alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## The 2020 OASDI Trustees Report

Office of the Chief Actuary

Reading the Report

- Table of Contents
- List of Tables
- List of Figures
- Index

Note: The 2020 OASDI Trustees Report did not include the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing recession. A  brief memo  providing an updated baseline for the actuarial status of the OASI and DI Trust Funds was published November 24, 2020, reflecting our preliminary expectations at that time of pandemic and recession effects.

The 2020 OASDI Trustees Report, officially called "*The 2020 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds*," presents the current and projected financial status of the trust funds.  

The Trustees Report includes many tables containing historical data and projections. For convenience, we provide the reader with links to view all of these tables in one place, without the accompanying text of the report. Note that the tables in the report generally present results only for every fifth year. Therefore, we also provide links to supplemental tables by single year for readers requiring more detail. Reference should always be made to the published report for context and explanation of terminology.

Documentation of Key Assumptions 
        -  Demographic assumptions   used in the projections that determine the actuarial status of the trust funds 
        -  Ultimate economic assumptions   used in the projections that determine the actuarial status of the trust funds 
        - Ultimate disability assumptions   used in the projections that determine the actuarial status of the trust funds

 See model documentation for a description of all assumptions and methods used in the projections. 

Model Documentation 
        - Description of the methods used in the  long  range projections  that determine the actuarial status of the trust funds
        - Description of the methods used in the  short range projections  of trust fund operations

Related reports 
        - Summary of the latest report  for the Social Security and Medicare programs (also available in  printer-friendly  PDF )
        - Trustees Report on the   financial status of the Medicare program
#### Lalit K. Parekh vs. Carlita Q. Parekh.

January 11, 1996.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Appeal from order of single justice. *Practice, Civil,*Interlocutory appeal.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

*David W. Rifkitt*& *Patrick Morgan*for the plaintiff.

*Pamela Casey O’Brien*for the defendant.

This is a purported appeal under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, *post*1303 (1995), from the denial pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, of relief from an order entered against the plaintiff appellant in a G. L. c. 209A proceeding. The appellant has omitted necessary papers from the record: a copy of the petition to the single justice and a copy of the docket in the county court. An order entered in a G. L. c. 209A proceeding is not an interlocutory order of the trial court subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21. For the purposes of appeal in this case, S.J.C. Rule 2:21 is inapplicable. An appeal pursuant to the regular appellate process is the appropriate avenue for the appellant to pursue.

The court need take no action pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21. The appellant may pursue his appeal according to the regular process.
#### STATE v. ERNEST C. VANDIFORD.

(Filed 6 March, 1957.)

Criminal Raw § 77 a—

The failure of the record to contain the hill of indictment is fatal, and such defect cannot be cured by certificate of the clerk that there was a true bill of indictment but that it had been lost, but where a copy of the bill of indictment as returned by the grand jury is certified by the clerk ■pursuant to an order of the Superior Court, the order and copy of the bill, so certified, become a part of the record on appeal, thus supplying the deficiency and precluding dismissal.

Appeal by defendant from *Burgwyn, E. J.,*at 1956 December Term, OÍ CRAVEN.

Criminal prosecution on charge of “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious bodily injury.”

Verdict: Guilty as charged in the bill of indictment.

Judgment: Confinement in State’s Prison for a term of six (6) years —from which defendant appeals.

*610
      *Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.*

*Cecil D. May for Defendant, Appellant.*

PER Cubiam.

At the threshold of this appeal the State through the Attorney-General moved to dismiss the appeal on authority of *S. v. Currie,*206 N.C. 598, 174 S.E. 447, for that the record on appeal is fatally defective in that it did not contain the bill of indictment. In lieu thereof, by consent of Solicitor and attorney for defendant, the Clerk of Superior Court certified that there was a true bill of indictment containing the charge as above recited, but that during the progress of the trial the bill was misplaced, and not to be located. *S. v. Currie, supra,*presented a similar factual situation. In respect thereto this Court held that the statement was not sufficient, — that it was the duty of the defendants to see that the indictment appeared in the record, or, if lost, to apply to the Superior Court for an order that a copy be supplied, citing *S. v. McDraughon,*168 N.C. 131, 83 S.E. 181, and the appeal was dismissed. To like effect is *S. v. Gosnell,*208 N.C. 401, 181 S.E. 323; *S. v. Dry,*224 N.C. 234, 29 S.E. 2d 698; *S. v. Jenkins,*234 N.C. 112, 66 S.E. 2d 819; *S. v. Dobbs,*234 N.C. 560, 67 S.E. 2d 751.

In accordance with ruling in *S. v. Currie, supra,*defendant has now applied to Superior Court of Craven County for an order that a copy of the bill of indictment be supplied, and such an order has been made, and certified to this Court, with copy of a true bill of indictment as returned by grand jury, and on which defendant was tried. Under these circumstances, the appeal will not be dismissed, but, rather, the order and copy of bill of indictment so certified will be attached to and become a part of the record on the appeal.

However, exceptions on which assignments of error are presented on this appeal duly considered in the light of evidence offered upon the trial in Superior Court and the charge of the court as a whole fails to show error for which a new trial should be granted.

No error.
Mrs. Bess Blackwell

Executive Secretary Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-753 Re: The eligibility of one who has been convicted of a federal felony and served a sentence in the federal penitentiary to be licensed to operate, a beauty school’ in Texas. Dear Mrs. Blackwell:

Your request for an opinion is in part as follows: “This Board respectfully requests an opinion ofyour department as to whether or not under the Texas Beauty Culture Law a person’who has served a sentence inthe federal penitentiary is eligible to ownand operate a beauty school in the State of Texas.” Section 17of Article 734b. V.P.C., provides inpart as follows: “The Board may either refuse to issue or to renew, or may suspend, or revoke,. any certificate of registration or license,
. . . for any one or combination ofthe following causes:

“(a) Conviction of a felony shown by a certified copy of the record ofthe trial wherein the conviction was held;
. . .” The rule of statutory construction applicable to your request is foundin 39 Tex. Jur. 37. which is as follows: 

# L

# 270
Mrs. Bess Blackwell, Page 2 (V-753)

“On the other hand, ‘may’ ordinarily connotes discretion or permission: and it will notbe treated as aword of command unless there is something in the context or subject-matter ofthe act to indicate that it was used in that sense.” The language used in Section 17, Article 734b connotes discretion or permissiou onthe part ofthe Board, andwe find nothing inthe context of the Act which would indicate thatthe Legislature intended the Act to be mandatory. Therefore, you are advised that under the plain provisions ofArticle 734b. inthe case of a person who has been convicted of a felony, it is left solely to the discretion of the Board under Section 17as towhey ther it will issue’or refuse to issue a license because ofthe conviction. Attorney General’s Cpinion No. O-2359 is hereby overruled. SUMMARY

Whether the Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologiste will issue or refu6e to issue a license to operate a beauty school in Texas to a person convicted of a felony is left to the discretion ofthe Board. Section 17ofArticle 734b. V.P.C. Yours very truly. ATTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS

By A?Ikee? Assistant JR:bh:sl
APPROVED: g&i!&2 ATTORNEYGENERAL
How to enable your E-mail from Websites

Or: How to keep “mailto:” from sending you somewhere unexpected

Step 1: Open your Windows 10 search bar

Step 2: Type “Default Apps”

Step 3: Select E-mail program (or plus sign to add 

program)

Step 4: Select Outlook (or your own program)

Step 5: Restart your browser
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-531-533 and 731-TA-1270-1273 (Final)]

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         January 21, 2016.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joanna Lo (202-205-1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (                        *http://www.usitc.gov*). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at                         *http://edis.usitc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On October 15, 2015, the Commission established a schedule for conducting the final phase of investigations on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Canada, China, India, and Oman (80 FR 68563, November 5, 2015). The Commission is revising its schedule by changing the time of the hearing.

The Commission's new schedule for the hearing in these investigations is as follows: The hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 10:30 a.m. on March 1, 2016. All other aspects of the schedule remain unchanged.

For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above.

Authority:These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: January 28, 2016.

Lisa R. Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2016-01901 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Summit Environmental
      Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
      30, 2005 (the “Report”), I, B. Keith Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Dated:
      November 22, 2005





*/s/
                B. Keith
                Parker*
              B.
                Keith Parker
              Chairman
                and Chief Executive Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit
            32
#### RUTH HINTON ALLEY, SOPHIA M. HINTON, CHARLES L. HINTON and THE FIRST & CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF ELIZABETH CITY, Guardian for JOHN L. HINTON, Minor, v. ROY McPHERSON, and GERTIE McPHERSON.

(Filed 27 September, 1939.)

Appeal by defendants from *Carr, J.,*at January Term, 1939, of Pasquotank.

No error.

Civil action to recover damages for trespass upon real property and for injunctive relief against future trespass. Tbe defendants filed a general denial of tbe allegations contained in the complaint. They did not plead adverse possession. Tbe cause was tried before a jury upon appropriate issues, which were answered in favor of the plaintiffs. From judgment on the verdict, the defendants appealed.

*J. Kenyon Wilson for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*M. B. Simpson and R. M. Conn for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The only question debated in the brief of the defendants is that of alleged error by the court below in overruling the motion of the defendants for judgment as of nonsuit. A careful examination of the record discloses that there was sufficient evidence to require the submission of the cause to the jury. In the trial below we find

No error.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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, the Chief Executive Officer of SAVVIS Communications Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |                             |  |                                      |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ |  | 
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  |  |  | By: /s/ Robert A. McCormick
|                        |  |  |  |                             |  | Robert A. McCormick                 
|                        |  |  |  |                             |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30727]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Citi-Bancshares, Inc., et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; 
and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than January 12, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Citi-Bancshares, Inc., Leesburg, Florida; to merge with Citizens 
First Bancshares, Inc., Ocala, Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire 
Citizens First Bank of Ocala, Ocala, Florida.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
    1. Beulah Bancorporation, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota; to 
acquire 94.04 percent of the voting shares of Fairview Bank, Fairview, 
Montana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 13, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-30727 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00668-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF ONA S. PETTY,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 140,221

Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 29, 2015, appellants filed an unopposed motion to abate the appeal stating 

that several of the parties have made substantial progress in reaching a settlement, and requesting 

that this appeal be abated for a period of sixty days to permit them to finalize the settlement

terms and pursue discussions with the remaining parties. We granted the motion and ordered

that the appeal be abated until December 28, 2015. 

On December 18, 2015, appellants filed an unopposed motion to extend the abatement 

period so that the parties may continue to engage in settlement discussions. The motion is 

GRANTED. The appeal is ABATED until January 27, 2016. All appellate deadlines are 

suspended until January 27, 2016. After that date, the appellants must file a motion to dismiss 

the appeal due to settlement, or if a settlement is not reached and finalized, a motion to reinstate 

the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Marcus Sharp, Respondent, v. Josephine Starr and others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5617 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5617

 To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to the definition 
         of ``widow'' and ``widower'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

Mr. Kilmer (for himself, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Connolly, Ms. 
    DelBene, Mr. Deutch, Ms. Esty, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Hanna, Ms. Lee of 
 California, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Moran, Mr. 
Murphy of Florida, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Polis, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, 
 Mr. Schiff, Mr. Takano, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Schwartz, 
Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. 
Himes, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Peters of California, Ms. Meng, and Ms. Brownley 
of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to the definition 
         of ``widow'' and ``widower'', 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 ``Copyright and Marriage Equality 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF WIDOW AND WIDOWER IN TITLE 17, UNITED STATES 
              CODE.

    (a) In General.--Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is 
amended by striking the definition of ```widow' or `widower''' and 
inserting the following:
            ``An individual is the `widow' or `widower' of an author if 
        the courts of the State in which the individual and the author 
        were married (or, if the individual and the author were not 
        married in any State but were validly married in another 
        jurisdiction, the courts of any State) would find that the 
        individual and the author were validly married at the time of 
        the author's death, whether or not the spouse has later 
        remarried.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to the death of any author that occurs on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Emily L. Easton, Respondent, v. Edward Boote, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., dissenting.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2022

No. 04-22-00347-CV

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' CIVIL 

SERVICE COMMISSION; City of San Antonio,

Appellants

v.

Gabriel SAENZ,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CI04429

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has filed a motion for a 30-day extension of time to file a brief. We grant the 

motion and order appellant’s brief filed by August 10, 2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of July, 2022.

_________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court