alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection withthe quarterly report of Northwest Airlines Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David M. Davis,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: October 22, 2008

 
| /s/ David M. Davis           |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| David M. Davis               |
| Executive Vice President and |
| Chief Financial Officer      |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by suchAct, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).  Such certification will not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Companyspecifically incorporates it by reference.

 

 

----
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 323 

To terminate the Department of Education. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2021 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To terminate the Department of Education. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDU4 CATION. 

5 The Department of Education shall terminate on De6 cember 31, 2021. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1290

DELZOLA M. CUFFEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (2:04-cv-00381-WDK)

Submitted: July 21, 2006 Decided: August 9, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delzola M. Cuffee, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Delzola M. Cuffee, an African American female, appeals

the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her

employer in her civil action in which she alleged discrimination

and retaliation claims. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Cuffee v. Tidewater Cmty. Coll., No. 2:04-cv00381-WDK (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2006). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the consolidated
financial statements of Florida Banks, Inc. for the nine month period from
January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,377,063
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      18,000,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,115,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 23,558,027
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         291,850
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     41,813,219
<ALLOWANCE>                                    611,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,191,381
<DEPOSITS>                                  47,190,688
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,348,545
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    606,000
<COMMON>                                        58,528
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,593,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              95,191,381
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,636,837
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              648,702
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               385,899
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,671,427
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,548,958
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,789,934
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,881,493
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  107,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               8,197
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              6,255,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,009,444)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (4,009,444)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,037,994)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    393,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   520,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                414,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               481,463
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                    22,590
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              611,053
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           611,053
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Family Benefits

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Family benefit data

  The term "family" used here differs from the usual definition.  We use      the term family to mean people receiving benefits that depend on an insured      worker's "primary insurance amount."      For example, if a husband and wife are both insured for and receiving      benefits, they will be counted as 2 distinct      families in our data.  If, on the other hand, the wife is not      insured, her benefit will       depend on her husband's benefit (and will be about half her       husband's benefit) and the couple will be considered as a single family.

      The different types of families are shown below    

retired worker

          - Retired worker only — only the insured beneficiary, at least 62 years       old, is in the family       Retired worker and aged spouse (both at least 62 years old)      Retired worker, aged spouse, and 1 or more children      
- Retired worker, young spouse (spouse with either a       child under age 16, or a disabled child in his or her care),       and 1 or more children       Retired worker, young spouse, and 2 or more children      Retired worker and 1 or more children      
- Any family with a retired worker                Family with a disabled worker- Disabled worker only — only the insured, disabled beneficiary       is in the family       Disabled worker and aged spouse (spouse at least 62 years old)      Disabled worker, aged spouse, and 1 or more children      
- Disabled worker, young spouse (spouse with either a       child under age 16, or a disabled child in his or her care),       and 1 or more children       Disabled worker, young spouse, and 2 or more children      Disabled worker and 1 or more children      
- Any family with a disabled worker                Survivor family- One or more children of deceased worker (child must be under       age 18 (a minor), a high-school student under age 19, or have       become disabled before the age of 22), and surviving spouse       (if any) is not receiving a benefit       Aged widow(er) (at least 60 years old)      Aged widow(er) with 1 or more children      
- Disabled widow(er) (disabled and at least 50 years old)       Disabled widow(er) with 1 or more children      Young widow(er) (must have a child under age 16 or       a disabled child in his or her care) and 1 or more children      
- Young widow(er) and 2 or more children       Young widow(er) and 2 children      Any survivor family      
Footer menu
#### Centralia and Chester Railroad Company v. Maria J. Brake et al.

*Railroads—Construction—Right of*Way—Condemnation—Damages— *Appeal Bond,—Immaterial Issue—Repleader.*

1. In an action brought against a railroad company on an appeal bond given by it in condemnation proceedings, this court directs the award of- a repleader, for the reason that defendant’s special plea, on which issue was joined, made an immaterial issue, and for the further reason that it does not appear that the bond upon which suit is brought was offered in evidence in the trial court.

2. A verdict can not aid an immaterial issue.

[Opinion filed June 15, 1889.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington County; the Hon. William H. Snyder, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. W. S. Forman and Daniel Hay, for appellants.

*460Messrs. J. A. Watts and W. Henry Moore, for appellees.

Phillips, J.

The Centralia & Chester R. *R.*Co. instituted proceedings for condemnation of right of way over lands of appellees, under Chap. 47, Starr & C. Ill. Stats., and judgment entered. The railroad company prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court and filed its appeal bond. The judgment was affirmed. This is an action on the appeal bond. The appellees, by leave of court, amended their declaration and ade^ed an averment that the railroad company, after filing the appeal bond against the protests of plaintiff, entered into possession of the right of way, etc: To that averment, which was an unnecessary one, the defendants filed a special plea denying that the railroad company had entered and taken possession and remained in possession, etc., and replication was filed. There was also a plea of *non est fa'otum.*The special plea on which issue was taken made an immaterial issue. A verdict can not help an immaterial issue. Tidd’s Prac. 921.

Further, we have looked into the record and can not find the appeal bond sued on was offered in evidence. We must, therefore, reverse and remand this cause, with directions to the court to award a repleader.

*Reversed and remanded vñth directions.*
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30235]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Interest Rate for FY 1996 RUS Telecommunications Cost-of-Money 
Loans

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is announcing that interest 
rates on telecommunications Cost-of-Money loans approved during fiscal 
year 1996 may exceed the 7 percent per year statutory limit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Peters, Assistant 
Administrator-Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, room 4056-S, Ag Box 1590, 14th Street and 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1500. Telephone (202) 
720-9554, Facsimile (202) 720-0810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is given that under Title III of the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (Appropriations Act of 
1996) (Pub. L. 104-37, approved October 21, 1995), the interest rate 
for telecommunications loans approved during fiscal year 1996 may 
exceed the 7 percent per year ceiling established by Pub. L. 103-129 
(see 7 CFR 1735.31(c)(1)). The Appropriations Act of 1996 removes the 7 
percent interest rate ceiling for telecommunications Cost-of-Money 
loans made during fiscal year 1996 only (October 1, 1995 to September 
30, 1996).

    Dated: December 6, 1995.
Wally Beyer,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30235 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
#### Abram Swartwout and another, Respondents, v. Joseph A. Ferris and another, Appellants.

— Order refusing to vacate order of arrest reversed and order vacated, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. J., dissenting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001058549
<NAME> MEDITECNIC, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         687,856
<SECURITIES>                                   1,518,115
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,505,971
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,843,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       7,528
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,835,701)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,843,231
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,583)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (177,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (177,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (177,487)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)


</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (6.71 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### HARVEY JONES v. JAMES M. FOWLER.

(Filed 20 April, 1955.)

Bill of Discovery § lib—

Where an affidavit for the examination of defendant is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute, and the court finds the facts to be as set out in the affidavit, plaintiff is entitled to an order for examination of the defendant as a matter of right, and notice to defendant prior to the entry of such order is not required. G.S. 1-568.10.

*163Barnhill, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.

Appeal by defendant from order of *Bickett, Resident Judge,*entered 18 December, 1954, in action pending in WaKe Superior Court.

Action by tenant against landlord for an accounting and amount due thereon for the year 1954.

On 10 December, 1954: summons was issued; application was filed and order entered extending time for filing complaint; and application in the form of an affidavit for examination of defendant under G.S. 1-568.10, addressed to the resident judge, was filed.

On 18 December, 1954, the resident judge, finding the facts to be as set out in plaintiff’s affidavit, ordered that defendant appear before a designated commissioner at specified time and place for such examination by plaintiff.

Defendant excepted and appealed, assigning as error (1) the insufficiency of the affidavit upon which the order was based, and (2) the entry of the order without notice to defendant.

*J. C. Keeter and Ellis Nassif for plaintiff, appellee.*

*John F. Matthews for defendant, appellant.*

PER Cueiam.

Plaintiff’s affidavit is in substantial compliance with the requirements of G.S. 1-568.10 (b), subsections (1) through (6). Upon the finding that the facts were as set out in the affidavit, plaintiff was entitled to the order as a matter of right. G.S. 1-568.10 (c), subsections (1) through (4). In such case, no notice to defendant, prior to the entry of such order, was required. G.S. 1-568.10 (a). Hence, the order of 18 December, 1954, is affirmed.

In view of disposition made, we refrain from considering, *ex mero motu,*whether defendant’s appeal was subject to dismissal as an appeal from an interlocutory order.

Affirmed.

BaeNhill, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5265 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:26:03 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5265 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:26:03 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5265 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:26:03 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5265 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:26:03 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5265 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:26:03 Page 5 of

5
#### W. D. KENNEDY, Administrator of CHARLES CRAIGE KENNEDY, v. R. P. LOOKADOO and EVANS CONTRACTING COMPANY.

(Filed 7 December, 1932.)

Highways B n: Master and Servant D c — Negligence of truck driver was not established and question of whether he was employee is immaterial.

Where in an action for wrongful death the evidence is to the effect that the plaintiff’s intestate, a child about four years old, ran suddenly into a public street and into the side of a truck and was struck and killed by its rear wheels, and that the truck was being driven in a careful manner at a lawful rate of speed, and that the truck driver could not have seen the child in the exercise of due care, the action will be dismissed on motion of nonsuit, the plaintiff having failed to establish negligence, and the question of whether the truck driver was an employee of his codefendant or was an independent contractor need not be considered.

Appeal by plaintiff from *MacRae, Special Judge,*at March Term, 1932, of RowaN.

Affirmed.

Tbis is an action to recover damages for tbe death of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, R. P. Lookadoo, an employee of tbe defendant, Evans Contracting Company, while engaged in tbe performance of tbe duties of bis employment.

Prom judgment dismissing tbe action as of nonsuit, at tbe close of tbe evidence for tbe plaintiff, plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*R. Lee Wright for plaintiff.*

*Quinn, Hamrick & Harris for defendant, R. P. Lookadoo.*

*Rendleman & Rendleman for defendant, Evans Contracting Company.*

Per Curiam.

All the evidence at the trial of tbis action showed that plaintiff’s intestate, a child about four years of age, ran into a public street in the city of Salisbury, N. C., as a truck heavily loaded with stone and cement, and driven by the defendant, R. P. Lookadoo, was passing. Tbe child ran into the truck, and was injured by the rear wheels which struck and passed over him. His death resulted almost immediately *651from bis injuries. There was no evidence tending to show that the child was injured and killed by the negligence of the defendant, E. P. Look-adoo. On the contrary the evidence showed that the defendant, E. P. Lookadoo, was driving the truck slowly and in a lawful manner, and that he did not see, and because another truck had stopped immediately ahead of him, making it necessary for him to pass around this truck, could not by the exercise of reasonable care have seen the child as he ran suddenly from the sidewalk into the street.

As there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that plaintiff’s intestate was killed by the negligence of the defendant, E. P. Lookadoo, it is immaterial whether he was an employee of his eodefend-ant, Evans Contracting Company, as alleged by the plaintiff, or an independent contractor as alleged by said company.

There was no error in the judgment dismissing the action for the reason that plaintiff failed to offer at the trial any evidence tending to sustain the allegations which constitute his cause of action. The judgment is

Affirmed.