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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1987 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute 

on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 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 Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute on Deafness and Other 

Communication Disorders 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1987 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NA4 TIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND 

5 OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS FOR 

6 FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Na10 tional Institutes of Health National Institute on Deafness 

11 and Other Communication Disorders for fiscal year 2024 

12 may not exceed $474,404,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1453 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code, to allow full subrogation, 

including subrogation to the priority rights of the United States, of 

claims for the payment of customs duties. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2023 

Mr. GARBARINO (for himself, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. BACON, and Mrs. MCBATH) 

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

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code, to allow 

full subrogation, including subrogation to the priority 

rights of the United States, of claims for the payment 

of customs duties. 

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 ‘‘Customs Business 

5 Fairness Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1453 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 507(d) of title 11, United States Code, is 

3 amended by inserting ‘‘excluding subparagraph (F)’’ after 

4 ‘‘(a)(8)’’. 

5 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT. 

6 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub7 section (b), this Act and the amendment made by this Act 

8 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

9 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment 

10 made by this Act shall not apply with respect to cases com11 menced under title 11 of the United States Code before 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
11929.

#### Williams *v.*The State.

Decided January 25, 1921.

Conviction of assault and battery; from Bacon superior court — Judge Summerall. September 11, 1920.

*I. J. Bussell,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. B. Spence, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

It appearing from the recitals in the bill of exceptions in this case that the bill of exceptions was tendered to the trial court more than 20 days after the date of the judgment complained of, the bill of exceptions must be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.*
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | 1. |  | Registration Statement No. 333-155731 on Form S-3 of OMNOVA Solutions Inc.;
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. |  | Registration Statement No. 333-100558 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 3. |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 4. |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88145 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 5. |  | Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 6. |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88587 on Form S-3 of OMNOVA Solutions Inc.;
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 7. |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 8. |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



of our report dated January 27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. and our report dated January 27, 2009, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of OMNOVA Solutions Inc., both included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of OMNOVA
Solutions Inc. for the year ended November 30, 2008.



/s/ Ernst &
Young LLP

Akron, Ohio

January 27, 2009
11383.

#### Skinner *v.*Hillis.

Decided October 19, 1920.

Trover; from city court of Waynesboro — Judge Davis. January 27, 1920.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. This being an action in trover to recover cotton alleged to be in the possession of the seller, the sole issue in the trial is that of title to the property in dispute. *Berry*v. *Jackson,*115 *Ga.*196 (41 S. E. 698, 90 Am. St. Rep. 102) ; *Barfield Music House*v. *Harris,*20 *Ga. App.*42 (92 S. E. 402).

2. Title to cotton sold by planters and commission merchants, on cash sale, does not pass until it is fully paid for. Civil Code (1910) § 4126; *Sell*v. Moss, 11 *Ga. App.*854 (75 S. E. 985, 76 S. E. 988).

*(а)*Just as it has been held that the provisions of this statute are applicable to sales by commission merchants and factors on their own account, as well as sales by them as representatives of the planter *National Bank of Augusta*v. *Augusta Cotton Co.,*104 *Ga.*403, 30 S. E. 888; *Savannah Cotton-Press Asso.*v. *MacIntyre,*92 *Ga.*166, 17 S. E. 320), so it has been held that the provisions of this statute are applicable to sales by a planter, without reference to whether the particular cotton involved was produced by Mm or acquired from another. *Butler*v. *Ga. & Ala. Ry.,*119 *Ga.*959 (2) (47 S. E. 320).

(b) The term “ on cash sale,” as here used, is not confined to sales where the payment of actual money is to be made immediately, but includes all sales where it is expressly understood that the payment of actual money shall not be delayed for any longer period of time than is necessary, in the ordinary and usual course of business. *McCall*v. *Hunter,*8 *Ga. App.*612 (70 S. E. 59).

3. It follows that, irrespective of whether or not the contract in this ease was within the statute of frauds, and whatever might be the rights of the plaintiff in a claim for breach of contract, the action in trover will not lie, since, under the statute referred to, the title to the cotton had not passed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*

*712*E. V. Heath,*for plaintiff.

*Brinson & Hatcher,*for defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY and KIMBERLY 

MCKEAND, individually and as 

parent and next friend of K.S., a 

minor,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0208-CG-N

LUTHER STRANGE, in his capacity 

as Attorney General for the State of 

Alabama,

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT be and is 

hereby entered in favor plaintiffs, Cari D. Searcy and Kimberly McKeand and 

against defendant, Luther Strange, in his capacity as Attorney General for 

the State of Alabama.

ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are 

hereby DECLARED to be unconstitutional because they violate they Due 

Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. The defendant Luther Strange, in his capacity as Attorney 

General for the State of Alabama, is hereby ENJOINED from enforcing 

those laws. Costs are to be taxed against the defendant. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 54 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32(b)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries ("the Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Barry Weiner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the 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 results of operations of
the Company.



Date:  December 8, 2006                          By:  /s/ BARRY WEINER
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Barry Weiner
                                                      Chief Financial Officer




         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Act
Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ISAAC DAVIS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0138-KD-C

DANIEL L. MCCARTHY, et al., :

Defendants.

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)(l)(B) and dated August 26, 2015, is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

Accordingly, the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the City of Mobile (Doc. 19) and 

Sergeant Melvin Jones (Doc. 13) ARE GRANTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. The motion to 

dismiss filed on behalf of Officer Daniel McCarthy and Corporal Lorenzo Matthews (Doc. 17) is 

also GRANTED. 

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 

over Davis’ state law claims against McCarthy and Matthews. Therefore, those claims are 

DISMISSED without prejudice. See, e.g., Ingram v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 167 Fed. 

Appx. 107, 109 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“When a court decides not to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) because only state claims remain, the proper action 

is a dismissal without prejudice so that the complaining party may pursue the claim in state 

Case 1:15-cv-00138-KD-C Document 45 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 2
court.”) (citing Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (“If he decides to dismiss 

these state-law claims, then they should be dismissed without prejudice so that the claims may be 

refiled in the appropriate state court.”). Mr. Davis may pursue the state law claims asserted 

against McCarthy and Matthews, if he so chooses, in state court.

DONE this the 7th day of October 2015.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00138-KD-C Document 45 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2007 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2007

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
    Health and Human Services, The Administration for Children and 
 Families, Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family 
                 Support Programs 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 Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
    Health and Human Services, The Administration for Children and 
 Families, Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family 
                 Support Programs 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 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND 
              FAMILIES, PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT 
              ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, The Administration for Children and Families, Payments 
to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $2,795,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
LNT 6.30.2015 10-Q Ex 10.2






Exhibit 10.2
AMENDMENT TO THE
ALLIANT ENERGY RABBI TRUST AGREEMENT


This Amendment is adopted as of February 24, 2006, by and between Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., an Iowa corporation (the “Sponsor”), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national banking association, as trustee (the “Trustee”);


W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, the Sponsor and the Trustee adopted the Alliant Energy Rabbi Trust Agreement as of December 29, 2005 and now desire to amend certain provisions thereof;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor and the Trustee do hereby amend Sections 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 to read as follows:


5.6     Notwithstanding Sections 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, any appointment by the Sponsor of an Investment Manager or a Named Fiduciary shall terminate upon the occurrence of a Change in Control, and neither the Sponsor, nor any successor to the Sponsor, shall thereafter have any power to appoint an Investment Manager or a Named Fiduciary with respect to any portion of the assets of the Trust. Except as provided in Section 5.8 hereof with respect to Company Stock, the Trustee shall be the Investment Manager of the entire Trust Fund upon the occurrence of a Change in Control.


5.7     The Trustee may invest in shares of the Common Stock, $.01 par value, of Alliant Energy Corporation or any successor security thereto (“Company Stock”). All rights associated with shares of Company Stock that are held by the Trust shall be exercised by the Trustee, and shall in no event be exercisable by or rest with Plan participants.


5.8     After a Change in Control, the Trustee shall invest all contributions (and dividends attributable thereto) with respect to which participants have directed or shall direct their benefits to be measured by the performance of Company Stock in Company Stock. A fiduciary independent of the Trustee and the Company, appointed by the Trustee, shall direct the Trustee with regard to the exercise of all rights associated with shares of Company Stock that are held by the Trust.


	
			
	ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.
	 
	WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

	 
	 
	 

	By: /s/ Thomas L. Hanson
	 
	By: /s/ Laurie Adams Temple

	Thomas L. Hanson
	 
	Laurie Adams Temple

	Its Vice President and Treasurer
	 
	Its Vice President
#### In the Matter of Philip Jiminez, Petitioner, v Albert Prack, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[966 NYS2d 918]

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling and unauthorized legal assistance. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to smuggling and was found guilty of the remaining charge. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding which solely challenges the determination of guilt as to the unauthorized legal assistance charge. Upon review, respondent concedes, and we agree, that the determination finding *1267petitioner guilty of unauthorized legal assistance must be annulled and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. In light of the fact that the penalty as to that charge has already been served and there was no loss of good time, there is no need to remit the matter for redetermination of the penalty *(see Matter of Nieves v Venettozzi,*102 AD3d 1027, 1027 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 852 [2013]).

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of unauthorized legal assistance; petition granted to that extent and the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.
#### In re Salvatore SPINNATO, Petitioner.

No. 07-7377.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2007.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2007.

Salvatore Spinnato, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Salvatore Spinnato petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to reopen his habeas petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The district court has recently ruled on the motion to reopen. *Spinnato v. Galley,*No. 1:02-cv-04213-JFM (D.Md. Nov. 15, 2007). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot.* 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 To the extent Spinnato seeks to challenge the district court's order, a mandamus petition may not serve as a substitute for an appeal. *See In re United Steelworkers,*595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
#### Charles Weiss, Respondent, *v.*Imperator Realty Company, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 9, 1925.

Mortgages — chattel mortgage — failure of chattel mortgagee to file mortgage within reasonable time bars action against subsequent creditor of mortgagor for interference with chattels.

A chattel mortgagee, whose mortgage was not filed for more than a year after execution, may not maintain an action against a creditor of the chattel mortgagor, predicated upon an interference with the chattels, since, as to said creditor, whose debt had accrued subsequently, the said mortgage was void, in that it was withheld from filing for an unreasonable length of time.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District, in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1,062.50 after a trial by a judge without a jury.

*Herman & Ernst [Harry E. Herman*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Zodikow & Wieder [Herman M. Zodikow*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

On the 6th of May, 1924, one Friedman executed a chattel mortgage on certain office furniture and other goods to plaintiff. On June 1, 1925, Friedman, the mortgagor, became indebted to defendant in the sum of $166.66 for rent pursuant to a lease. On the sixth of June, the due date of the mortgage, it was not paid and the mortgagee the following day went to the defendant accompanied by a marshal and announced that he intended to take possession of the chattels. What happened at that conversation is disputed, but assuming that the defendant requested the plaintiff not to take possession of the chattels, and even assuming that he made some promise in relation thereto, no right of plaintiff was infringed because no right then existed. The mortgage had been withheld from filing throughout all this period, which is as matter of law an unreasonable length of time *(Tooker*v. *Siegel-Cooper Co.,*194 N. Y. 442), and it was, therefore, void as to defendant, a creditor whose debt had meanwhile accrued. (See *Skilton*v. *Codington,*185 N. Y. 80, 86; *Davidson*v. *Osborne,*151 App. Div. 747, 748.)

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Proskauer, JJ.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal
                     Financial Officer of Southern First Bancshares, Inc. (the "company"),
                     each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
                     certification: 1. The annual report of the company for the period ended December 31,
                     2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this
                     date (the "Report") fully complies with the 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 company. Date: March 4, 2011
                           
                           
                           By:
                           
                           
                           /s/R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.Chief Executive Officer  Date: March 4, 2011
                           
                           
                           By:
                           
                           
                           /s/F. Justin StricklandF. Justin StricklandPresident, Principal Financial Officer