alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2372 

To include reasonable costs for high-speed Internet service in the utility 

allowances for families residing in public housing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mr. FOSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To include reasonable costs for high-speed Internet service 

in the utility allowances for families residing in public 

housing, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Closing the Digital 

5 Divide for Students Act of 2015’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2372 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICE IN 

2 PUBLIC HOUSING UTILITY ALLOWANCES FOR 

3 CERTAIN FAMILIES. 

4 Subsection (b) of section 3 of the United States 

5 Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)) is amended 

6 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(14) UTILITY ALLOWANCE.—A utility allow8 ance under this Act for public housing shall include 

9 costs for high-speed Internet service, subject to the 

10 following limitations: 

11 ‘‘(A) COST.—The cost included in a utility 

12 allowance for a public housing dwelling unit 

13 pursuant to this paragraph shall not— 

14 ‘‘(i) exceed the lowest cost available in 

15 the area of such housing for such high16 speed Internet service; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) include any costs for cable or 

18 satellite television service or for joint pack19 ages for Internet service together with 

20 cable or satellite television service. 

21 ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED FAMILIES.—Costs for 

22 high-speed Internet service may be included in 

23 a utility allowance only for a household that in24 curs such costs and includes children who qual25 ify for free and reduced price lunch pursuant to 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2372 IH

1 section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National 

2 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758). 

3 ‘‘(C) PROTECTION OF MINORS.—Costs for 

4 high-speed Internet service may be included in 

5 a utility allowance for a household only if the 

6 Internet service provider, upon initial provision 

7 of such service for a household, provides the 

8 household with a specific technology capable of 

9 blocking or filtering Internet access to visual 

10 depictions described in section 254(h)(5)(B)(i) 

11 of the Communications Act of 1937 (47 U.S.C. 

12 254(h)(5)(B)(i)) that provides a level of protec13 tion against access by minors to such depictions 

14 through the Internet that is at least as great as 

15 the level of protection provided by a technology 

16 protection measure (as such term is defined in 

17 paragraph (7) of such section 254(h)) that 

18 meets the requirements for certification under 

19 such paragraph, as determined by the Sec20 retary.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Jon A. DeLuca, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterlyreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2004
#### WINNE, Appellant, v. FANNING et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by Isaac W. Winne against Benjamin Fanning and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirm•ed, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2460 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2460

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the provision of 
              adult day health care services for veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

  Mr. Zeldin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the provision of 
              adult day health care services for veterans.

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

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1745 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d)(1) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement under section 
1720(c)(1) of this title or a contract with each State home for payment 
by the Secretary for adult day health care provided to a veteran who is 
eligible for, but does not receive, nursing home care pursuant to 
subsection (a).
    ``(2) Payment under each agreement or contract between the 
Secretary and a State home under paragraph (1) for each veteran who 
receives care under such paragraph shall be made at a rate that is 
equal to 65 percent of the payment that the Secretary would pay to the 
State home pursuant to subsection (a)(2) if the veteran received 
nursing home care under subsection (a) rather than under paragraph (1) 
of this subsection.
    ``(3) Payment by the Secretary under paragraph (1) to a State home 
for adult day health care provided to a veteran described in that 
paragraph constitutes payment in full to the State home for such care 
furnished to that veteran.''; and
            (2) in the heading, by inserting ``, adult day health 
        care,'' after ``home care''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
section 1745 and inserting the following new item:

``1745. Nursing home care, adult day health care, and medications for 
                            veterans with service-connected 
                            disabilities.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Theodore C. D’Amico, Appellant, v Kenneth D. Christie, Defendant, and Schlegel Corp. et al., Respondents.

—Judgment, insofar as it awards damages to plaintiff against defendant Mollie Prince, doing business as Michael’s Tavern, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and a new trial granted on the issue of damages only, unless said defendant shall, within 20 days after service of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry thereof, stipulate to increase the verdict to the principal sum of $100,000, in which event the judgment shall be modified accordingly, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Upon review of the record, we find that the jury’s award of damages was inadequate to the extent indicated. We agree with the trial court, however, that plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case against defendants Schlegel Corp. and Schlegel Social and Athletic Association since the Association was not engaged in the commercial sale of alcohol *(see, Conigliaro v Franco,*122 AD2d 15; *Gabrielle v Craft,*75 AD2d 939, 940; *Edgar v Kajet,*84 Mise 2d 100, *affd*55 AD2d 597; *Kohler v Wray,*114 Mise 2d 856, 857; *see also, Valicenti v Valenze,*68 NY2d 826). (Appeal from amended judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — Dram Shop Act.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2499 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase access to capital for veteran 

entrepreneurs, to help create jobs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. HANNA, Mr. BOST, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, Mr. KNIGHT, Mr. GIBSON, and Mr. CURBELO of Florida) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase access to 

capital for veteran entrepreneurs, to help create jobs, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Entrepre5 neurship Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2499 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT SBA EXPRESS LOAN GUARANTEE FEE 

2 WAIVER FOR VETERANS. 

3 Section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act (15 

4 U.S.C. 636(a)(31)) is amended adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(G) GUARANTEE FEE WAIVER FOR VET7 ERANS.— 

8 ‘‘(i) GUARANTEE FEE WAIVER.—The 

9 Administrator may not collect a guarantee 

10 fee described in paragraph (18) in connec11 tion with a loan made under this para12 graph to a veteran or spouse of a veteran 

13 on or after October 1, 2015. 

14 ‘‘(ii) EXCEPTION.—If the President’s 

15 budget for the upcoming fiscal year, sub16 mitted pursuant to Congress pursuant to 

17 section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 

18 Code, includes a cost for the program es19 tablished under this subsection that is 

20 above zero, the requirements of clause (i) 

21 shall not apply to loans made during such 

22 upcoming fiscal year. 

23 ‘‘(iii) DEFINITION.—In this subpara24 graph, the term ‘veteran or spouse of a 

25 veteran’ means— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2499 IH

1 ‘‘(I) a veteran, as defined in sec2 tion 3(q)(4); 

3 ‘‘(II) an individual who is eligible 

4 to participate in the Transition Assist5 ance Program established under sec6 tion 1144 of title 10, United States 

7 Code; 

8 ‘‘(III) a member of a reserve 

9 component of the Armed Forces 

10 named in section 10101 of title 10, 

11 United States Code; 

12 ‘‘(IV) the spouse of an individual 

13 described in subclause (I), (II), or 

14 (III); or 

15 ‘‘(V) the surviving spouse (as de16 fined in section 101 of title 38, 

17 United States Code) of an individual 

18 described in subclause (I), (II), or 

19 (III) who died while serving on active 

20 duty or as a result of a disability that 

21 is service-connected (as defined in 

22 such section).’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
(December 8, 1986)

#### A & M Wallboard, Inc., Appellant, v Marina Towers Associates et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for breach of contract and breach of warranty, the plaintiff appeals (1) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated October 30, 1985, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action asserted in its complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court, also dated October 30, 1985, which denied its cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order which denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint is reversed, in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the cross motion is granted, and the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is deemed served. The defendants’ time to answer the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon them of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay (CPLR 3024 [b]; *Barnes v County of Nassau,*108 AD2d 50, 52; *Plattsburgh Distrib. Co. v Hudson Val. Wine Co.,*108 AD2d 1043, 1044). Here, the defendants Lester Fisher and Samuel Lefrak were *355aware of the underlying suits brought against all the defendants as well as the second cause of action against the defendant Lester Fisher, and the third cause of action against the defendant Samuel Lefrak. The plaintiff’s amended complaint sought to correct the imperfections in the numbering contained in certain “repeat and reallege” paragraphs in the fourth and fifth causes of action of the complaint. The proposed amended complaint would add no new theory of action. The defendants had notice of the facts complained of and the legal theories of the claims on the face of the complaint, and under these circumstances there has been no showing of prejudice or surprise to the defendants.

The defendants’ argument that the plaintiff delayed over four years in seeking amendment is not sufficient to demonstrate legal prejudice in this case, nor is the fact that a motion is made on the eve of trial a sufficient ground for denying leave to amend *(see, Barnes v County of Nassau, supra,*at p 52). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2559 

To designate the ‘‘PFC Milton A. Lee Medal of Honor Memorial Highway’’ 

in the State of Texas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. BABIN, Mr. BARTON, Mr. BRADY of 

Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. 

CONAWAY, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. 

FARENTHOLD, Mr. FLORES, Mr. GOHMERT, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. AL

GREEN of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. 

HINOJOSA, Mr. HURD of Texas, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. SAM JOHNSON

of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. 

MCCAUL, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. O’ROURKE, Mr. OLSON, Mr. POE of 

Texas, Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. VEASEY, 

Mr. VELA, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. WILLIAMS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the ‘‘PFC Milton A. Lee Medal of Honor 

Memorial Highway’’ in the State of Texas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The segment of Interstate Route 10 between milepost 

5 535 and milepost 545 at Kendall County, Texas, shall be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2559 IH

1 known and designated as the ‘‘PFC Milton A. Lee Medal 

2 of Honor Memorial Highway’’. 

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the segment 

6 of Interstate Route 10 referred to in section 1 shall be 

7 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘PFC Milton A. Lee 

8 Medal of Honor Memorial Highway’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.18.2


 


 


 


July 30, 2020


 


Thomas Garite, MD


653 Round Tree Drive


Grand Junction, CO 81506


 


Re: 2nd Amendment to Offer of Employment
for Thomas Garite, MD dated June 17, 2020


 


Dear Tom:


 


This letter is the 2nd amendment (the
 “2nd Amendment”) to the aforementioned Offer of Employment from Sera Prognostics, Inc. dated June 17, 2020 (the
 “Offer of Employment”), as amended on July 1, 2020 (the 1st Amendment) for the purpose of a change in salary.


 


		Equity:	You will be initially recommended to the Sera Board to be granted the option to purchase 50,000 shares
of common stock of Sera at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the shares on the date the option is granted, subject to
final approval by the Sera Board of Directors. These granted options shall have a four-year vesting schedule as follows: 25% of the shares
shall vest on the one-year anniversary of your start date with Sera, and an additional 1/36th of the total shares subject to the option
shall vest each month thereafter, in each case provided that you continue to be an employee, consultant or director of Sera through each
applicable vesting date. The terms of this stock option grant will be governed in all respects by the terms of the Sera Prognostics 2011
Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and the stock option agreement for the Plan, which will
be provided to you after the effective date of the grant. Any future grant of stock options shall be governed by its respective Sera Prognostics
Employee, Director and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, which shall be provided to you after such a grant is awarded.



 


All other terms, conditions and provisions of
the Offer of Employment as amended by the 1st Amendment remain unchanged by this 2nd amendment and are in full force
and effect.


 


 


 



     


     


    

 


 


 


	 	Sincerely,




 


		Sera Prognostics, Inc.




 


		By:	/s/ Gregory
                                            Critchfield



		Gregory Critchfield



		Its:	Chairman, President, and CEO



 


This Amendment is accepted and agreed to as of
the date hereof:


 


	/s/ Thomas Garite, MD	






Thomas Garite, MD


 


	Dated:	July 30, 2020
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tavon ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7137.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2011.

Decided: April 21, 2011.

Seth Allen Neyhart, Stark Law Group, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kwame Jangha Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tavon Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. That order was entered by the district court on February 19, 2010. Robinson, then a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed his notice of appeal between August 9 and August 11, 2010.* Robinson’s notice of appeal is clearly untimely. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In his notice, however, Robinson indicated that he never received the district court’s order. Under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a fourteen-day period if: (1) the moving party did not receive notice of entry of judgment within twenty-one days after its entry; (2) a motion to reopen the appeal period is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within fourteen days of receiving notice from the district court, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced by reopening. We remand to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Robinson is entitled to have his time to file an appeal reopened under Rule 4(a)(6). The record, *238as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*

*

 Robinson hand-dated his notice of appeal August 9, 2010; the prison mail room dated it August 11, 2010.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Steve Mossman, in his official capacity as

Denton County Tax Assessor

- Collector

,

Appellant,

v.

Banatex LLC

,

Appellee

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 245

- CV

Appeal from the

431st District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# 2012

- 71334

- 431 )

O R D E R

It is the ORDER of this Court that the brief of the Appellant, Steve Mossman, in his official

capacity as Denton County Tax Assessor

- Collector, received in the Clerk’s Office on September

16, 2013, not be filed because it fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure

. The brief

does not: (1) give a complete list of all of the parties and the names and addresses of all trial and

appellate counsel

, T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1(a) ; (2) include a table of contents wi th references to the

pages of the brief

, T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1(b) ; and (3) includ e an index of authorities arranged

alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited

, T EX .R.A PP .P.

38.1(c). Further, t he statement of facts sec tion of the brief must include citations to the record

(not the appendix attached to the brief). T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1(g). The brief also does not include

a certificat e of compliance stating the number of words in the document. T EX .R.A PP .P. 9.1(i)(3).

T he refore, the above mentioned brief is being returned and a corrected brief shall be prepared and

filed with this Court on or before October 7, 2013

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 7 th day of September

, 201 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.