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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3358 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3358

  To clarify that employees may seek recourse from the National Labor 
      Relations Board if discriminated against by an employer for 
           participating in an unfair labor practice strike.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2021

 Mr. Stauber introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that employees may seek recourse from the National Labor 
      Relations Board if discriminated against by an employer for 
           participating in an unfair labor practice strike.

    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 ``Protecting Striking Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that it is the policy of the United States that 
workers have the right to participate in lawful strikes in protest of 
unfair labor practices.

SEC. 3. CLARIFYING RECOURSES FOR WORKERS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR 
              PARTICIPATING IN A LAWFUL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE STRIKE.

    Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
160(c)) is amended by inserting before ``And provided further,'' the 
following: ``Provided further, That in any case in which the Board 
finds that an employer unlawfully discriminated against an employee in 
relation to the employee's participation in a lawful strike to protest 
an unfair labor practice of the employer, the Board may order 
reinstatement of the employee, require back pay, require the employer 
to post a notice to employees of its commitment to observe employee's 
rights under this Act, or take such other affirmative action as the 
Board may consider appropriate:''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Daniel PALMER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7157.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.

George Daniel Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Daniel Palmer appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence based on rehabilitation, family circumstances, and the crack cocaine amendments. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Palmer,*No. 7:00-cr-00080-sgw-1 (W.D.Va. Aug. 10, 2010). We deny Palmer’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01

                           CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

           COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                   MARCH 31,
                                                              -------------------
                                                                2000       1999
                                                              --------   --------
<S>                                                           <C>        <C>
Earnings:
  Net income available to common stock......................  $ 2,142    $11,415
                                                              -------    -------
Shares:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding................   25,624     24,759
  Dilutive effect of stock options..........................       25        151
                                                              -------    -------
  Average diluted shares outstanding and equivalents........   25,649     24,910
                                                              -------    -------
Basic earnings per common share:
  Net income................................................  $  0.08    $  0.46
                                                              =======    =======
Diluted earnings per common share:
  Net income................................................  $  0.08    $  0.46
                                                              =======    =======
</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Reasonable Accommodation Procedures For Individuals With Disabilities              

#   Reasonable Accommodation Procedures For Individuals With Disabilities

                      - Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
                      - Appendix A – Confirmation Of Request For Reasonable Accommodation
                      - Appendix B – Authorization For Release Of Medical Information  &  Medical Information Attachment
                      - Appendix C – Resolution Of Reasonable Accommodation Request
                      - Appendix D – Reasonable Accommodation Information Reporting Form
                      - Appendix E – Resources For Locating Reasonable Accommodation

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Exhibit
32.1





Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Berliner Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), does
hereby certify that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Periodic Report”) of
the Company 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 the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Richard B.
      BerlinerRichard
      B. BerlinerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)/s/ Raymond A. Cardonne,
      Jr.Raymond
      A. Cardonne, Jr.Chief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
      Financial Officer)May
      14, 2009





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Periodic Report
or as a separate disclosure document.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Berliner Communications, Inc. and will be retained by Berliner
Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
##### 



FIFTH MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
(Increase and Extension)
 th
        31




---



##### 



UNITED BANK
    [SEAL]By:
    /S/ E. Allen SchirmerE. Allen SchirmerVice PresidentVERSAR, INC.
    [SEAL]By:
    /S/ Lawrence W. SinnottName:
    Lawrence W. SinnottTitle:
    Exec. V.P., COO, CFO, and Treasurer 32




---



##### 



GEOMET TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
    [SEAL]By:
    /S/ Lawrence W. SinnottName:
    Lawrence W. SinnottTitle:
    Vice PresidentVERSAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
    [SEAL]By:
    /S/ Lawrence W. SinnottName:
    Lawrence W. SinnottTitle:
    Vice PresidentVEC CORP.
    [SEAL]By:
    /S/ Lawrence W. SinnottName:
    Lawrence W. SinnottTitle:
    Vice President 33
REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

(For Record Keeping Purposes Only)

1. Applicant's or Employee's Name:

2. Applicant's or Employee's Tel. No.:

3. Date of Request:

4. Accommodation Requested. (Be as specific as possible, e.g., adaptive equipment, reader, interpreter) 

5. Was Accommodation Provided: YES NO

6. Date Reasonable Accommodation was provided:

7. If Accommodation is Denied, provide the date of denial and the reason for the denial:

8. If individual wishes to request reconsideration of the Denial, s/he may ask a Deputy Director of his/her designee to

reconsider the Denial within 10 days of receiving the Decision.

9. If a federal applicant or employee wishes to file an EEO complaint, or pursue MSPB and union grievance procedures,

s/he must take the following steps:

o For an EEO complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ' 1614, contact an EEO counselor in the Equal Employment

Opportunity office within 45 days from the date of this notice of denial of reasonable accommodation; or

o For a collective bargaining claim, file a written grievance in accordance with the provisions of the Collective

Bargaining Agreement; or

o Initiate an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board within 30 days of an appealable adverse action as

defined in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3.

Natalie C. Samuels _______________________________

Name of Deciding Official Signature of Deciding Official

Log No.

Copies to Disability Manager and EEO Director

Privacy Act Statement. 29 U.S.C. 172, et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorize the FMCS to require the 

reporting of this information. The primary use of the information on this form is to allow FMCS officials to ensure compliance 

with Title VII in making business decisions Additional disclosures of the information on this report may be made: (1) to a Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement agency if FMCS becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation; (2) to a 

court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the Government is a party or in order to comply with a judgeissued subpoena; (3) to the National Archives and Records Administration or the General Services Administration in record 

management inspections; (4) to the Office of Management and Budget during legislative coordination on private relief legislation; 

(5) in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the information is relevant to the subject matter; and (6) to the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission through their mandatory reports. This confidential information will not be disclosed to any requesting

person unless authorized by law. Failure to provide the requested information could result in FMCS’s delay or inability to render a

decision on a requested accommodation. By submitting this form, I consent to providing this information pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

552a(e)(7).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Chan LAI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-16406.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Erika R. Frick, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dennis Chan Lai, Atwater, CA, pro se.

*182Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Dennis Chan Lai appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The record reflects that Lai had filed a section 2255 motion on November 11,1995, which this court rejected on the merits. Lai subsequently filed another section 2255 motion on April 13, 2007. The district court properly dismissed that motion because Lai had not obtained an order from this Court authorizing it to consider the motion. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); *Cooper v. Calderon,*274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).

To the extent Lai is applying for an order authorizing a second or successive petition, such request is denied. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C).

We construe Lai’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is also denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); *see also Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

p1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143691

IN RE REINSTATEMENT PETITI ON OF SC: 143691 ROBERT L. WIGGINS, JR., ADB: 10-26-RP Petitioner-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the question pr esented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the March 31, 1999 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to 
such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                      
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      1,222,017
<SECURITIES>                                  324,550         
<RECEIVABLES>                                 411,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,957,850 
<PP&E>                                     20,832,243
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,450,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             17,339,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         263,396
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 17,076,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               17,339,693
<SALES>                                       682,380 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              722,032
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              228,174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               493,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           493,858
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  493,858
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   10.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   10.56
        

</TABLE>
#### Doe et al., Appellants, *v.*Massillon City School District et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *Doe v. Massillon City School Dist.,*118 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-2233.]

*1211(No. 2007-1311

Submitted April 23, 2008

Decided May 15, 2008.)

Nicodemo & Wilson, L;L.C., and Brian R. Wilson; and Donald M. Benson, for appellants.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., Nicole M. Donovsky, and Richard W. Ross, for appellees.

Allen Sehulman & Associates, Co., L.P.A., and Stacie L. Roth; and Equal Justice Foundation and Judith L. Goldstein, urging reversal for amici curiae Children’s Defense Fund, Equal Justice Foundation, and Ohio Association for Justice.

Ennis, Roberts *&*Fischer Co., L.P.A., C. Bronston McCord III, Pamela A. Leist, and Jeremy J. Neff, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio School Boards Association.

{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in his concurrence in *Garrett v. Sandusky*(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 624 N.E.2d 704.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,747,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               57,065,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 62,317,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           138,146,518
<PP&E>                                      77,404,544
<DEPRECIATION>                            (15,291,949)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             237,584,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       82,890,828
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   206,777,972
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               237,584,457
<SALES>                                     71,555,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,555,592
<CGS>                                       16,005,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            22,215,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,744,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,954,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   942,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,896,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      765,860
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,662,330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### VAN PELT v. CALDWELL et al.

No. 34417.

April 18, 1950.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1950.

*219 P. 2d 205.*

*196Forrest Van Pelt, of Oklahoma City, pro se.

James B. White, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought an action seeking to recover on contract for certain real estate commissions. An amended petition was filed and the defendants filed a motion to strike irrelevant matter from the amended petition. Without waiting for an order of the trial court on the motion to strike plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On June 10, 1949, the trial court sustained the motion to strike and gave plaintiffs 10 days to file an amended petition, and overruled the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 13, 1949, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial. On June 17th the court entered an order overruling the motion for new trial and plaintiff appeals.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for the reason that the orders entered are not such as can be considered by this court on appeal prior to a final order or judgment. Assuming, without deciding, that this is an appeal from the order overruling the motion for judgment on the pleadings, such is not an order which can be reviewed prior to a final disposition of the case. Plaintiff relies upon Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County v. Robertson, 35 Okla. 616, 130 P. 947. In Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co. v. Parks, 182 Okla. 598, 78 P. 2d 791, this case was expressly overruled. Therein the court said:

> “An order overruling a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not an appealable order, and where an appeal is taken from such an order prior to the entry of a final judgment or order in the cause, such appeal presents nothing properly reviewable by this court.”

Appeal dismissed.