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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1908 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Capitol 

Power Plant 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 Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Capitol Power Plant for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, CAPITOL POWER PLANT FOR 

5 FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Joint Items, Capitol Power Plant for fiscal year 

9 2024 may not exceed $114,050,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERIC LAVELLE MAY, #209534 *

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00025-KD-B

*

KAREN STONE, et al., *

Defendants. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue 

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated April 17, 2015 is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED 

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

DONE and ORDERED this the 1st day of June 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00025-KD-B Document 6 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 1
11105.

#### Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. *v.*Grantham.

Decided March 4, 1920.

Certiorari; from Chatham superior court'—■ Judge Meldrim. October 20,1919.

Osborne, *Lawrence & Abrahams, F. R. Youngblood,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. P. Cobb,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

This is the first grant of a new trial to the defendant in error, and the verdict not being demanded, under the unbroken precedents of the Supreme Court and of this court the judgment granting the new trial can not be disturbed. See *Central of Georgia Ry. Co.*v. *Macon Ry. & Light Co.,*20 *Ga. App.*548 (93 S. E. 17), and citations.

*Judgment affirmed..*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4381

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JACQUELINE DIANE GOODING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-00-234-3)

Submitted: January 8, 2003 Decided: January 30, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig W. Sampson, LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. SAMPSON, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Diane Gooding pled guilty to conspiracy to launder

money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2000). Gooding filed

a motion to correct sentence, and the district court denied the

motion. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court based

Gooding’s sentence on an improperly calculated amount of value

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2S1.1 (2000) but stating

that in his view, there were no meritorious issues for appeal.

Advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Gooding

has not done so. We have reviewed the Appellant’s brief and record,

and assuming without deciding that Gooding’s motion to correct

sentence was properly before the court, we find no error in the

district court’s denial of the motion.

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client.
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Daly *v.*Brady *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

June 19, 1889.)

Copyright—Filing Title.

There is no copyright in a dramatic composition entitled “Under the GasLight: A Drama of Life and Love in These Times, ” when the printed copy of title filed under the copyright act reads, “Under the Gas-Light: A Romantic Panorama of the Streets and Homes of New York.”

In Equity. Application for injunction.

*S. H. Olin,*for complainant.

*A. J. Dittenhofer,*for defendants.

Wallace, J.

It is to be regretted that it must he held that the complainant has not a valid copyright to his dramatic composition, “Under the Gas-Light: A Drama of Life and Love in These Times,” because the copy of the title deposited by him in the clerk’s office of the district court reads, “Under the Gas-Light: A Romantic Panorama of the Streets and Homes of New York.” The title to a copyright is purely statutory, and a performance of the conditions imposed by the laws of congress is indispensable to its creation, and to the existence of any literary prop*266erty in the published work. *Wheaton*v. *Peters,*8 Pet. 591; *Merrell*v. *Tice,*104 U. S. 557. Among these conditions the statutes require the deposit of a printed copy of the title of the work before publication in the proper office,—formerly the office of the clerk of the district court of the district of the residence of the author, and now the librarian of congress. A literal compliance is not requisite; a substantial compliance is. *Callaghan*v. *Myers,*128 U. S. 617, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177; *Donnelley*v. *Ivers,*20 Blatchf. 381, 18 Fed. Rep. 592; *Baker*v. *Taylor,*2 Blatchf. 82; *Jackson*v. *Walkie,*29 Fed. Rep. 15. A verbal difference between the registered title and the published title would not necessarily invalidate the copyright; but when the variance is so material that the substantial identity between the two titles is doubtful, and might deceive the public into the belief that they refer to different publications and themes, it is fatal. It is patent that there is such a material variance in the present case unless all the title, except “Under the GasLight,” can be disregarded. This is not permissible. It will hardly do to segregate what the author has designated and deposited for registry as the title of his work as a unit into parts, and treat one part as the name and the other as descriptive matter,.and eliminate the latter as a part of the title. If such an analysis were ever permissible, it could not well be made in the present case, because it is impossible to discriminate between what is the descriptive matter and what is the name. The drama might have been called “Under the Gas-Light,” or “A Drama of Life and Love in These Times,” or “A Romantic Panorama of the Streets and Homes of New York,” and either designation would be equally appropriate as a name or as descriptive matter. When two such names or descriptive terms are incorporated into the title, each becomes an integral part of it, and it may be as reasonably contended that one part of the title can be dropped out as that the other can be. The motion for an injunction is denied.
12046.

#### City of Albany *v.*Hardy.

Decided March 8, 1921.

Certiorari; from Dougherty superior court — Judge Wilson. December 3, 1920.

*James Tift Mann,*.for plaintiff.

*Pope & Bennet,*for defendant.

Bloodworth, J.

*“*The decision of the superior court on certiorari reversing the judgment of a municipal court convicting one of a violation of a municipal ordinance is not subject to review by this court. *Mayor &c. of Hawkinsville*v. *Ethridge,*96 *Ga.*326 (22 S. E. 985) ; *Mayor &c. of Macon*v. *Wood,*109 *Ga.*149 (34 S. E. 322).” *City of Valdosta*v. *Goodwin,*21 *Ga. App.*664 (94 S. E. 812).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Broyles, O. J., mid Luke, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1810 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1810

To require the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to issue a rule 
before deleting or modifying certain small business loan data, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2023

  Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Williams of Texas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to issue a rule 
before deleting or modifying certain small business loan data, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Bank Loan Privacy Act''.

SEC. 2. RULEMAKING REQUIREMENT.

    Section 704B(e)(4) of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 
1691c-2(e)(4)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Bureau may,'' and inserting:
                    ``(A) In general.--The Bureau may,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Rulemaking requirement.--The Bureau shall, 
                before deleting or modifying data under this paragraph 
                issue, through advance notice and comment, a rule that 
                includes a description of what modifications and 
                deletions the Bureau intends to make to the data and 
                how such modifications and deletions will advance a 
                privacy interest.''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered January 22, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00175 - CV TOP CAT READY MIX, L LC, Appellant

V. ALLIANCE TRUCKING, L .P., Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 15 - 07419



### O RDER Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Osborne On our own motion, we WITHDRAW our December 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion on Motion to Review Trial Court’s Order Set ting Amount of Supersedeas Security. Because we are reversing the portion of the trial court’s summary judgment awarding Alliance Trucking, L.P. pre - judgment contractual issue and remanding that issue to the trial court for further proceedings, the questi on of whether contractual pre

- judgment interest should be included in the supersedeas amount is MOOT

. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17

- 0972 Filed February 21, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF J.S., Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired, J.S., Respondent

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Beth A. Tigges , Magistrate

.

A person previously subject to a mental health commitment appeals the denial of his petition to reinstate firearm privileges. APPEAL DISMISSED.

Grant C. Gangestad of Gourley, Rehkemper & Lindholm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and J. Bradley Horn, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.2

TABOR, Judge. More than a decade ago, J.S

. was subject to a mental health commitment

. As a result, h e cannot legally possess a firearm. See Iowa Code § 724.31(1) (2016). In 2016, he filed a petition for relief from the fi r ear m disabilities. See id

. § 724.31(2). The matter was hear d by a Polk County magistrate, who denied relief. J.S. filed a notice of appeal from the magistrate’s order. The State moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition. J.S. did not file a resistance. The supreme court ordered the motion to dismiss to be submitted with the appeal. The parties filed their briefs , and the supreme court transferred the case to us. In its appel lee’s brief, the State renewed its motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. In his reply brief, J.S. “does not disagree that the instant matter may be outside the jurisdiction conferred to magistrates.” Before reaching the merits of a case, we must decide if our court has subject matter jurisdiction. See In re B.T.G. , 784 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). After reviewing the procedural history of this case, the applicable statutes, and the parties’ positions, we conclude we do not. The magist rate lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the petition for reinstatement of firearms rights. The jurisdiction of magistrates is spelled out in Iowa Code section 602.6405. See State v. Moret , 486 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Iowa 1992). That code section doe s not contemplate magistrates deciding petitions seeking restoration of firearm rights. See Iowa Code § 602.6405. Because the magistrate lacked jurisdiction, the magistrate’s order is void. See Wilson v. Iowa Dist. Ct. , 297 N.W.2d 223, 226 (Iowa 1980) ( holding district court decision was of3

no effect where court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeal ). A void order cannot be considered on appeal. See In re L.H

. , 890 N.W.2d 333, 338

– 3 9 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) . Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
A PPEAL DISMISSED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2109 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

Election Assistance Commission, Salaries and Expenses 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 House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, Election Assistance Commission, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, ELECTION ASSIST5 ANCE COMMISSION, SALARIES AND EX6 PENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Independent Agencies, Election Assistance ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:00 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2109.IH H2109

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2109 IH

1 mission, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $9,200,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2076 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2076

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
Office of the President, Special Assistance to the President, Salaries 
                   and Expenses 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, Special Assistance to the President, Salaries 
                   and Expenses 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, SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT, 
              SALARIES AND EXPENSES 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, Special Assistance to the President, Salaries and Expenses 
for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $4,288,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,176
<PP&E>                                       2,196,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,357,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,408,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,552
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,357,302
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,621
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (143,713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.007)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350








William
C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group,
Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California
Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:




(1)           
the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”) fully complies with the applicable requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 Registrant.








/s/ William C.
Owens


William
C. Owens


Chief
Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
Partner


May 15,
2008








/s/ Bryan H.
Draper


Bryan H.
Draper


Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
Partner


May 15,
2008
Third Department,

January, 2009

(January 8, 2009)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcus D. Page, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 805]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered September 8, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Defendant resolved a two-count indictment by pleading guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Appellate counsel for defendant seeks to be relieved of her assignment on the basis that there are no nonfrivolous issues to *887be pursued on appeal. After review of the record, including defendant’s pro se submission, we agree. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
#### The State *v.*Johnson.

APPEAL from the Grant Common Pleas..

*jh. L. Custer*and *y. C. Denny,*Attorney General, for the State.

*G. W. Haney,*for appellee.

Pettit, J.

This case, in all legal respects, is the same as *The State*v. *Saxon, post,*p. 484, and must have the same result.

The judgment is affirmed.