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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6043 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6043

 To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to raise public 
     awareness for skilled trade programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2023

Ms. Bonamici (for herself and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                           and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to raise public 
     awareness for skilled trade programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Career Counseling for 
Every Secondary Student Act'' or the ``ACCESS Act''.

SEC. 2. CAREER COUNSELING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS FOR SKILLED TRADE 
              PROGRAMS.

    (a) Statewide Activities.--Section 129(b)(2) of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3164(b)(2)) is amended by 
redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), 
respectively, and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
                    ``(D) carrying out public awareness campaigns and 
                public service announcements, including social media 
                campaigns and other forms of media, about career and 
                technical education programs and programs provided by 
                community-based organizations that prepare eligible 
                youth for high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry 
                sectors or occupations in current or emerging 
                professions (including skilled trades);''.
    (b) Local Elements and Requirements.--Section 129(c)(2)(M) of the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3164(c)(2)(M)) is 
amended to read as follows:
                    ``(M) services and opportunities that provide labor 
                market and employment information about high-skill, 
                high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations 
                in current or emerging professions (including skilled 
                trades) available in the local area, such as career 
                awareness, career counseling, and career exploration 
                services; and''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TODD PACIFIC/VIGOR INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-36080

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed March 2, 2017

Rapheal G. Russell, Pro Se

Keelin A. Curran, Esquire, Attorney, Stoel Rives LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging em*578ployment related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review for an abuse of discretion. *Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Russell’s action after Russell repeatedly failed to submit to a deposition despite being warned by the court that non-compliance would result in dismissal. *See id.*(discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); *see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen),*31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE APRIL 4,
1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                           2,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      795
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,280
<PP&E>                                          54,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,755
<BONDS>                                         41,777
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,208
<SALES>                                         52,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,747
<CGS>                                           18,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,060
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        2,281
<NET-INCOME>                                       779
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, Edward Miers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Global Business Markets, Inc. (the
"Registrant").

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were mea, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statement, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows o the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. As the Registrant's sole certifying officer, I

        a. am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant;

        b. have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which the annual report is being prepared;

        c. have evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant"s disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

        d. have presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. As the Registrant's sole certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my
most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function);

        a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
process, summarized and report financial data and have identified for the
Registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

        b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls.




                                       32
<PAGE>


6. As the Registrant's sole certifying officer, I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date:  April 15, 2004


By:         /S/ EDWARD MIERS
            -----------------------------------------
Name:       Edward Miers
Title:      President and Principal Executive Officer























                                       33

<PAGE>
Michael MIRAGLIA, Appellant, v. Daniel PENA, et al., Appellees.

No. 4D17-2712

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 2018

Charles M-P George of the Law Offices of Charles M-P George, Gables, and Misty M. Taylor Chaves of King & Chaves, LLC, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jack P. Hill and Adam S. Hecht of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Philip M. Burlington and Adam Richardson of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Ciklin, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Exhibit



















Dave Kagan
September 4, 2018


Re: Promotion to CEO
Dear Dave,


We are happy to confirm your promotion to Chief Executive Officer of Globalstar, Inc. effective September 4, 2018.  You will continue to report to Jay Monroe. With this promotion, your salary will be $450,000 per year.


Your current ISO's of 750,000 and 250,000 options will be canceled.  You will receive a new grant of 750,000 RSAs and a new grant of 250,000 RSAs with the same vesting and other performance terms as the previous options.


New equity component of your promotion is as follows:
		
	•
	In replacement of the ISOs, incremental new 750,000 RSAs - granted and vesting as follows: 10% after year 1, 15% after year 2 (25% cumulative), 25% after year 3 (50% cumulative) and final 50% after year 4 or become fully vested upon a change of control.


		
	•
	Incremental new 250,000 RSAs - granted and vesting upon the sooner of a) a change of control or b) reaching annual EBITDA of $50 million from the core business


		
	•
	You will also receive a new 2,000,000 RSA grant as part of the promotion with a vest of 750,000 shares upon attainment of $75 million of core satellite company EBITDA and an additional 750,000 vest upon attainment of $100 million of core satellite company EBITDA. The remaining 500,000 shares will vest upon the same 4 year vesting schedule used when you returned to Globalstar as President and COO (10% after year 1, 15% after year 2 (25% cumulative), 25% after year 3 (50% cumulative) and final 50% after year 4 or become fully vested upon a change of control). Neither spectrum revenue nor spectrum costs will be included in the calculation of EBITDA for purposes of measuring the attainment of your EBITDA goals.




The above grant will be subject to the Change of Control provisions provided for in the Globalstar Plan documents. For clarity, the grant documents will include provisions  treating each of 1) a “take private” transaction  2) the sale of substantially all of Globalstar’s assets and 3) in the event another party obtains greater than 50% of the outstanding stock of Globalstar, as a Change of Control. Any Change of Control vests 100% of your stock grants no matter when those grants arise i.e. when first appointed to COO, before departing Globalstar for Speedcast, when returning to Globalstar as President and COO or by way of your appointment to CEO.  
















Any previously granted ISO's or RSA's which you had prior to your departure to Speedcast, which were continued upon your return to Globalstar, remain in effect.


We will do the final grant documents to evidence this agreement in the coming days, the Board and I are very pleased to continue our success together and improve our EBITDA performance even more.


Sincerely,


Jay Monroe            /s/ J. Monroe III                        Sept 4, 2018
Executive Chairman


Accepted:
Dave Kagan            /s/ David B. Kagan                    Sept 4, 2018
Chief Executive Officer        ___________________________________                       ___________________
Signed                            Date
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mostafa Ahmed AWWAD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6065

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Mostafa Ahmed Awwad, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Kevin Patrick Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, Heather M. Schmidt, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*116PER CURIAM:

Mostafa Ahmed Awwad 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 certificate of appealability. 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 Awwad has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the pending motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco FACUNDO-ZAVALA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-11220 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/28/2016

*877James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Facundo-Zavala, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Facundo-Zavala has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Fa-cundo-Zavala has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, *see, e.g., United States v. Prieto,*801 F.3d 547, 549 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                      Quarter Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                       October 5,        October 5,
                                    ----------------  ----------------
                                     1998     1999     1998     1999
                                    -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                                 <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
BASIC
Weighted average common shares
outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . .   11,505   11,744   11,450   11,709
                                    =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 5,393  $ 6,532  $14,678  $17,280
                                    =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share. . . .  $  0.47  $  0.56  $  1.28  $  1.48
                                    =======  =======  =======  =======

DILUTED
Weighted average common shares
outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . .   11,505   11,744   11,450   11,709

Dilutive effect of stock options
outstanding during the period. . .      240       87      304      115
                                    -------  -------  -------  -------

Total common and common equivalent
shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11,745   11,831   11,754   11,824
                                    =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 5,393  $ 6,532  $14,678  $17,280
                                    =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share. . . .  $  0.46  $  0.55  $  1.25  $  1.46
                                    =======  =======  =======  =======
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Urologix, Inc. I,
Michael M. Selzer, Jr, President and Chief Executive Officer of Urologix, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     .    The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     .    The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Urologix, Inc.

Date:  November 13, 2002               /s/ Michael M. Selzer Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Michael M. Selzer, Jr
                                       President
                                       and Chief Executive Officer
#### Deborah S. TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMORY HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-11807 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 6, 2017)

Cheryl Barnes Legare, Legare Attwood *&*Wolfe, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Toni J. Read, John S. Snelling, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard *&*Smith, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Deborah S. Tyler claims that her former employer, Emory Healthcare (Emory), terminated her employment because of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court granted Emory summary judgment. This is Tyler’s appeal.

Tyler was the Director of Surgical Services at an Emory hospital. The hospital’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Richard Craig McCoy, terminated her employment in August 2011. Tyler contends that McCoy acted as a mere cat’s paw for the discriminatory animus of the hospital’s outgoing CEO, James Thweatt. According to Tyler, summary judgment was improper because she set forth a mosaic of circumstantial evidence establishing a triable issue of intentional discrimination under the cat’s paw theory. *See Sims v. MVM, Inc.,*704 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2013) (“A triable issue of fact exists if the record ... presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination..,. ” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo and taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Tyler, *see Quigg v. Thomas Cty. Sch. Dist.,*814 F.3d 1227, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016), we affirm. To prevail under the cat’s paw theory, Tyler “must prove that [Thweatt]’s animus was a ‘but-for’ cause of, or a determinative influence on, [McCoy’s] ultimate decision.” *See Sims,*704 F.3d at 1337. Tyler failed to present evidence from which a jury could find such a causal link.

Tyler asserts that, during an April 2011 conversation about hospital management, Thweatt advised McCoy to terminate her employment; Thweatt’s advice was based *622on discriminatory animus; and McCoy relied on the advice in deciding to fire her. Although a jury could find that Thweatt was biased against Tyler because of her age,1 no evidence indicates that Thweatt advised McCoy to fire Tyler during the April 2011 conversation. Indeed, no evidence indicates that Thweatt and McCoy even discussed Tyler. Furthermore, McCoy did not terminate Tyler’s employment until August 2011—four months after his conversation with Thweatt—and McCoy independently reviewed Tyler’s performance before firing her. *See id.*(finding no causal, link between a third party’s animus and a decision-maker’s adverse action because, among other things, the decision-maker independently evaluated the plaintiffs performance).

AFFIRMED.

1

. Based on the record, a jury could conclude that (1) Thweatt referred to Tyler as a "battleax” in April 2011 and (2) the "battle-ax” comment, considered in context, was an age-related comment that evidenced discriminatory animus against Tyler.