alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 530 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 15, 2009. 

Whereas the third annual Civil Rights Baseball Game is 

being held in Cincinnati, Ohio, at the Great American 

Ballpark on June 20, 2009; 

Whereas the Cincinnati Reds, the host of the Civil Rights 

Baseball Game, are recognized as being the first professional baseball team in the United States; 

Whereas the Major League Baseball Civil Rights Game was 

created to honor those who fought both on and off the 

field for the equal treatment of all people; 

Whereas baseball was at the forefront of the civil rights 

movement and was integrated before either the Armed 

Forces or the public schools; 

Whereas Cincinnati, Ohio, was home to the Negro League’s 

Cincinnati Tigers from 1934 to 1937; 

Whereas Cincinnati, Ohio, was an integral stop along the Underground Railroad as one of the first free ‘‘stations’’ 

slaves would encounter when escaping north; and 

Whereas Cincinnati, Ohio, is home to the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, which opened in 2004: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
2 

•HRES 530 EH 

(1) commend the purpose of the third annual Civil 

Rights Baseball Game; and 

(2) recognize the historical significance of the location of the Civil Rights Baseball Game in Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### William D. ARENDALL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Christine BRADLEY, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Correction, Defendant/Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section.

Aug. 18, 1995.

Application for Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court Jan. 8, 1996.

William D. Arendall, Pikeville, Pro Se.

Charles W. Burson, Attorney General & Reporter, Merrilyn Feirman, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Nashville, for appellee.

TODD, Presiding Judge, Middle Section.

*OPINION*

The captioned petitioner has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing his petition for declaratory judgment regarding the computation of his time of incarceration in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. The respondent moved the Trial Court to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, but affidavits were filed by both respondents and petitioner. The judgment must therefore be reviewed as a summary judgment. TRCP Rules 12.02, 56.

The uncontroverted evidence shows the following facts:

On October 23, 1972, petitioner received two sentences of 30 and 20 years to run consecutively. On January 3, 1976, following release from federal custody, he began to serve the 30 and 20 year sentences. On June 10,1985, petitioner received a further consecutive sentence of 3 years for escape. At some unstated time prior to December 5, 1986, the Parole Board erroneously granted petitioner a parole on the 30 year sentence effective December 5, 1986. This action was invalid because, at the time of sentencing, T.C.A. § 40-3612 provided that parole eligibility on a determinate sentence is set at one-half of the sentence imposed by the court. *Howell v. State,*(Tenn.1978), 569 S.W.2d 428. The Parole Board had no authority to parole petitioner on the 30 year sentence until he had served one-half or 15 years of it, that is, until January 3,1991. Upon the discovery of the invalidity of the action of the Parole Board, on January 13, 1994, the records of the Department of Correction were revised accordingly.

The crux of petitioner’s complaint is that the grant of parole cannot be rescinded. It has not been rescinded, it has been ignored because it was granted without authority, invalid, void, and ineffective.

All of the relief requested by petitioner is based upon his erroneous concept that the unauthorized action of the Parole Board conferred upon him a vested right which could not be withdrawn. This concept is erroneous, and cannot support a grant of relief.

*527The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against petitioner. The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for any necessary further proceedings.

Affirmed and Remanded.

LEWIS and CANTRELL, JJ., concur.
Sub-account Bonus Endorsement

This  endorsement  forms a part of the  contract to which it is  attached.  This
bonus is guaranteed and will be paid as described below.

     After the eighth  contract  year, a bonus of .01665% (.20% on an annualized
     basis) of the  variable  account  value will be  credited  on each  monthly
     anniversary day.

In all other respects, the terms, conditions and provisions of the contract will
remain the same.

Signed for Kansas City Life  Insurance  Company,  a stock  company,  at its Home
Office, 3520 Broadway, PO Box 419139, Kansas City, MO 64141-6139.

         /s/ C. John Malacarne                 /s/ R. Philip Bixby

                Secretary                            President
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29546-29547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14659]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-249-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request for Waiver and 
Filing of Take-or-Pay Reports

June 5, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee) tendered for filing a request for waiver of Section 2 of 
Article XXV of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Tennessee states that it is requesting this waiver to permit 
Tennessee to omit the filing of the revised tariff sheets scheduled to 
be filed by May 31, 1996, to be effective on July 1, 1996, in that 
Tennessee has not incurred significant additional take or pay costs 
since its last recovery filing submitted on November 30, 1995 in Docket 
No. RP96-61.
    Tennessee notes that the deferral of recovery of take-or-pay costs 
will not affect the accounting for additional costs and carrying 
charges, in accord with Article XXV, Section 3.2, and the costs will be 
recovered through future filings pursuant to Article XXV.
    Tennessee further notes that it is filing reports showing the 
derivation of the balances in its Demand and Volumetric Transition Cost 
Accounts, including carrying charge calculations, and the status of its 
recovery filings relative to the cap.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 12, 1996. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file an intervention. Copies of this filing are on

[[Page 29547]]

file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14659 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adult Printed Diapers LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Rearz Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00370-PHX-SMB

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the Application for Withdrawal of Counsel 

without Consent (Doc. 138).

Only licensed attorneys may represent a corporation in federal court. Rowland v.

Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Counsel, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993) (“It

has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in

federal courts only through licensed counsel.”) (citing Osborn v. President of Bank of U.S., 

9 Wheat. 738, 829 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824)); D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 

366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a longstanding rule that ‘corporations and other 

unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney’”) (alteration and 

citation omitted); In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations 

and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney”); United 

States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a 

corporation’s president and sole shareholder could not make an “end run around” the 

counsel requirement by intervening pro se rather than retaining counsel to represent the 

Case 2:18-cv-00370-SMB Document 140 Filed 08/28/19 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

corporation) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1654).

Accordingly, and pursuant to the Application for Withdrawal of Counsel Without

Consent (Doc. 138) and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Application (Doc. 138) and granting the withdrawal 

of Welsh Law Group as counsel of record in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has up to and

including September 23, 2019 to retain new counsel and for new counsel to file a Notice 

of Appearance in this action. Failure to obtain new counsel may result in the case being

dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating oral argument scheduled for September 5, 

2019. The Motions for Summary Judgement will be ruled on without oral argument.

Dated this 28th day of August, 2019.

Case 2:18-cv-00370-SMB Document 140 Filed 08/28/19 Page 2 of 2
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 677 

Extending best wishes to the people of India as they celebrate the 62nd 

anniversary of India’s independence from the British Empire. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2009 

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. ROYCE, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Extending best wishes to the people of India as they celebrate 

the 62nd anniversary of India’s independence from the 

British Empire. 

Whereas August 15th, India’s Independence Day, is a national holiday in India; 

Whereas, on August 15, 1947, India officially became a sovereign nation; 

Whereas, August 15, 2009, will mark the 62nd anniversary 

of the day India gained its independence from the British 

Empire; 

Whereas India has progressed as a secular, sovereign, and 

democratic republic, and continues to make progress toward social, economic, and gender equality; 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 677 IH 

Whereas India suffered brutal terrorist attacks in Mumbai on 

November 26, 2008, has long been a target for terrorist 

attacks, and yet responded with commendable diplomatic 

leadership; 

Whereas India is encouraged to alter the direction of its development to combat global climate change, and the 

United States looks forward to cooperating with India in 

its initiative to promote economic growth in a low-carbon 

environment; 

Whereas the United States is the largest trading partner of 

India, and foreign direct investment by India contributes 

significantly to the United States economy; 

Whereas India’s rapid economic growth offers immense opportunities for United States businesses; 

Whereas India has the largest number of foreign students in 

the United States, with over 90,000 students from India 

studying at universities in the United States; 

Whereas Americans of Indian origin are the fastest growing 

and one of the highest educated immigrant groups in the 

United States; 

Whereas India’s story of independence has inspired millions 

around the world to seek nonviolent solutions, including 

civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; 

Whereas India has recently carried out the largest ever recorded democratic election; and 

Whereas India and the United States have a strong ongoing 

partnership regarding the promotion of democratic values, cooperation on international security, and collaboration on strategic initiatives: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 677 IH 

1 (1) looks forward to ongoing friendship with 

2 India and continuing partnership in matters of mu3 tual concern; 

4 (2) applauds the Indian-American community 

5 for the important role it plays in the relationship be6 tween the United States and India; and 

7 (3) extends best wishes to the people of India 

8 as they celebrate the 62nd anniversary of India’s 

9 independence from the British Empire. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13677]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notice of Appealable 
Decisions for the Northern Region; Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and 
Portions of South Dakota and Eastern Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by all 
Ranger Districts, Forests, and the Regional Office of the Northern 
Region to publish legal notice of all decisions subject to appeal under 
36 CFR 215 and 217 and to publish notices for public comment and notice 
of decision subject to the provisions of 36 CFR 215. The intended 
effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public 
which newspapers will be used to publish legal notices for public 
comment or decisions; thereby allowing them to receive constructive 
notice of a decision, to provide clear evidence of timely notice, and 
to achieve consistency in administering the appeals process.

DATES: Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin 
with decisions subject to appeal that are made on or after May 23, 
1996. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until another notice 
is published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward C. Monnig; Acting Regional Appeals and Litigation Coordinator; 
Northern Region; P.O. Box 7669; Missoula, Montana 59807. Phone: (406) 
239-3647.
    The newspapers to be used are as follows:

Northern Regional Office

    Regional Forester decisions in Montana: The Missoulian, Great Falls 
Tribune, and The Billings Gazette.
    Regional Forester decisions in Northern Idaho and Eastern 
Washington: The Spokesman Review.
    Regional Forester decisions in North Dakota: Bismarck Tribune.
    Regional Forester decisions in South Dakota: Rapid City Journal.
    Beaverhead/Deerlodge--Montana Standard.
    Bitterroot--Ravalli Republic.
    Clearwater--Lewiston Morning Tribune.
    Custer--Billings Gazette (Montana), Bismarck Tribune (North 
Dakota), Rapid City Journal (South Dakota).
    Flathead--Daily Interlake.
    Gallatin--Bozeman Chronicle.
    Helena--Independent Record.
    Idaho Panhandle--Spokesman Review.
    Kootenai--Daily Interlake.
    Lewis & Clark--Great Falls Tribune.
    Lolo--Missoulian.
    Nez Perce--Lewiston Morning Tribune.
    Supplemental notices may be placed in any newspaper, but time 
frames/deadlines will be calculated based upon notices in newspapers of 
record listed above.

    Dated: May 23, 1996.
Richard M. Bacon,
Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 96-13677 Filed 5-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Support.com, Inc.



|                                          |  |                                                        
|----------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                        |  | State or Jurisdiction in whichIncorporated or Organized
|Domestic Subsidiaries                     |  |                                                        
|Support.com Gift Cards, Inc.              |  | California                                             
|SDC Software, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                                               
|                                          | 
|Foreign Subsidiaries                      |  |                                                        
|SupportSoft Belgium BVBA                  |  | Belgium                                                
|SupportSoft Canada Inc.                   |  | Canada                                                 
|YourTechOnline.com Inc.                   |  | Canada                                                 
|SupportSoft GmbH                          |  | Germany                                                
|Support.com India Pvt Ltd                 |  | India                                                  
|SupportSoft España, S.L.                  |  | Spain                                                  
|Support.com Limited                       |  | UK                                                     
|Support.com Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.    |  | Mexico                                                 
|Support.com Servicios, S. de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27937-27938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13751]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.


[[Page 27938]]


    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Social, 
Behavioral & Economic Sciences (#1171).
    Date and Time: June 18-19, 1996; 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Place: Room 320, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed
    Contact Person: William S. Bainbridge and Patricia White, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1756.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials.
    Agenda: To provide oversight review of the Sociology Program.
    Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed to the public because 
the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that will include 
privileged intellectual property and personal information that could 
harm individuals if they are disclosed. If discussions were open to 
the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act would be improperly 
disclosed.

    Dated: May 28, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-13751 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of
Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward J. Schneider, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 25, 2010



/s/ Edward J. SchneiderEdward J. SchneiderChief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20415 Conference Calendar

JASON LEON RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus S. EDGAR, Deputy Sheriff; TOMMY THOMAS, Sheriff; HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HARRIS, TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-2913

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jason Leon Ray, Texas prisoner # 955809, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants S. Edgar and Tommy Thomas on Ray’s excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ray argues that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ summary judgment motion prior to receiving his response. Ray notes that he was proceeding pro se in the district court, and he contends that he was never informed of a time limit to respond to the defendants’ motion for summaryNo. 04-20415 -2- judgment and that he was ignorant of the local rules of the district court. The sole notice requirement when a motion for summary judgment has been filed is that the motion must be served at least 10 days before the summary judgment hearing is held. See
F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c); Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh , 11 F.3d 1284, 1293 n.11 (5th Cir. 1994). A court satisfies the notice requirements of Rule 56 if local rules require that a response to a summary judgment motion be filed within a specified period.
See Rodriguez v. Pacificare of Tex., Inc. , 980 F.2d 1014, 1020 (5th Cir. 1993). The local rules of the district court provide sufficient notice for a pro se litigant such as Ray. See
S.D. T EX . C IV . R. 7.3 & 7.4; Martin v. Harrison County Jail , 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). Ray also argues that the district court would not have granted summary judgment had it considered the evidence presented in his late-filed response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion. In considering an argument that the grant of summary judgment was improper, this court considers “only the evidence that was in front of the district court.” Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ. , 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Ray has failed to provide a “valid excuse” for his failure to produce the evidence prior to the district court’s ruling on the summary judgment motion, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief.
See id. at 1052.No. 04-20415 -3- The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.