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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1295 

Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the 

goals and ideals of Mother’s Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2010 

Mr. FORTENBERRY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and 

supporting the goals and ideals of Mother’s Day. 

Whereas Mother’s Day is celebrated on the second Sunday of 

each May; 

Whereas the first official Mother’s Day was observed on May 

10, 1908, in Grafton, West Virginia, and Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; 

Whereas 2010 is the 102nd anniversary of the first official 

Mother’s Day observation; 

Whereas in 1908, Elmer Burkett, a U.S. senator from Nebraska, proposed making Mother’s Day a national holiday; 

Whereas in 1914, Congress passed a resolution designating 

the second Sunday of May as Mother’s Day; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1295 IH 

Whereas it is estimated that there are more than 82,000,000 

mothers in the United States; 

Whereas mothers have made immeasurable contributions toward building strong families, thriving communities, and 

ultimately a strong Nation; 

Whereas the services rendered to the children of the United 

States by their mothers have strengthened and inspired 

the Nation throughout its history; 

Whereas George Washington said, ‘‘My mother was the most 

beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual, and physical education I received from her.’’; 

Whereas Abraham Lincoln said, ‘‘All that I am or ever hope 

to be, I owe to my angel mother.’’; 

Whereas we honor ourselves and mothers in the United 

States when we revere and emphasize the importance of 

the role of the home and family as the true foundation 

of the Nation; 

Whereas mothers continue to rise to the challenge of raising 

their families with love, understanding, and compassion, 

while overcoming the challenges of modern society; and 

Whereas May 9, 2010, is recognized as Mother’s Day: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives cele2 brates the role of mothers in the United States and sup3 ports the goals and ideals of Mother’s Day. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
No. 59.

#### United States *v.*Campbell.

Argued October 28, 1931.

Decided November 2, 1931.

*Assistant Attorney General St. Lewis,*with whom *Solicitor General' Thacher*and *Messrs. W. Clifton Stone*and *Paul D. Miller*were on the brief, for the United States.

*Mr. David F. Lee*for respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

Judgment reversed. Section 309, World War Veterans’ Act, as amended by the Act of July 2, 1926, c. 723, 44 Stat. 790, 800 (U. S. C. App., Title 38, § 516 b) ; *United States*v. *Worley,*281 U. S. 339; *Jackson*v. *United States,*281 U. S. 344.
#### Derian Douglas HICKMAN, Appellant v. ALDERSON COURT TRANSCRIPTS SERVICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT, et al., Appellees.

No. 10-5212.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 4, 2010.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 22, 2010.

Derian Douglas Hickman, Washington, DC, pro se.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge; and GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 4, 2010, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice on the ground the complaint did not meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). *See Ciralsky v. CIA*355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). That rule requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a), in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29746-29747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13777]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6938-9]


Maryland: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Maryland has applied to EPA for Final authorization of changes 
to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant such Final authorization to 
Maryland. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. 
EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because 
we believe this action is not controversial and we do not expect 
comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this 
authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we 
get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment 
period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it 
establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If 
we get comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate 
final rule, and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public 
comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have 
another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, 
you must do so at this time.

[[Page 29747]]


DATES: Send your written comments by July 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Carol Johnson, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA 
State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3378. You can 
examine copies of the materials submitted by Maryland during normal 
business hours at the following locations: EPA Region III, Library, 2nd 
Floor, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: 
(215) 814-5254; or Maryland Department of the Environment, Waste 
Management Administration, Hazardous Waste Program, 2500 Broening 
Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, Phone number (410) 631-3345. If you 
are interested in examining copies at the Maryland Department of the 
Environment, please contact Mr. Edward Hammerberg.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Johnson, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA 
State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone number (215) 814-3378.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 17, 2001.
Bradley M. Campbell,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 01-13777 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
Exhibit 10.3
             SECOND AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


      THIS SECOND AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (the
"Amendment") is entered into as of the 22nd day of July, 2005, by and between
NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and
THORNHILL CAPITAL LLC. ("Consultant").

                                    Recitals

      WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant entered into a consulting agreement
      dated December 5, 2001 (the "Consulting Agreement").

      WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant continue to operate under the terms of
      the Consulting Agreement.

      WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant wish to amend certain terms of the
      Consulting Agreement through execution of this Amendment.



      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is acknowledged, the parties mutually covenant and agree as follows:

      1.    Section 1.1 is hereby amended to provide that the Initial Term, as
            defined in the Consulting Agreement, shall now be defined as two (2)
            years from the effective date of this Amendment.

      2.    Section 1.2 is hereby amended to provide that, retroactive to, and
            effective as of July 1, 2005, monthly compensation paid by the
            Company to Consultant shall be $19,500.00.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the day and year first above written.


NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                  THORNHILL CAPITAL LLC


By: /s/ David A. Dodge                       By: /s/ Alan Refkin
    -----------------------                      -----------------------

Its: CFO                                     Its: Managing Director
     ----------------------                       ----------------------
```

[Federal Register: March 26, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 14707]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr99-77]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, April 19, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington D.C., 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-7589 Filed 2-24-99; 12:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report of GreenMan
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September
30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Charles E. Coppa, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
            78o(d)); 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: February 5, 2008

/s/ Charles E. Coppa
--------------------
Charles E. Coppa
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Merrek MASON, by and through his parents; Rick MASON; Julie Mason; Kelsie Mason, by and through her parents Rick & Julie Mason, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-35850.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2006.

Filed June 9, 2006.

Carl Taylor Lopez, Esq., Lopez & Fan-tel, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Eugene A. Studer, Esq., USTA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TALLMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and HUFF,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

The Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge manager exercised discretion as contemplated by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80, in deciding which natural features constituted safety hazards in need of warning and how such warning should be given. We think this case is closest to the following line of warning cases: *Childers v. United States,*40 F.3d 973, 975-76 (9th Cir.1995), *Valdez v. United States,*56 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir.1995), and *Blackburn v. United States,*100 F.3d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir.1996). The decision of the manager “involve[d] the permissible exercise of policy judgment.” *Berkovitz v. United States,*486 U.S. 531, 537, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988); *see Blackburn,*100 F.3d at 1433-34. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: March 17, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 12644]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr04-48]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, April 2, 2004.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.

Status: Closed.

matters to be considered: Surveillance matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-6124 Filed 3-15-04; 1:53 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### YA YING WU; Bao Guo Zhao, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1324.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 5, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 29, 2010.

*850Gregory Marotta, Law Office of Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New Jersey, for Peti-tioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, David H. Wetmore, Of-fice of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. be is

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ya Ying Wu and her husband, Bao Guo Zhao (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their re-quests for asylum and withholding of re-moval. Wu is the primary applicant for asylum; the claims of her husband are derivative of her application. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2010). the

The Petitioners first challenge the deter-mination that they failed to establish their eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evi-dence he [or she] presented was so com-pelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecu-tion.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that the Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the evidence com-pels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial evidence supports the de-nial of relief. Dave UNITED States

Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’ request for withholding of re-moval. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum&emdash;even though the facts that must be proved are the same&emdash;an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineli-gible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because the Petitioners failed to establish that they are eligible for asylum, they cannot meet the higher standard for with-holding of removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be-fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors
CenterSpan Communications Corp.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Nos.
333-40323 and 333-57521 and 333-59610) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-68192, 333-55554, 333-73333, 333-86825) on Form S-3 of CenterSpan
Communications Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated February 11,
2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets and related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows of CenterSpan
Communications Corporation and subsidiaries for the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 Form 10-K
of CenterSpan Communications Corporation filed on or about March 28, 2003. Our
report dated February 11, 2003, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from continuing operations, has
limited cash on hand, and has yet to generate sustainable revenue streams. These
matters raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments
that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 28, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1270 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1270

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 22, 2010.
Whereas current educational and economic trends indicate that the demand for 
        employees with a high-quality mathematics education could exceed the 
        supply of individuals with such an education;
Whereas students who pursue a postsecondary education in mathematics have a 
        broad range of career choices upon graduation;
Whereas Mathematics Awareness Month began in 1986 as Mathematics Awareness Week;
Whereas April 2010, is recognized as Mathematics Awareness Month;
Whereas the theme for Mathematics Awareness Month 2010, ``Mathematics and 
        Sports'', highlights uses for an education in mathematics across a broad 
        range of subjects and helps to show students the role of mathematics in 
        their everyday lives and interests;
Whereas mathematics is found in sports in the forms of measurement, time, 
        computation, fractions, statistics, and probability; and
Whereas Mathematics Awareness Month encourages colleges, universities, and other 
        organizations to hold events that draw and retain students to the field 
        of mathematics: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Mathematics Awareness Month;
            (2) encourages colleges, universities, and other organizations to 
        hold events to honor Mathematics Awareness Month; and
            (3) supports increased public awareness and appreciation for the 
        importance of mathematics at all levels of the educational system in the 
        United States.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Heflin , Slip Opinion No. 202 4
- Ohio
- 4 4 9 .]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 , of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2024
- O HIO - 4 4 9 T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELL EE , v. H EFLIN , A PPELL ANT . [ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Heflin , Slip Opinion No. 202 4
- Ohio
- 4 4 9 .] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Daniel and State v. Hacker

. (No. 20 2 2

- 1 637 ―Submitted February 6 , 202 4 ―Decided February 13 , 2024 .) C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Wood County, No. WD

- 22

- 006

.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the c ourt of a ppeals is affirm ed on the authority of State v. Daniel , __ Ohio St.3d

__ , 202 3

- Ohio

- 4035 , __ N.E.3d __, and State v. Hacker , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023

- Ohio

- 2535 , __ N.E.3d __. K ENNEDY , C.J., and D E W INE , S TEWART , and D ETERS , JJ., concur. F ISCHER and B RUNNER , JJ., concur in judgment only for the reasons set forth in their separate opinions in Daniel

. D ONNELLY , J., dissents.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Paul A. Dobson , Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. Harold , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney , for appell ee
. Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appel lant , Ronnie Heflin

.

_________________
[965 NE2d 958, 942 NYS2d 456]

#### James L. Melcher, Appellant, v Apollo Medical Fund Management L.L.C. et al., Respondents.

Decided February 21, 2012

*916APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP,*New York City *(Stephen P. Younger*of counsel), for appellant.

*Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP,*New York City *(Scott R. Matthews*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, the appeals by plaintiff that were dismissed in the October 2010 order of the Appellate Division reinstated, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

In its October 2010 order, brought up for review on this appeal, the Appellate Division sua sponte dismissed plaintiffs appeals without articulating the basis for its order. We conclude that dismissal was an abuse of discretion. No grounds for dismissing the appeals appear tenable from the record. Plaintiff timely perfected his appeals under the First Department’s rules, and the court did not give plaintiff adequate notice if it shortened the time period for him to perfect the appeals. On this record, the appeals could not have been properly dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s orders. Accordingly, plaintiffs *917appeals that were dismissed by the October 2010 Appellate Division order should be reinstated and the case remitted to the Appellate Division to consider the merits of those appeals. In light of this remittal, we do not reach the other issue raised by plaintiff on this appeal.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.