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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1541 

To amend the Small Business Act to include requirements relating to apprenticeship program assistance for small business development centers, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Mr. CROW (for himself, Mr. MOLINARO, Mr. THANEDAR, and Ms. SALAZAR) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to include requirements 

relating to apprenticeship program assistance for small 

business development centers, 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 ‘‘Small Business Work5 force Pipeline Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER APPREN7 TICESHIP PROGRAM ASSISTANCE. 

8 Section 21(c)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 

9 U.S.C. 648(c)(1)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1541 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (T), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in clause (v) of the first subparagraph (U) 

4 (relating to succession planning), by striking the pe5 riod at the end and inserting a semicolon; 

6 (3) in second subparagraph (U) (relating to 

7 training on domestic and international intellectual 

8 property protections)— 

9 (A) in clause (ii)(II), by striking the period 

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (B) by redesignating such subparagraph as 

12 subparagraph (V); and 

13 (4) by adding at the end the following new sub14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(W) providing information and assistance 

16 to small business concerns, including by dis17 seminating relevant information from the De18 partment of Labor and other Federal agencies, 

19 on how to establish and improve— 

20 ‘‘(i) work-based learning opportunities 

21 (as defined in section 3 of the Carl D. Per22 kins Career and Technical Education Act 

23 of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302)); 

24 ‘‘(ii) apprenticeship programs reg25 istered under the Act of August 16, 1937 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1541 IH

1 (50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; commonly 

2 known as the ‘National Apprenticeship 

3 Act’; 29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.); 

4 ‘‘(iii) pre-apprenticeship programs; 

5 and 

6 ‘‘(iv) job training programs.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Jeanne Carpenter and Another, Plaintiffs, *v.*Foundation Company, Defendant.*

Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

February 18, 1924.

Pleadings — complaint — action on contract annexed to complaint —• sufficiency of complaint determined by examination of annexed agreement — contracts —■ alleged option construed to be offer to make option.

The sufficiency of a complaint, to which is annexed an agreement in an action upon a contract, must be determined by an examination of the said agreement, in the absence of facts pleaded to aid in its interpretation.

The offer of the plaintiffs’ assignor in said action should be construed to be an offer to make an option, rather than an agreement to exercise the option, where the word “ accepted,” subscribed thereon by the defendant, constitutes merely an acceptance of the correctness of the statements of the terms of the option.

Motion to dismiss the complaint, under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

*S. A. Lowenstein,*for the plaintiffs.

*White & Chase,*for the defendant.

*

Affd., 211 App. Div. 846.

*766Tierney, J.:

The complaint alleges that a copy of the agreement is annexed to the complaint. This limits the question of whether an agreement was made to an examination of the exhibit annexed to the complaint. There are no surrounding circumstances pleaded to aid in the interpretation. The offer of the plaintiffs’ assignor was no more than the tender of an option. The option would have to be exercised to constitute proof of a contract. The word “ accepted,” subscribed by the defendant, in view of the statement of the offer that it is a memorandum of the understanding of the writer of the outcome of conferences, “subject to your immediate acceptance,” constitutes merely an acceptance of the correctness of the statement of the terms of the option, not an agreement to exercise the option.

The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the motion, under rule 106, to dismiss the same, is granted, with ten dollars costs of the motion, with leave to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of notice of entry of the order hereon on payment of said ten dollars costs and ten dollars costs of the action.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors and Stockholder 

XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-130949, No. 333-127169, No. 333-115695, No. 333-64344, No. 333-65602, No. 333-52893, No. 333-85847, No. 333-86003, No. 333-10446,No. 333-108387, No. 333-152548, No. 333-156495 and No. 333-157890) on Forms S-3, in the registration statement (No. 333-144845) on Form S-4, and in the registration statements (No. 333-139214, No. 333-133277, No. 333-125118,No. 333-119479, No. 333-81914, No. 333-74752, No. 333-65473, No. 333-15085, No. 33-95118, No. 33-92588, No. 333-31362, No. 333-62818, No. 333-100083, No. 333-101515, No. 333-106020,No. 333-111221, No. 333-142726, No. 333-149186, No. 333-152574 and No. 333-156441) on Forms S-8 of Sirius XM Radio Inc. and in the registration statements (No. 333-130812, No. 333-127270, No. 333-115326, No. 333-121417, No.333-121415, No. 333-114178, No. 333-106824, No. 333-102966, No. 333-102964, No. 333-93529, No. 333-89132, No. 333-85804, and No. 333-47570) on Forms S-3; in the registration statements (No. 333-136131-03 and No. 333-115323-01) on Form S-4; and inthe registration statements (No. 333-143460, No. 333-106827, No. 333-97611, No. 333-92049, No. 333-65022 and No. 333-65020) on Forms S-8 of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 13, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (Successor) as of December 31, 2008, and of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (Predecessor) as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholder’s deficit and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the period from August 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 (Successor period), and from January 1, 2008 to July 31, 2008 and for each of the years in the two-yearperiod ended December 31, 2007 (Predecessor periods), and the related financial statement schedule, and our report dated March 13, 2009, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

McLean, VA 

March 13, 2009
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_contracts.cfm 1

Awarded Contracts for External Experts to Support the 

NIST World Trade Center (WTC) Disaster Investigation

Contract No. Awarded to Date Awarded

SB1341-03-W-0471 National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA)

4/14/2003

WORLD TRADE CENTER (WTC) INVESTIGATION FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS OF EGRESS

Under contract number SB1341-03-W-0471, a firm fixed price purchase order has been awarded to the 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) of Quincy, Massachusetts: 

The NFPA is a nonprofit organization specifically chartered to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and 

other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating scientifically-based consensus codes and 

standards, research, training, and education. Part of their charter includes investigations of technically 

significant fire incidents and fire data analysis.

This project is to provide a data set that includes selected publicly available published first-person 

accounts of the WTC evacuation. This data set includes approximately 500 existing accounts collected by 

the NFPA and the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) since September 11, 2001, along with a 

matrix of encoding variables that captures important incident details for each account. The NFPA will 

enhance this existing data set to include additional accounts to be supplied by NIST and additional 

incident details of interest to the investigation of the WTC evacuation on September 11, 2001.

The principal investigator from the NFPA is Dr. Rita Fahy. Dr. Fahy is Manager of Fire Data Bases and 

Systems for the NFPA. Active in fire analysis and research for a decade and a half, Dr. Fahy manages all 

databases and computer analysis programs. She has special expertise and interest in computer 

modeling, database and computer analysis techniques, human behavior with respect to fire, and 

socioeconomic factors in fire risk. She studied the evacuation of the WTC towers following the 1993 

bombing incident.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. SU SA N ELA I N E BA RK ER, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 10138 D. C . No . 4 : 0 6 - C R - 0 1 8 7 7 - C KJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona C i ndyK . J or ge ns on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r6, 2010 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W I N , R Y M E R , an dG R A B E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . S usan E l ai ne B arker app ea l s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entre vo ki ng her s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), B a rk e r ’s c o u n s e l h a s f

ile dab r ie f

s ta tin g th e r e a r e n o g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e h a v e p r o v id e dth e ap p e llan t w ith



# FI LED DE C 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10138 2 the opportuni tyt o f

i l e apr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f or a ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE ARTHUR SULLEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0112-CG-M

)

CYNTHIA STEWARD, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of 

those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this habeas petition be and is hereby DISMISSED as time-barred. 

The petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. 15) is DENIED. Petitioner failed to attach

copies of the documents referenced. Moreover, the Report and Recommendation noted that even 

if petitioner paid the filing fee on December 12, 2012, the AEDPA clock’s one-year limitation 

period had already run.

It is further ORDERED that any certificate of appealability filed by Petitioner be 

DENIED as he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of August, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00112-CG-M Document 16 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1664 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1664

To require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the 
 Federal Open Market Committee to consider inflation, employment, and 
            financial stability when setting interest rates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the 
 Federal Open Market Committee to consider inflation, employment, and 
            financial stability when setting interest rates.

    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 the ``Financial Stability Mandate Act''.

SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE CONSIDERATIONS.

    Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Board of Governors of the Federal 
        Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(a) In General.--The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Considerations.--The Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall, when 
setting interest rates, consider inflation, employment, and financial 
stability.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Robert Bove, Petitioner, v Department of Correctional Services et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 605]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was dispatched to a hospital. Drug tests performed at the hospital and upon his return to the prison indicated that he had unprescribed antidepressants in his system. He was charged with violating various prison disciplinary rules as a result and, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of drug use and possessing unauthorized medication. Petitioner’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful, and he thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

The misbehavior report, testimony of the nurse who authored it, and petitioner’s multiple positive drug test results provide substantial evidence to support the determination *(see Matter of Reese v Bezio,*75 AD3d 1029, 1029 [2010]). Petitioner’s claim that his prescribed medications could cause a false positive result was contradicted by the nurse, who testified that both a pharmacy and an outside testing laboratory had ruled out such an outcome, and the resulting credibility issue was properly resolved by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Curry v Fischer,*93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; *Matter of Lunney v Selsky,*34 AD3d 955, 956 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 802 [2007]; *cf. Matter of Townes v Fischer,*68 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2009]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and, to the extent they are properly preserved for our review, find them to he without merit.

Peters, P.J., Mercure, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

*1286Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2074 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2074

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
   Office of the President, Unanticipated Needs for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
   Office of the President, Unanticipated Needs for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 
              THE PRESIDENT, UNANTICIPATED NEEDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Executive Office of the 
President, Unanticipated Needs for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$1,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
11417.

#### Hancock *v.*Anchors.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Trover; from DeKalb superior court — Judge Hutcheson. January 21, 1920.

*Thomas E. 8colt, Albert Kemper,*for plaintiff.

*A. J. Orme, Bell & Ellis, T. J. Higdon,*for defendant.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Where the ostensible owner of an automobile stored, it in a garage, to be called for later, and one claiming to be the true owner of the car instituted bail-trover proceedings against the bailee, giving bond therefor, and after thus obtaining possession of the car dismissed his proceeding in trover, and, with the consent of the defendant, the bailee procured an order of court annulling the bond under which possession of the car had been obtained, it was error for the court, on the trial of a subsequent proceeding in trover instituted by the ostensible owner, the bailor, against the bailee, for the recovery of the car, to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, on the ground that the defendant bailee had thus surrendered possession of the car to the sheriff under the prior trover proceeding, where it also appeared that the bailee had failed in his duty to promptly notify his bailor of the former proceeding, and had failed in his duty to protect and defend in that proceeding the title of his bailor. *Witherington*v. *Laurens County Farmers’ Warehouse Co.,*23 *Ga. App.*307 (98 S. E. 228).

2. While it is the general rule that a bailee is not permitted to set up an adverse title in another as an excuse for his failure to deliver the pro- ' perty to his bailor on demand, still the owner of *stolen*property may follow and retake it, in whomsoever’s hands it may be found. If, therefore, on the next trial the defendant shall plead, and prove to ,the satisfaction of the jury by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property intrusted to him was stolen property, and that it has in fact thus gone into the hands of the true and rightful owner, this would be a complete defense to the present proceeding.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.*
#### Chastity N. Presnell, Respondent, v New York Central Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

[967 NYS2d 862]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Matthew J. Murphy, III, A.J.), entered April 4, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendant to dismiss plaintiffs breach of contract claim.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Scudder, P.J., Feradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA A. REYNOLDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0235-CG-N

)

MEGAN BRENNAN, 1

United States Postmaster General

)

)

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) be GRANTED, 

and as such this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 Plaintiff sued Patrick Donahoe, the Postmaster General, in his official capacity in May 

2014. Doc. 1. Megan Brennan was installed as the Postmaster General by the U.S. Postal Service 

Board of Governors effective February 1, 2015.

Case 1:14-cv-00235-CG-N Document 44 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-610-CG-N

ZLM ACQUISITIONS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court’s order entered this date, granting Plaintiff’s motion 

for partial summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED 

that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, SE Property Holdings, LLC, and 

against Defendant Maurice J. Fitzsimons, in the amount of $ 2,132,800.00 plus 

interest and costs.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00610-CG-N Document 84 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 1
12115.

#### Rozier *v.*The State.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Banks superior court — Judge Cobb. December 17, 1920.

*G. P. Martin, 8am Jolley, P. Cooley,*for plaintiff in error..

*W. O. Dean, solicitor-general, K. C. Stark,*contra,

Bloodworth, J.

1. The special ground of the motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence was properly overruled. A part of this evidence was impeaching in its nature; the remainder was cumulative and not of such character as would likely produce a different verdict should a new trial be granted. See Park’s Penal Code, § 1088, and citations under the catchwords “Cumulative,” “Impeaching,” pp. 752-3, 755.

2. The verdict is supported by evidence and has the approval of the trial judge, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*