract in accordance with the “Changes” clause when:

(1) The Contractor submits a timely written request for an equitable adjustment; and

(2) The facts warrant an equitable adjustment.

(b) Title to Government-furnished data shall remain in the Government.

(c) The Contractor shall use the Government-furnished data only in connection with this contract.

(d) The following data will be furnished to the Contractor on or about the time indicated:

(End of clause)

[74 FR 47112, Sept. 15, 2009, as amended at 78 FR 46292, July 31, 2013]
**Stalking Recommendations**

DEFINITION

“course of conduct” – two or more behaviors (see Model Stalking Statute description) 

“would cause” – victim does not actually need to experience distress or fear

- reasonable person standard should be applied by officials to define the reported pattern of behavior as stalking

“reasonable person” – adopt Model Stalking Statute language and include that the standard would be framed the perspective of a reasonable person with “similar identity” to that of the victim

“substantial” (to-be-defined in larger committee)

“emotional distress” – adopt Model Stalking Statute language

COUNTING

Recommendation is that one incident of stalking can contain a whole pattern of behaviors over time as experienced by one victim

-   new stalking incident may be counted after an official intervention has occurred (term to-be-defined)

o *potentially* count significant separation of time between behaviors as a new incident (ex: passage of summer break without incident would lead to new count with the new school year)

GEOGRAPHY

Recommendation is that only one behavior, within the course of stalking conduct, needs to occur on Clery geography to trigger reporting requirements

-   Stalking should not be forced into the campus geography reporting given: (1) its unique status as a Clery crime requiring a course of conduct to even be counted as a single incident; and (2) it must address electronic forms of stalking that do not always have a set geographical home (ex: mobile devices)

Open Issue

Determine whether hierarchical rule applies within VAWA crimes and if so determine where stalking falls given its high correlation with other serious felonies.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 29 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 29

     Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2017

  Mr. Lankford (for himself and Mr. Manchin) submitted the following 
 concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.

Whereas the Jewish people have had a homeland in modern-day Israel for more than 
        3,000 years;
Whereas, on November 2, 1917, United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur 
        Balfour wrote to Lord Walter Rothschild, to be declared to the Zionist 
        Federation, a letter declaring, on behalf of the Government of the 
        United Kingdom, support for a home for the Jewish people in the former 
        Ottoman district of Palestine;
Whereas this letter, known as the Balfour Declaration, was ratified into 
        international law by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922;
Whereas, on September 21, 1922, President Warren G. Harding signed House Joint 
        Resolution 322, after unanimous support from the House of 
        Representatives and the Senate, favoring the establishment, in the 
        former Ottoman district of Palestine, of a national home for the Jewish 
        people;
Whereas the Balfour Declaration clearly recognized and sought to uphold the 
        ``civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in 
        Palestine'', as well as the ``rights and political status enjoyed by 
        Jews in any other country''; and
Whereas the Balfour Declaration was a significant part of the chain of events 
        that led to the establishment of the modern State of Israel on May 14, 
        1948: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) commemorates the centenary of the Balfour Declaration;
            (2) affirms its commitment to maintaining the strongest of 
        bilateral ties with the State of Israel; and
            (3) recognizes the importance of the establishment of the 
        modern State of Israel as a secure and democratic homeland for 
        the Jewish people.
                                 <all>
```
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

New Jersey Department of EducationP.O. Box 500100 Riverview PlazaTrenton, NJ 08625-0500Phone: (609) 376-3500Website: http://www.state.nj.us/education/

### State Higher Education Agency

Higher Education Student Assistance AuthorityP.O. Box 545Trenton, NJ 08625-0545Phone: (609) 584-4480Toll-Free: (800) 792-8670Website: http://www.hesaa.org/

### Special Education Agency

Office of Special Education ProgramsNew Jersey Department of EducationP.O. Box 500Trenton, NJ 08625-0500Phone: (609) 376-9060Website: http://www.nj.gov/njded/specialed/

### State Adult Education Agency

New Jersey Department of EducationAdult Education – High School Equivalency Office PO BOX 500 Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 Phone: (609) 376-3883 Website: http://www.state.nj.us/education/students/adulted/

Back to state map
* 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.

H IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30764 c/w

No. 10-30800

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIUS WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 10-30800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHNNY RAY HARPER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:09-CR-164-4 

USDC No. 5:09-CR-164-7

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 10-30764 c/w

No. 10-30800

2

Julius Walker and Johnny Ray Harper appeal their sentences following

guilty pleas to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Walker

was sentenced to a 188-month term of imprisonment, the lowest sentence in his

advisory sentencing guidelines range, while Harper received a 240-month

statutory minimum sentence due to a sentence enhancement imposed pursuant

to 21 U.S.C. § 815. 

Walker argues that his sentence is unfair due to the disparity in

punishments for crack and powder cocaine offenses in effect at the time of his

sentencing. He raised this issue at sentencing, but the district court concluded

that regardless ofthe disparity, a 188-month sentence was appropriate under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) due to quantity of drugs involved, his role in the conspiracy, and

his previous criminal history. He has not shown that this sentence is

unreasonable. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 n.1 (5th Cir.

2008). 

We find no merit in Walker’s alternative contention that he should be

resentenced pursuant to the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that

became effective on November 1, 2010. See United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez,

488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, 1216

(5th Cir. 1996).

Harper argues that his sentence should be vacated because the Fair

Sentencing Act of 2010 applies retroactively to persons on direct appeal;

however, he correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by our decision

in United States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Accordingly, the defendants’ sentences are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 3.7
 CERTIFICATES OF DESIGNATIONS,
PREFERENCES, POWERS AND RIGHTS
OF
SERIES 2007 PREFERRED STOCK
OF
AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC. Company
 RESOLVED
 Section 1. Designation and Amount Original Issue Price
 Section 2. Rank Senior Securities Common Stock Junior Securities Parity Securities Distributions
 Section 3. Dividends and Distribution




---



##### 



Section 4. Liquidation Preference
 Liquidation Preference
  Section 5. Conversion Conversion Rights
 Right to Convert
 Mechanics of Conversion
 Reservation of Stock Issuable Upon Conversion




---



##### 



Adjustment to Conversion Price
 Adjustment to Conversion Price Due to Stock Split Dividend, Etc.
 Adjustment Due to Merger, Consolidation, Etc.
 Section 6. Voting
 Section 7. Optional Redemption by Company




---



##### 



Section 8. Mandatory Conversion by Company
 Section 9. Status of Converted or Redeemed Stock
 Section 10. Other Preferred Stock
 Section 11. Lost or Stolen Certificates
 Section 12. Fractional Shares
 Section 13. Preemptive Rights
17.700 Scope of subpart. ( a ) Compliance with this subpart is in addition to the policies and procedures for interagency acquisitions set forth in subpart 17.5. This subpart prescribes policies and procedures specific to acquisitions of supplies and services by nondefense agencies on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD).
( b ) This subpart implements Public Law 110-181, section 801, as amended (10 U.S.C. 3201 note prec.).
[77 FR 69722, Nov. 20, 2012, as amended at 87 FR 73898, Dec. 1, 2022]
* 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

October 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60191

Summary Calendar

 

ANDREW WEST,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A78 239 125)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Andrew West-Ebi petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) opinion that affirmed the decision of

the immigration judge denying him (1) asylum, (2) withholding of

removal, and (3) relief under the Convention Against Torture. As

West does not specifically challenge the immigration judge’s (IJ)

denial of his application for withholding of removal or his request

from relief under the Convention Against Torture, the issues are
2

deemed abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050,

1052 (5th Cir. 1986).

As for asylum, West contends that the IJ erred in finding

West’s testimony not credible and erred in requiring that he

provide documentary evidence in support of his application. We

shall uphold the IJ’s determination that West is not eligible for

asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence. Gomez-Mejia v.

INS, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995). We shall not substitute our

judgment for that of the BIA or the IJ with respect to findings of

credibility of witnesses or findings of fact based on credibility

determinations. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). A

credibility determination may be overturned only if doing so is

compelled by the record. Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161

(5th Cir. 2002).

West has not demonstrated that the record compels a conclusion

contrary to that of the IJ. Therefore, he has not provided a basis

for us to replace the IJ’s determinations of credibility or

ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations with

our own. As West’s credibility was impugned during the deportation

proceedings, the IJ did not err in requiring West to provide

corroborating evidence. Matter of S-M-J, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722, 725-

26 (BIA 1997); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a). 

Our review of the record demonstrates that the IJ’s

determination that West failed to demonstrate his entitlement to

asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 C.F.R. §
3

208.13(a). We therefore deny his petition for review. The

Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative,

to hold briefing in abeyance is denied.

PETITION DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BIKRAMJIT SINGH KALRA, )

)

Petitioner )

)

v. ) Case No. 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent )

PETITION TO QUASH SUMMONS

NOW COMES BIKRAMJIT SINGH KALRA, Petitioner, by and through his attorneys, 

T. PAUL S. CHAWLA and THE CHAWLA GROUP, LTD., and pursuant to §7609(b) of the 

Internal Revenue Code, moves this Honorable Court to quash the summons issued by the 

Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service to Bank of America, and in support 

thereof, state as follows:

1. This court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to provisions 7604(a) and 

7609(h) of the Internal Revenue Code.

2. The producing party, The Bank of America, is a corporation authorized to do 

business in the State of Illinois and conducts business within this district.

3. That the underlying cause of said Summons is a tax matter in India. A copy of the 

Summons in issue is attached as Exhibit A. 

4. That at the time of Service of Summons and the underlying Complaint, the 

Petitioner, BIKRAMJIT SINGH KALRA (“Petitioner”), was not a resident of 

India.

Case: 1:12-cv-03154 Document #: 2 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2
5. That at the time of the issuance and serving of Summons and the underlying 

Complaint and all times prior thereto, the Petitioner was a resident of the United 

States.

6. That the Petitioner filed taxes in the United States, more particularly, the State of 

Illinois, and further, received a refund for overpayment of taxes.

7. That the Petitioner does not owe taxes in India.

8. That accordingly, the Summons is defective and should be quashed.

WHEREFORE, BIKRAMJIT SINGH KALRA, Petitioner, respectfully prays that this 

Honorable Court quash the summons issued and served upon the Bank of America, attached as 

Exhibit A; and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and necessary.

Respectfully submitted, 

THE CHAWLA GROUP, LTD.

By: __/s/T. Paul S. Chawla____

 One of Petitioner’s Attorneys

The Chawla Group, Ltd.

15 Spinning Wheel Road

Suite 126

Hinsdale, Illinois 60521

(630) 325-5557

Attorney No. 6206722

Case: 1:12-cv-03154 Document #: 2 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 JULY 8, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-14750 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cr-00020-JA-DAB-7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

YAW MARFO, 

a.k.a. Yaw Daniel Marfo, 

a.k.a. Daniel Addo, 

a.k.a. Dan, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(July 8, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Yaw Marfo pled guilty to two counts of a sixcount indictment: Count One, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to utter a

forged security, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and Count Six, conspiracy to

commit tax fraud, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 286. The district court sentenced him

at the low-end of the applicable Sentencing Guideline to concurrent prison terms

of 41 months. He appeals his sentences, contending that the district court erred by

including the total amount of $510,523.32 of intended loss in calculating the

offense level, rather than including only the $90,000 of actual loss for which he

was responsible.

I.

We review the district court’s loss determination for clear error. United

States v. Woodard, 459 F.3d 1078, 1087 (11th Cir. 2006). A defendant’s failure to

object to allegations of fact in a presentence report admits those facts for

sentencing purposes. United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir.

2006). Further, “a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial

proceeding invited by that party.” United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157

(11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “The doctrine of invited error is implicated

when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error.” Id.

(quotation omitted). “The doctrine stems from the common sense view that where

2
a party invites the trial court to commit error, he cannot later cry foul on appeal.” 

United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009).

“[A] party seeking to raise a claim or issue on appeal must plainly and

prominently so indicate. Otherwise, the issue—even if properly preserved at

trial—will be considered abandoned.” United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273,

1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Because Marfo admitted at sentencing that the presentence report’s loss and

offense level calculations were correct, he has invited his alleged error. In

addition, he also has not sufficiently raised a reasonableness issue on appeal, so he

has abandoned that issue.

AFFIRMED,

3
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9


                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                             COLLABORATION AGREEMENT

This first Amendment to the Collaboration Agreement (this "First Amendment") is
made and dated February 11, 1999 (the "First Amendment Effective Date") by and
between Telik, Inc. of 750 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA 94080, a
Delaware corporation formerly known as Terrapin Technologies, Inc. ("Telik") and
Genaissance Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its offices at
Five Science Park, New Haven, CT 06511 ("Genaissance"). Genaissance and Telik
are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as
the "Parties."

                                    RECITALS

         A. The Parties are signatories to that Collaboration Agreement dated as
of February 11, 1998 (the "Agreement").

         B. The Parties wish to make certain changes to the Agreement.

                  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals the
Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Each reference in the Agreement to "Terrapin Technologies, Inc." is amended
and replaced by "Telik, Inc." and each reference in the Agreement to "Terrapin"
is amended and replaced by "Telik".

2. Amend Section 3.8 by deleting "twelve (12) month" and inserting in its place
"eighteen (18) month".

3. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, defined terms used in this First
Amendment shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement, and all
terms herein shall be incorporated into the Agreement. From and after the First
Amendment Effective Date, all references to the "Agreement" in all other
documents delivered in connection with the Agreement shall refer to the
Agreement, as amended hereby.

4. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts and by facsimile.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment and
Extension effective as of the date set forth above.

GENAISSANCE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.              TELIK, INC.


By:  /s/ GUALBERTO RUANO                       By:  /s/ REINALDO F. GOMEZ
    -----------------------------                  -----------------------------
Printed Name:  GUALBERTO RUANO                 Printed Name:  REINALDO F. GOMEZ
              -------------------                            -------------------
Title:  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                Title:  VP CORPORATE ALLIANCES
       --------------------------                     --------------------------
Date:          2/19/99                         Date:          2/19/99
       --------------------------                     --------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Allen, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on September 27, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Evans and Lupiano, JJ.