alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| DeMint Plan: 8% Contribution Rate: for $1, 3% for Maximum Earnings                                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| $1,000                                                                                                         |   | 7.94% | $79.43 |
| 5,000                                                                                                          |   | 7.71% | 385.63 |
| 10,000                                                                                                         |   | 7.43% | 742.53 |
| 20,000                                                                                                         |   | 6.85% | 1,370.11 |
| 30,000                                                                                                         |   | 6.28% | 1,882.76 |
| 40,000                                                                                                         |   | 5.70% | 2,280.46 |
| 50,000                                                                                                         |   | 5.13% | 2,563.22 |
| 60,000                                                                                                         |   | 4.55% | 2,731.03 |
| 70,000                                                                                                         |   | 3.98% | 2,783.91 |
| 80,000                                                                                                         |   | 3.40% | 2,721.84 |
| 87,000                                                                                                         | (Taxable Maximum) | 3.00% | 2,610.00 |
|                                                                                                           |
| 15,629                                                                                                         | (Low 1 = 45% of  Average Wage Index (AWI)) | 7.10% | 1,109.92 |
| 34,731                                                                                                         | (Medium* = AWI) | 6.00% | 2,085.22 |
| 43,500                                                                                                         | (1/2 Taxable Maximum) | 5.50% | 2,392.50 |
| 55,569                                                                                                         | (High* = 160% of AWI) | 4.81% | 2,670.86 |
| 69,600                                                                                                         | (Maximum Contribution = 0.8 x Taxable Maximum) | 4.00% | 2,784.00 |
| 1 Earnings levels for scaled low, medium, and high workers are average of best 35 years wage indexed earmings. |
|                                                                                                           | Office of the Chief ActuarySocial Security AdministrationSeptember 9, 2003 |

Return to memorandumReturn to list of memos
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                       VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
                (in thousands except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Fiscal Years ended September 30,
                                                 ---------------------------------------
                                                    1997          1996          1995
                                                 -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                              <C>           <C>           <C>
 
 
Net income                                       $    32,888   $    12,645   $     1,507
                                                 ===========   ===========   ===========
 
Shares
 Weighted average common shares outstanding       34,195,298    26,075,516    22,793,247
 Common stock options (as determined by
  application of the treasury stock method)        3,950,177     4,141,112     3,167,263
                                                 -----------   -----------   -----------
 
Adjusted weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding                    38,145,475    30,216,628    25,960,510
                                                 ===========   ===========   ===========
 
Net income per share of common stock             $      0.86   $      0.42   $      0.06
                                                 ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
### Proposed Provision: B5.10. Reconfigure the special minimum benefit, phased in for retired and disabled workers newly eligible from 2030 through 2039: (a) A year of work (YOW) coverage is equal to earnings at or above $10,875 in 2023 (reflecting a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage), adjusted thereafter for wage growth.  (b) At implementation, set the minimum PIA at zero percent of AWI for those with 10 or fewer YOWs to 15 percent of AWI for those with 15 YOWs, increasing linearly so that it reaches 19 percent for 19 YOWs.  Then the minimum PIA would jump up to 25 percent of AWI for those with 20 YOWs, increasing linearly so that it equals 35 percent of AWI for those with 35 or more YOWs. (c) Use the AWI for two years prior to the year of initial eligibility in the minimum PIA calculation with COLA increase after the year of initial eligibility. (d) Scale the YOW requirements for disabled workers, based on the number of years of non-disabled potential work.

back
#### John Francis, Respondent v. The New York and Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment reversed ana new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.z - MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN



The Company has adopted a Management Incentive Plan ("MIP") for fiscal 1999
which applies to approximately 20 operating officers and managers who serve at
the subsidiary, group and corporate management level.

Under the terms of the MIP a maximum of 50% of an employee's annual base pay may
be earned in cash incentive, based on the achievement of certain performance
objectives.  The plan operates as follows:

1.   A pool of cash incentive for each employee is credited based on the 
     performance to target of the unit to which the employee is assigned.  
     The incentive pool is created, beginning at 20% of base payable at 90% 
     of target unit earnings performance and capping at 25% of the employee's 
     annual pay at 100% of target unit earnings performance.  Target earnings 
     performances have been established for each operating unit of the 
     Company, at the group level, and for the Company in total.

2.   Additionally, the pool of cash incentive for each employee is credited 
     based on the performance to target of the Company, beginning at 20% of 
     base payable at 90% of target Company earnings performance and capping 
     at 25% of the employee's annual pay at 100% of target Company earnings 
     performance. 

3.   One half of the pool is to be paid, based solely on the achievement of 
     the target financial levels.

4.   The second half of the incentive pool is to be paid based on the 
     employee achieving certain stipulated non-financial performance 
     objectives.

5.   The Chief Executive Officer will receive no MIP if the target Company 
     earnings performance is not attained.

6.   Additional cash incentive may be paid to selected managers based on the 
     achievement of outstanding unit financial performance or the attainment 
     of certain strategic goals, at the recommendation of the Management 
     Development and Compensation Committee of the Company Board of Directors 
     and if approved by the Company Board of Directors.
### Proposed Provision: F2. Starting in 2024, exempt individuals with more than 180 quarters of coverage from the OASDI payroll tax. Earnings exempted from OASDI payroll tax would not be used in computing benefits.

back
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66322-66323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31065]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


General Management Plan Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, 
Arizona; Notice of Intent to Prepare Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, and the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1502.9(c), the National 
Park Service will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement 
(SEIS) to the 1995 draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact 
Statement (GMP/DEIS) for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. 
This notice serves to inform the public of the continuation of the GMP/
EIS planning process.

BACKGROUND: In May 1995, the National Park Service issued a draft GMP/
EIS for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. The draft GMP 
described and analyzed a proposed action and an alternative strategy 
for the general management of the monument including resource 
protection, visitor use, and facility development. An 

[[Page 66323]]
accompanying DEIS assessed the environmental and socioeconomic impacts 
associated with each alternative.
    Substantive public and agency comments were received on the draft 
document during the 60-day comment period that ended on July 10, 1995. 
Most comments focused on the following issues: changes proposed for 
State Route 85; the range of alternatives and suggestions for new 
alternatives; costs associated with implementing various elements of 
alternatives; and mitigation strategies for the protection of natural 
resources, especially threatened and endangered species. Based on an 
analysis of these comments, the National Park Service has determined 
that a supplemental draft GMP/EIS will be prepared.
    The supplemental draft GMP/EIS will address the comments and 
suggestions received during the initial public comment period. The 
supplement will include clarifications of the original alternatives and 
a discussion of new alternatives to be added since release of the 
initial draft GMP/EIS. It will also present an analysis of the 
environmental consequences associated with each alternative.
    The official who is responsible for the current GMP/EIA planning 
process is Stanley T. Albright, Field Director, Pacific West Area, 
National Park Service. The supplemental draft GMP/EIS is expected to be 
available for public review in early 1996, and it will be provided to 
all persons and organizations who received the initial DEIS. Upon 
approval, officials responsible for implementing the plan will be the 
Superintendent, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and the Field 
Director, Intermountain Field Area, National Park Service.

    Dated: December 12, 1995.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Field Director, Pacific West Area.
[FR Doc. 95-31065 Filed 12-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------

                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                    CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2007-HYB1
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-HYB1


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2008
----------------------------------
Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0221. W. HENRY SCHWAB v. JENNIFER A. KIRSCH et al.

Appellant W. Henry Schwab filed his notice of appeal in the above case on July

20, 2015, and his appeal was docketed in this Court on September 28, 2015. During

the pendency of this appeal, this Court was made aware, through the brief filed in

another pending appeal involving Schwab, that Schwab had filed a bankruptcy action

in the United States BankruptcyCourt for the Northern District of Georgia on August

27, 2015. Schwab did not provide this Court with any separate notice of his

bankruptcy filing and failed to file his brief on appeal in the present appeal. 

Accordingly, on December 3, 2015, this Court issued an order directing Schwab to

provide proof that his bankruptcy petition remained pending. Schwab responded to

this order on December 8, 2015, and at that time informed this Court that he intended

to seek permission to proceed with his appeal in this Court at the next scheduled

bankruptcy hearing, which was supposedly set for December 16, 2015. 

This Court, however, received no further communication from Schwab

concerning the status of his bankruptcy case, and on January 6, 2016, we issued a

second order directing Schwab to provide this Court information concerning the

currentstatus of his bankruptcy case. Schwab responded to this order on January 12,

2016, and similar to his previousresponse, represented to this Court that he would be

seeking permission to proceed with this appeal at the next scheduled bankruptcy

hearing, which was apparently set for January 20, 2016. Once again, however,

Schwab failed to provide this Court with any further information concerning the

status of his bankruptcy case. This Court, therefore, conducted an independent

review of the relevant bankruptcy docket and Schwab’s filings in that case, which

March 25, 2016
disclose that as of the date of this order, Schwab’s bankruptcy case remains pending

and that Schwab hasfailed to obtain an order from the bankruptcy court enabling him

to proceed with this appeal. 

Accordingly, any further proceedings in the above appeal remain stayed by

operation of law and this case is REMANDED to the trial court until such time as

relief from the stay is entered or Schwab’s bankruptcy case is dismissed. At that time

Schwab may reinstate the present appeal, provided that he file an appropriate notice

of appeal, limited to the subject matter of the present appeal, within thirty days of the

lifting of the stay or dismissal of his bankruptcy case. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/25/2016
#### COOPER & GRIFFIN, INC., v. OSAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

(Filed 20 November, 1935.)

Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*at March Term, 1935, of GaSTON.

This was an action to recover damages for breach of contract for purchase of two hundred bales of cotton.

It was admitted in the pleadings that defendant, a cotton manufacturing company, agreed to purchase from- plaintiff cotton broker the cotton in question at a price, for delivery on 21 and 28 July, and that thereafter it was agreed that “shipments need not be made as required by the terms of the contract, but that if plaintiff would keep cotton *851moving to tbe defendant’s mill, it would be satisfactory so long as tbe mill was kept supplied.”

Tbe evidence was uncontradicted tbat from 4 August to 9 August, plaintiff shipped and defendant received and paid for 105 bales of cotton, and tbat plaintiff was ready, able, and willing to deliver tbe remaining 95 bales; tbat tbe mill requirements were 103 bales per week, and tbat on 9 August defendant bad on band sufficient cotton for five or six days’ run. On 11 August defendant refused further shipments. Thereupon, plaintiff sold said 95 bales and sustained a loss of $1,071.42.

There was no controversy as to tbe amount involved.

Tbe trial judge charged tbe jury if they found tbe facts to be as testified to answer tbe issues in favor of tbe plaintiff.

*P. W. Garland and Blythe & Bonham for plaintiff.*

*S. J. Durham for defendant.*

Pee OuRIAm.

Tbe only exception is to tbe judge’s charge. In this we find no error.

Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Biomoda,  Inc.,
("the Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"),  I, John Cousins,  Chief
Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

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

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




                                 By: /s/John J. Cousins
                                     ------------------
                                     John J. Cousins
                                     Executive Vice President
                                     (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

                                     October 6, 2006


   A signed original of this written statement required by section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Name:
    Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Title:
    Chairman, President and 
Chief Executive Officer/s/ Joseph P. HannanName:
    Joseph P. HannanTitle:
    Senior Vice President, Treasurer and 
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership(the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Ronald Brown, the President and a Director of the Partnership’sGeneral Partner, NewReal, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
|   | /s/  RONALD BROWN                                                                                                         |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Ronald Brown  Principal Executive Officer  (President and Director of  the Partnership’s General Partner,  NewReal, Inc.) |
|   | November 14, 2003                                                                                                                   |

 

1

----
#### Daniel H. Vial v. Ellen M. Banker and others.

Order modified, by striking out costs of the appeal to the special guardian.
#### Daniel Vrooman and others v. John M. Close and others.

Motion denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6622

BENJAMIN DAVIS, III, a/k/a BJ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RODERICK R. SOWERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:04-cv-03748-WDQ)

Submitted: June 1, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Davis, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Davis’ 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. 

DISMISSED