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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered October 23, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On October 10, 1988, at approximately 7:30 p.m., the defendant was arrested after he had been observed throwing a black vinyl bag to the ground. The defendant had thrown the bag to the ground as he was walking along the street in one direction toward a waiting police officer, and as he was looking over his shoulder toward a second police officer who was then approaching him from the opposite direction. Immediately after having dropped the bag, the defendant, his head *875turned backwards, bumped into the first officer, who then placed him under arrest.

On appeal, the defendant argues, among other things, that his arrest was not supported by probable cause, since it was based on nothing more than his presence in an area known to be the site of narcotics-related transactions. He asserts that the evidence discovered inside the black vinyl bag approximately 90 seconds after his arrest must, therefore, be suppressed.

We may assume, without necessarily deciding, that the search and subsequent seizure of the defendant’s bag cannot be justified as having been incident to a lawful arrest *(cf., United States v Chadwick,*433 US 1; *People v Gokey,*60 NY2d 309; *People v Smith,*59 NY2d 454; *People v Ruffin,*133 AD2d 425). However, the search and seizure of the bag are justifiable pursuant to a different exception to the warrant requirements: the doctrine which permits warrantless searches of abandoned property *(see, Abel v United States,*362 US 217; *Hester v United States,*265 US 57; *see also, People v Howard,*50 NY2d 583, *cert denied*449 US 1023; *People v Braithwaite,*172 AD2d 548; *People v Kosciusko,*149 AD2d 620).

Pursuant to this doctrine, property which has been abandoned by its owner may generally be searched by the police, provided that the abandonment itself was not provoked by illegal police conduct *(see, People v Leung,*68 NY2d 734; *People v Howard, supra; People v Braithwaite, supra).*In the present case, the defendant’s decision to abandon his property cannot be attributed to any illegal police conduct. The defendant had apparently not even noticed the presence of the officer toward whom he was walking, and the officer whom he had apparently observed was not pursuing him at the time that the abandonment occurred *(cf., California v Hodari D.,*499 US —, 111 S Ct 1547). Moreover, as the area had been the site of narcotics-related transactions, either officer would have been authorized to not only approach the defendant, but also to question him *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Hopkins,*163 AD2d 416; *People v Balanco,*158 AD2d 367; *People v Braithwaite, supra).*

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EX-10.6



 Exhibit 10.6 

EXECUTION VERSION 
 JOINDER
AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation (the “Company”) has entered into that certain Agreement by and among the
parties listed on Schedule A thereto (the “Icahn Group”) and the Company (the “Agreement”), dated January 28, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto; and 

WHEREAS, the Company is pursuing a Separation (as defined in the Agreement); and 

WHEREAS, the Agreement requires that SpinCo execute and deliver to the Icahn Group this Joinder Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby joins in the Agreement and agrees that, immediately upon the Separation Effective Time (as defined in
the Agreement), it shall be deemed to be “SpinCo” within the meaning of the Agreement and shall be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement applicable to SpinCo thereunder. 

[Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Joinder Agreement as of December 31, 2016. 

 

			
	SPINCO:
	
	CONDUENT INCORPORATED, a New York corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ J. Michael Peffer

	Name:	 	J. Michael Peffer
	Title:	 	Vice President and General Counsel


  

			
	ACCEPTED:
	
	XEROX CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas H. Marshall

	Name:	 	Douglas H. Marshall
	Title:	 	Assistant Secretary

 [Signature Page to Joinder to Conduent Nomination and Standstill Agreement] 








			
	MR. CARL C. ICAHN
	
	 /s/ Carl C. Icahn

	Carl C. Icahn
	
	HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	HOPPER INVESTMENTS LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	BARBERRY CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ICAHN PARTNERS LP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND LP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ICAHN ENTERPRISES G.P. INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ICAHN ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory

 [Signature Page to Joinder to Conduent Nomination and Standstill Agreement] 








			
	IPH GP LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ICAHN CAPITAL LP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ICAHN ONSHORE LP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	ICAHN OFFSHORE LP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	BECKTON CORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Keith Cozza

	Name:	 	Keith Cozza
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory
	
	MR. JONATHAN CHRISTODORO
	
	 /s/ Jonathan Christodoro

	Jonathan Christodoro

 [Signature Page to Joinder to Conduent Nomination and Standstill Agreement]
#### STANLEY KOPCZYNSKI, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 1 N. J. Super. 121; 62 A. 2nd 737.

*Mr. Mefer L. Sakin*for the petitioner.

*Mr. George G. Tartar*for the respondent.

April 18, 1949.

Granted.
# Chambers - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Lori Hodge Sokol Email &#108;&#x6f;&#x72;&#105;&#x2e;&#x73;&#111;&#x6b;&#x6f;&#108;&#x40;&#x65;&#97;&#x72;&#x70;&#100;&#x63;&#x2e;&#111;&#x72;&#x67;The post East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4493 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4493

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the impaneling of a 
new jury if a jury fails to recommend by unanimous vote a sentence for 
               conviction of a crime punishable by death.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2017

  Mr. Marino (for himself and Mr. Barletta) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the impaneling of a 
new jury if a jury fails to recommend by unanimous vote a sentence for 
               conviction of a crime punishable by death.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Eric's Law''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO IMPANEL A NEW JURY IN CERTAIN CASES.

    (a) Additional Ground for Impaneling Jury.--Section 3593(b)(2) of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) a new special hearing is required pursuant to 
                subsection (g); or''.
    (b) Impaneling of New Jury When Jury Does Not Reach a Unanimous 
Recommendation.--Section 3593 of such title is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(g) Special Rule When Jury Does Not Return a Unanimous 
Recommendation.--
            ``(1) In general.--If a jury described in subsection (b)(1) 
        or subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (b)(2) does not, 
        by unanimous vote, make a recommendation whether the defendant 
        should be sentenced to death, to life imprisonment without 
        possibility of release, or some other lesser sentence pursuant 
        to subsection (e), the court, upon motion of the attorney for 
        the government, shall order a new special hearing and impanel a 
        new jury pursuant to subsection (b).
            ``(2) Imposition of sentence.--If the jury impaneled 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) does not reach a unanimous 
        recommendation as to sentence, the court shall impose a 
        sentence other than death authorized by law.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2013123EN.01002802.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/28

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Christoph and Others v Commission

(Case F-63/08) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Non-permanent staff - Articles 2, 3a and 3b of the Conditions of employment of other servants (COS) - Temporary staff - Contractual staff - Auxiliary contractual staff - Duration of contract - Article 8 and 88 of the COS - Decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services - Directive 1999/70/EC - Applicability to the institutions)

2013/C 123/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Eugen Christoph and Others (Leggiuno, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Curral and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer and J. Hermann, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decisions fixing the conditions of employment of the applicants in so far as the duration of their contract or the extension thereof is limited to a fixed period

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any legal foundation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any legal foundation.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008, p. 25.

1

---
# C_2010317EN.01002702.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2010 — C-Content v Commission

(Case T-247/08) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Community tendering procedures - Electronic publication services - Irregularities and infringements of Community law allegedly committed by the Publications Office - Limitation periods - Causal link)

2010/C 317/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: C-Content BV (’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, acting as Agents, assisted by O. Soudry, adviser, and A. Nucara, lawyer, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, assisted by O. Soudry and E. Petritsi, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of irregularities and infringements of Community law committed by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities in connection with a number of Community tender procedures for electronic publication services.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded;

| 2. | Orders C-Content BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders C-Content BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2008171EN.01005202.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/52

---

Action brought on 27 April 2008 — Ortega Serrano v Commission

(Case F-48/08)

(2008/C 171/105)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Ortega Serrano (Cádiz, Spain) (represented by: A. Ortega Serrano, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/26/05 not to include the applicant's name on the list of successful candidates.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision not to include the applicant's name in the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/26/05 or to afford him the opportunity of taking the oral test again; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision not to include the applicant's name in the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/26/05 or to afford him the opportunity of taking the oral test again;

| — | Order the Commission to set a new date for the oral test; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to set a new date for the oral test;

| — | Order the Commission to state the reasons for its decision EPSO/900/R; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to state the reasons for its decision EPSO/900/R;

| — | Grant the applicant access to the records of the oral test; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the applicant access to the records of the oral test;

| — | Grant the applicant access to all the documents which form part of his personal file; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the applicant access to all the documents which form part of his personal file;

| — | Declare that the applicant, who is a lawyer practising before the Spanish courts, may represent himself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the applicant, who is a lawyer practising before the Spanish courts, may represent himself;

| — | Order the examination of the personal files of all the candidates whose names are included in the list of successful candidates in order to verify that all of them have a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma in law and that they submitted their applications within the time limits and in the correct form; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the examination of the personal files of all the candidates whose names are included in the list of successful candidates in order to verify that all of them have a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma in law and that they submitted their applications within the time limits and in the correct form;

| — | Declare the documents presented as annexes in French and English to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the documents presented as annexes in French and English to be admissible;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-177-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2008 – Transports Schiocchet – Excursions v Commission**

**(Case T-220/07)**

Action for damages – Limitation period – Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Certain damage – Meaning – Imminent and foreseeable
damage (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 30, 33)*

2.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Date to be taken into consideration – Whether
conditions for non-contractual liability met (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53)
(see para. 32)*

3.                     *Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Claim for compensation in respect of damage for which the Community liable – Exclusive
jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 38)*

4.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice,
Art. 46) (see para. 39)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of various alleged illegal acts complained of against the Community institutions. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Transports Schiocchet – Excursions SARL to bear the costs. |
#### Nancy DUKES, d/b/a Louisiana Concessions, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and Honorable Moon Landrieu, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 73-3979.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 26, 1976.

Okla Jones, II, ACLU of La., Joseph Neves Marcal, III, Gen. Counsel, ACLU of La., William E. Rittenberg, George M. Strickler, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Blake G. Arata, City Atty., Joel P. Loeffelholz, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.

Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In conformance with the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case [-U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 48 L.Ed.2d -, 1976], the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granting appellant city’s motion for summary judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
# C_2010209EN.01003402.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2010 — Montero Padilla v OHIM — Padilla Requena (JOSE PADILLA)

(Case T-255/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark JOSE PADILLA - Earlier marks and sign JOSE PADILLA - Relative grounds for refusal - No well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention or trade mark with a reputation - Article 8(2)(c) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(2)(c) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - No earlier sign used in the course of trade - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 209/50

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eugenia Montero Padilla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially G. Aguillaume Gandasegui and P. Linde Puelles, and subsequently A. Salerno and M. Di Stefano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: José María Padilla Requena (Santa Eulalia, Spain) (represented by: J.F. Gallego Jiménez and J.R. Gil Cantons, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2008 (Case R 516/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Eugenia Montero Padilla and José María Padilla Requena

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eugenia Montero Padilla to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by José María Padilla Requena. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eugenia Montero Padilla to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by José María Padilla Requena.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2009006EN.01003101.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/31

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission

(Case T-45/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Time-limits for commencing proceedings - Starting point - Publication in the Official Journal - Alleged lack of locus standi at the date of publication - Inadmissibility)

locus standi

(2009/C 6/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA (El Ejido, Spain) (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo, L. Ruiz Ezquerra and C. Flores Hernández, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings made by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | It is not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA.

| 3. | Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---