alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Kathleen Cutter, Respondent, v Harry Feldman, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 781]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated October 15, 2004, which, upon a finding that he had committed acts which would constitute the offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment, and menacing, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the mother and the parties’ child, other than for court-ordered visitation.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petition alleged that the appellant and the petitioner shared a “child in common” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [d]), named the petitioner’s child, and specified that the appellant was the child’s father. Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly determined that it had jurisdiction over this matter (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]).

The record supports the court’s determination that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the father engaged in acts *558which would constitute the offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment, and menacing warranting the issuance of the order of protection *(see*Family Ct Act § 832; *Matter of Marsha C. v Latoya D.,*224 AD2d 522 [1996]). Moreover, the Family Court’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Cleary v Morgan,*306 AD2d 475 [2003]; *Matter of Samora v Coutsoukis,*292 AD2d 390 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
§ 31.6402(a)-1 Credits or refunds. ( a ) *In general.* For regulations under section 6402 of special application to credits or refunds of employment taxes, see §§ 31.6402(a)-2, 31.6402(a)-3, and 31.6414-1. For regulations under section 6402 of general application to credits or refunds, see §§ 301.6402-1 and 301.6402-2. For provisions relating to adjustments without interest of overpayments of taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or the Railroad Retirement Tax Act or income tax withholding, see §§ 31.6413(a)-1 and 31.6413(a)-2.
( b ) *Period of limitation.* For the period of limitation upon credit or refund of taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, see § 301.6511(a)-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For the period of limitation upon credit or refund of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, see the regulations applicable with respect to such tax.
[T.D. 6516, 25 FR 13032, Dec. 20, 1960, as amended by T.D. 9405, 73 FR 37379, July 1, 2008]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 121 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 121

To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify the use of computers 
in or affecting commerce as a basis for Federal prosecution of certain 
                          obscenity offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Burton of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify the use of computers 
in or affecting commerce as a basis for Federal prosecution of certain 
                          obscenity offenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1465 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
    (1) by inserting ``or knowingly uses a computer in or affecting 
interstate or foreign commerce for the purposes of sale or distribution 
of,'' after ``obscene material in interstate or foreign commerce,''; 
and
    (2) by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w3w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.3.1




AGREEMENT




     AGREEMENT, dated as of December 28, 2006, by and between Western Refining GP, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the “Company”) and Scott D. Weaver (the “Executive”).



W I T N E S S E T H




     WHEREAS the Company and Executive are parties to a certain Employment Agreement (the
“Employment Agreement”), dated January 24, 2006;



     WHEREAS the Company and the Executive believe that the change of control provisions of the
Employment Agreement are no longer necessary and that it is in the best interest of the Company’s
stockholders for the Company and Executive to amend the Employment Agreement accordingly;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations
contained herein and in the Employment Agreement, the Company and Executive agree as follows:




1. (a) Sections 1.1(a), 1.1(g)(ii) and the definition of Change of Control in Section
1.1(g), 1.1(h), 1.1(m), 1.1(o) and 5.3 are hereby deleted and the remaining sections and
paragraphs and cross-references thereto shall be renumbered or re-lettered accordingly.




     (b) In Section 1.1(g)(i), the words “, prior to a Change of Control or after expiration
of a Change of Control Period,” are deleted.




     (c) In Section 5.1 the reference to “Sections 5.2 and 5.3” is changed to “Section 5.2”.




     (d) In the title of Section 5.2 the words “Other Than During a Change of Control
Period” are deleted.




     (e) In the text of Section 5.2 prior to paragraph (a) the words “which occurs prior to
a Change of Control or after a Change of Control Period,” are deleted.




     (f) In Section 5.3 (formerly Section 5.4) the words “or Section 5.3” are deleted.




     (g) In Section 8.2 the words “or 5.3(a)” are deleted.



     2. Except as provided by this Agreement, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.



 









 





     3. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Texas, without giving effect to the provisions, policies or principles thereof relating to
choice or conflict of laws.



     4. This Termination Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall
be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same
instrument.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed this Agreement as of the date
set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE COMPANY:



WESTERN REFINING GP, LLC

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Lowry Barfield
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Lowry Barfield 	 
	 	 	Title:  	VP — Legal 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE:

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Scott D. Weaver
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Scott D. Weaver
# u L.'^y.^L ^ Jk . 

## , " V-

7 C< ^ sj ^ MA

C "-it-* ^ 

# ICICL E January 12,201 1 3-00 7 

## "PARTMEN TO f AI'ISPORTATIO N :• : J OPERATiON S JA N i 3 P 3 : U 2

Th e Honorabl e Ra y LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Dep t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.B . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Re : Continuatio n o f

Alask aAirlines ' Essential Ai r Servic e t o Cordova , Gustavus , Petersburg , Wnu^ell , an dYakutat , Docke t

OST-1998-489 9 ussen i Dea r Secretary LaHood , I amwritin g i n suppor t

o f th e continuatio n o f

Alask aAirlines ' essentia l ai r servic e t o Petersburg , Alaska . A s th e larges t

employe r

an dai r freight customer

i n Petersburg , w e ar e criticall y awar e o f th e continue d nee dfor th e Je t servic e Alask aAirline s ha s provide dt o ou r communit y fo r

wel l ove r

thirt y years . Seafoo di s th e economi c engin e o f ou r community . Movin g product s t o markets , transportin g employee s an dconnectin g fisherme n wit hneede dpart s b crucia l t o th e economi c wel l bein g o f ou r compan y an d community a s i t

allow s u s t o b e competitiv e withothe r ports . Alask aAirline s provide s servic e tha t allow s u s t o easil y connec t wit hothe r

flight s throughou t

Alask aan dt o th e othe r

4 9 states . Thei r investmen t

in navigatio n technolog y ha s resulte dmimprove dreliability durin g inclemen t weather . Reducin g fligh t

diversion s an dcancellation s help s Petersburg' s businesse s an dpassengers . Th e 737-40 0 "combi " aiiaaft

use db y Alask aAirline s allow s for passenger , mail , freigh t

an dcarg o servic e tha t

i s ver y dependable . A non-je t

carrie r woul dsimpl y b e unabl e t o provid e thi s sam e leve l o f service . W e respectfully encourag e yo u t o continu e Alask aAirlme' s essentia l ai r servic e i n Southeas t

Alaska . Thank yo u fo r you r consideration . Sincerely , KrisNoros z Qovemmen t

Affair s cc : Ms . Susan Kurland , Assistan t Secretary for

Aviatio n an dInternationa l Affair s Mr . Denni s DeVany , Chief , EA S an dDomesti c Analysi s Th e Honorabl e Sean Pamell , Govemor , Stat e o f Alask a Mar c A . Luiken , Commissioner , Alask aStat e Departmen t of Transportatio n an dPubli c Facilitie s PETERSBUR

G RSHERIE S ADIVISIO N O F ICICL E SEAFOODS , INC . P.O . Bo x114 7 • Petersburg , A K9983 3 • Tel : 907-772-429 4 • Fax : 907-772-447 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 151 James Drive West, St. Rose, LA 70087, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​.*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on April 21, 2009. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: August 4, 2009.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E9-19384 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Exhibit
      32.2




ICONIX
      BRAND GROUP, INC.




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF




THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Warren
      Clamen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.












/s/
      Warren
      Clamen


Warren
        Clamen


Chief
        Financial Officer




Date:
      May
      7, 2008
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-13065

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00060-TCB

ROBERT L. CLARK, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

GREGORY MCLAUGLIN,

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(March 6, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Petitioner Robert Clark, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals 

the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the denial of what we take as a 

motion for reconsideration. The district court determined that the section 2254 

petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition. No reversible error has 

been shown; we affirm.

In 2004, Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and was sentenced to 16 

years’ imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Clark 

v. State, 629 S.E.2d 103, 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). Petitioner later filed a state 

habeas petition, which was denied by the state court in October 2010. In 2012, the 

Georgia Supreme Court then denied Petitioner a certificate of probable cause to 

appeal the denial. In 2016, Petitioner filed the section 2254 petition at issue in this 

appeal. 

The district court committed no error in determining that Petitioner’s 2016 

section 2254 petition was second or successive. The record demonstrates that 

Petitioner filed an earlier section 2254 petition in 2012 that was denied on the 

merits. Because Petitioner has failed to obtain authorization from this Court to file 

a second or successive petition, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider 

Petitioner’s 2016 petition. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th 

Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Cir. 2003) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

a second or successive petition.”). 

Because we conclude that Petitioner’s 2016 petition was dismissed properly 

as second or successive, the district court abused no discretion in denying 

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover -- to the extent Petitioner’s 

motion for reconsideration could be construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) -- Petitioner failed to identify either newly discovered evidence or a manifest 

error of law or fact that would warrant relief. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 

1343 (11th Cir. 2007). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 3 of 3
I N T H E S U P R EM E C O U R T

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 152

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Michael Allan Lafayte Prescott, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230325

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, the 

Honorable Stacy J. Louser, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Tina M. Snellings, Assistant State’s Attorney, Minot, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
1

State v. Prescott

No. 20230325

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Michael Prescott appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of 

gross sexual imposition in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(2)(a), which criminalizes 

sexual contact with a victim less than fifteen years of age. Prescott argues the district court 

committed obvious error by failing to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove 

the touching in this case was not justified for the purpose of disciplining the child.

[¶2] The district court specifically asked Prescott whether he had any objection to the 

instructions relevant to this issue, and Prescott responded he did not. A defendant’s 

decision to not object to a jury instruction when given the opportunity constitutes a waiver 

of the right to argue on appeal that the instruction was erroneous. State v. Goodale, 2024 

ND 120, ¶ 9, ___ N.W.3d ___ (holding claim of error waived by answering “yes” in 

response to inquiry whether instructions were acceptable); see also City of Grand Forks v. 

Riemers, 2024 ND 117, ¶ 14, ___ N.W.3d ___ (holding claim of error waived by “I’m 

satisfied with them” in response to requests for comments or additional instructions); State 

v. Studhorse, 2024 ND 110, ¶ 25, 7 N.W.3d 253 (declining to review a jury instruction 

issue waived by defendant’s affirmative statement he had no request for changes to the 

instructions). Prescott waived this issue, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 

35.1(a)(7).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
AS TO VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT OF SHIPMENT, ONE PROVISION OF WHICH HAS BEEN WAIVED BY THE CARRIER..

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### James F. Bennett v. The Pennsylvania Company and The Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago *&*St. Louis Railway Company.*

Decided, February 14, 1916.

*Carriers*— Shipments *Under the Uniform Live Stock Contract*— Agree*ment "by Carrier to Render Additional Service*— Does *Not Render Contract Void, Unless*— Character *of the Discrimination "Which is Inhibited.*

The waiver by a carrier of one of the provisions of a uniform contract of shipment, thereby, giving to the shipper a service other and greater than that specified in the contract, does not render the contract void under the Ohio statute relating to unlawful preferences for transportation wholly within the state, unless the discrimination thereby given to the shipper is unjust or unreasonable and can fairly be considered as granting some privilege or concession not enjoyed by others similarly engaged.

*336*Black, Swing & Black,*for plaintiff in error.

*Maxwell & Ramsey,*contra.

*

Reversing *Bennett*v. *Pennsylvania Co., 17*N.P.(N.S.), 42.

*

Motion to require the Court of Appeals to certify its record_overruled by the Supreme Court, May 22, 1916.

Jones (E. EL), P. J.

The discrimination inhibited by Sections 508, 564, 567 and 568 of the General Code is such an one as is unjust or unreasonable and can fairly be considered as giving some substantial privilege or concession not enjoyed by others similarly engaged.

Our statutes are practically like the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, and are to be alike construed. In *Union Pac. R. Co.*v. *Updike Crain Co.,*178 Fed., 223, it was held, syllabus, 2d paragraph:

> *“Interstate Commerce Act Prohibits Undue and Unreasonable Prejudices and Disadvantages Only.*— The interstate commerce does not prohibit the giving of all preferences and advantages or the production of all prejudices and disadvantages. It prohibits only those that are undue and unreasonable.”

Hutchinson on Carriers, Third Edition, Section 538:

> “All special contracts or traffic arrangements between carrier and shipper are not forbidden or condemned, but only such as operate unfairly and evidence undue favoritism towards one, or deprive another of his just rights.”

The facts stated in the petition are not alone sufficient to warrant therefrom a conclusion that there was an unlawful discrimination in this ease. The burden rests upon the railway company to prove that the favor shown the shipper constitutes an undue preference or unjust discrimination. *Interstate Commerce Commission*v. *Baltimore & O. R. Co.,*43 Fed., 37:

> “Where a railroad company is charged with violating the interstate commerce act, by the issuance of ‘party-rate tickets’ at less than the rates charged single passengers, the burden of proving that such lower charge constitutes an undue preference is upon the person making the charge.”

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

Jones (Oliver B.), J., and Gorman, J., concur.
### Fw: Data Request Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 03/04/2010 02:41 PM

please docket

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov ----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/04/2010 02:41 PM -----

From: Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US To: Edmund <crouch@CambridgeEnvironmental.com> Cc: graham.stephen@epa.gov, martin.karen@epa.gov Date: 01/29/2010 04:26 PM Subject: Data Request

Dr Crouch:

This is a follow-up to the email I sent this morning. We believe that we have compiled the data that you requested. If you can provide an FTP site, we can start uploading the data files this afternoon. Please let me know if this is convenient for you.

Thanks, Michael

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division US. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov
#### John Lafrancesca et al., Respondents, v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 438]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 22, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*352The defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the hazard that caused the injured plaintiffs accident *(see Knee v Trump Vil. Constr. Corp.,*15 AD3d 545 [2005]; *Karalic v City of New York,*307 AD2d 254, 255 [2003]). Since the defendant failed to me'et its burden, it is not necessary to consider whether the papers submitted in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Karalic v City of New York, supra).*Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.