alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the condensed
consolidated financial condition at September 30, 1996 (unaudited) and the 
condensed consolidated statement of income for the nine months ended September 
30, 1996 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by the reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000883076                       
<NAME> biosys, inc.                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         755
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    4,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,617
<PP&E>                                         16,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          17,061
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    312
<COMMON>                                       9
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,694
<SALES>                                        18,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,238
<CGS>                                          16,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  32,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               44
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,395)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,395)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (2.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (2.03)
        


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6010 

To invalidate the use of United States passports to travel to Iran, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2023 

Mr. MCCORMICK (for himself, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. WALTZ, 

and Mr. CLYDE) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To invalidate the use of United States passports to travel 

to Iran, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop the Iranian Hos5 tage Business Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVALIDATION OF PASSPORTS FOR TRAVEL TO 

7 IRAN. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State shall take 

9 such steps as may be necessary, pursuant to the authority 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6010 IH

1 provided by section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to regu2 late the issue and validity of passports, and for other pur3 poses’’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a; com4 monly referred to as the ‘‘Passport Act’’), to declare 

5 United States passports invalid for travel to, in, or 

6 through Iran. 

7 (b) EXCEPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TRAVEL.—The re8 striction under subsection (a) may be waived with respect 

9 to an individual’s passport if the Secretary of State deter10 mines that such individual is traveling to Iran in the na11 tional interest due to the fact that— 

12 (1) the applicant is a professional reporter or 

13 journalist, the purpose of whose trip is to obtain, 

14 and make available to the public, information about 

15 Iran; 

16 (2) the applicant is a representative of the 

17 International Committee of the Red Cross or the 

18 American Red Cross traveling pursuant to an offi19 cially-sponsored Red Cross mission; 

20 (3) the applicant’s travel is justified by compel21 ling humanitarian considerations including— 

22 (A) visiting a family member who is par23 ticularly vulnerable because of age, disability, or 

24 living circumstances; 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6010 IH

1 (B) caring for a seriously or terminally ill 

2 relative; 

3 (C) attending a funeral; or 

4 (D) receiving medical treatment; or 

5 (4) the applicant’s travel is otherwise in the na6 tional interest. 

7 (c) TERMINATION.—The restriction under subsection 

8 (a) shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Franklin Lee JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1688

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 25, 2018

Franklin Lee Jones, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*1024The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Lewis, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.21



Five9, Inc.
2019 Executive Bonus Program


On February 11, 2019, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Five9, Inc. (the “Company”) approved performance targets for the year ending December 31, 2019 that will be used to determine the amount of cash bonus awards that may be earned, on a quarterly basis, by the Company’s Section 16 officers pursuant to the Company’s 2019 bonus program (the “2019 Bonus Program”).
  
Funding of the 2019 Bonus Program will be based upon the Company’s financial performance and each officer’s individual performance for each quarter in the year ending December 31, 2019, using a weighting of 80% for the Company’s financial performance and 20% for individual performance for each executive officer other than our (i) Chief Executive Officer, (ii) President, and (iii) Chief Marketing Officer. Our Chief Executive Officer’s bonus will be funded 100% based upon the Company’s financial performance. Our President’s bonus will be funded 75% based on sales commissions, 18.75% based on Company’s financial performance, and 6.25% based on his individual performance. Our Chief Marketing Officer’s bonus will be funded 50% based on the Company’s financial performance and 50% based on his individual performance. Financial performance will be based upon the Company’s achievement of predetermined revenue and adjusted EBITDA targets using a weighting of 75% for performance achieved against the revenue target and 25% for performance achieved against the adjusted EBITDA target. Achievement below 90% of the revenue target or 80% of the adjusted EBITDA target would result in no cash payout with respect to such target. Achievement up to 125% of the revenue target would result in increasing payouts up to a maximum payout of 150% of the portion of the target bonus allocated to the revenue target. Achievement up to 150% of the adjusted EBITDA target would result in increasing payouts up to a maximum payout of 150% of the portion of the target bonus allocated to the adjusted EBITDA target. In the event that the Company’s actual adjusted EBITDA is below 80% of the adjusted EBITDA target, the maximum cash payout for achieving the revenue target will be 100% of the revenue target bonus.


Below are the annual target bonus levels under the 2019 Bonus Program for the Company’s Section 16 officers:  
	
							
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name
	 
	Annual Target Bonus
(USD)
	 
	Annual Target Bonus as a Percentage of Base Salary

	Rowan Trollope
	 
	$
	661,250
	 
	 
	115%

	Barry Zwarenstein
	 
	$
	287,250
	 
	 
	75%

	Daniel Burkland
	 
	$
	325,000
	 
	 
	81%

	Scott Welch
	 
	$
	198,600
	 
	 
	60%

	Ryan Kam
	 
	$
	178,200
	 
	 
	60%

	James Doran
	 
	$
	211,250
	 
	 
	65%

	David Pickering
	 
	$
	201,000
	 
	 
	60%

	Jonathan Rosenberg
	 
	$
	210,000
	 
	 
	60%
#### George E. ADAMS et al., Appellants, v. George M. HUMPHREY, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Appellees.

No. 12603.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Oct. 19, 1955.

Decided Nov. 23, 1955.

*41Mr. Claude L. Dawson, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Mr. Gerard J. O’Brien, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, *U. S.*Atty., Lewis Carroll and William F. Becker, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before BAZELON, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants are veterans who were already employed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing when they accepted offers of appointment from the Bureau to jobs as apprentice plate printers. These jobs were created by the Bureau in connection with a four-year training program approved by the Veterans Administration for subsistence allowances under the educational and vocational training provisions of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act.1 After some of the appellants had served two and one-half years and others one and one-half years, the Bureau abolished these apprentice jobs and offered appellants other jobs pursuant to applicable Civil Service and Veterans Preference laws. Appellants thereupon filed this suit in the District Court against officers in charge of the Bureau, for restoration to the apprentice jobs; and against the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, for continuation of their subsistence allowances. The complaint, captioned “Suit for a Mandatory Injunction to Require the Defendants to Perform a Purely Ministerial Duty * * was dismissed by the District Court on the ground that no cause of action was stated upon which relief could be granted.

The complaint was properly dismissed. The creation or abolition of Government jobs, within the scope of the authority given by law to supervisory officials, requires primarily a judgment as to the needs of public business. The determination of those needs plainly involves the exercise of discretion, not the performance of a ministerial duty which can be compelled by mandamus. Since there is no showing here that appellees abused their discretion, or departed from applicable law and procedures *in*determining that appellants’ jobs should be abolished, we cannot disturb their action.2

Affirmed.

1

. 57 Stat. 43 (3943), as amended, 58 Stat. 287 (1944), 38 U.S.C.A. § 703(f).

2

. See Work v. United States ex rel. Rives, 1925, 267 U.S. 175, 177, 183, 45 S.Ct. 252, 69 L.Ed. 561. See also Powell v. Brannan, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 17, 196 F.2d 871, 873. The case against the Veterans Administrator necessarily falls with abolition of the jobs for which subsistence allowances were paid.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1260

ADRIAN D. PUGH,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

 Defendant – Appellee,

and

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:13-cv-02862-DKC)

Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian D. Pugh, Appellant Pro Se. Edward B. Lattner, COUNTY 

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian D. Pugh appeals the district court’s judgment 

granting the Montgomery County Board of Education’s summary 

judgment motion on her race discrimination claims, brought 

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 

2015). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, although we grant Pugh’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. See Pugh v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 

No. 8:13-cv-02862-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2016). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FILED AS
PART OF THE APACHE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. FORM 10-Q/A FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q/A FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,193
<SECURITIES>                                     1,450
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (513)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,245
<PP&E>                                           3,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,553)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,256
<BONDS>                                             78
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,159
<SALES>                                          7,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,903
<CGS>                                            2,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,649
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,342)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.32)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Stuart A. Tashlik, Chief Financial Officer ofThe FINOVA Group Inc., certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of The FINOVA Group Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e))for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 11, 2003 | /s/ Stuart A. Tashlik   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                       | Stuart A. Tashlik       |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Patrick Henry ALSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D17-727

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

        The undersigned, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., the Chief Executive Office of
Aros Corporation (the "Company"), has executed this certification in connection
with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 (the
"Report"). The undersigned hereby certifies 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 for the periods presented.



        Date: August 13, 2002                       /s/ Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.
              ----------------                     ----------------------------
                                                   Name:  Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.
                                                   Title: Chairman and CEO
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guy Bordes AGNANT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6128

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Guy Bordes Agnant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*167Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Guy Bordes Agnant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Agnant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Marco Antonio PARILLA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4466

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.