alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INEZ D. LEVI v. THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.

(Filed 18 September, 1935.)

Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*at December Term, 1934, of BUNCOMBE.

Civil action to recover on certificate of group insurance issued by defendant to plaintiff as an'employee of tbe American Enka Corporation, and tried in tbe general county court upon tbe following issues:

“1. Did tbe plaintiff, while an employee of tbe American Enka Corporation, become totally and permanently disabled by disease so as thereby presumably to be continuously prevented for life from engaging in any occupation or performing any work for compensation of financial value ? Answer: Wes.'

“2. Did tbe plaintiff submit due proof of total permanent disability to tbe defendant within one year from tbe alleged commencement thereof? Answer: ‘Yes.’

“3. Is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant under tbe terms of tbe master policy issued by tbe defendant to tbe American Enka Corporation, under which tbe individual certificate was issued to tbe plaintiff? Answer:‘Yes.’

“4. What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant? Answer: ‘$453.15.’ ”

Judgment on tbe verdict, from which defendant appealed to tbe Superior Court, assigning errors. These were overruled by tbe Superior Court sitting as an appellate court. From this latter judgment tbe defendant appeals.

*J oseph W. Little and, J oseph L. Auten for plaintiff.*

*Parker, Bernard & DuBose for defendant.*

*836Pee Cueiam.

Tbe verdict is supported by tbe evidence, and tbe record is free from reversible error. Tbe conflict in tbe testimony of tbe witnesses relative to tbe alleged, and denied, total and permanent disability of plaintiff was a matter for tbe jury.

Tbe case of *Thigpen v. Ins. Co.,*204 N. C., 551, 168 S. E., 845, cited and relied upon by defendant, is not authority for tbe position taken.

No error bas been made to appear in any of tbe rulings of tbe Superior Court.

Affirmed.
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Actuarial Publications     Click to subscribe

Office of the Chief Actuary

2023 OASDI Trustees Report

OASDI Trustees Reportswho signed

Financial Status

 PDF

2023 Annual Report of the SSI Program

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program SSI Annual Reports 

                - Proposals
                - Provisions

                - Letters and memoranda providing estimates for proposals and groups of       provisions
                - Individual changes considered for modifying Social Security

NotesStudies

Stochastic      projections

Fact Sheet

Statistical Tables 

actuary@ssa.gov

Footer menu
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001058872
<NAME> THE RESORT AT SUMMERLIN, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,968
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,968
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       682,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   (370,796)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,842
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               233,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (233,955)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (233,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (233,955)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10385

Conference Calendar

 

ARMANDO HERRERA SALCIDO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN W. STICKELS,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CV-96-C

- - - - - - - - - -

August 15, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Herrera Salcido (#553772), a state prisoner, has

appealed the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. 

Salcido contends that defendant, John W. Stickels, acted with

deliberate indifference to his psychiatric condition. See Hare

v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 649-50 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). We have carefully reviewed the record and Salcido’s

brief, and conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. 
No. 97-10385 

-2-

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We

caution Salcido that any additional frivolous appeals filed by

him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions

Salcido is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to

ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.0


                       SCIENTIFIC GAMES HOLDINGS CORP.
                                 SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>                                        STATE/JURISDICTION
                                                 OF INCORPORATION/         OTHER NAMES UNDER WHICH BUSINESS
          NAME                                     ORGANIZATION                      IS CONDUCTED
----------------------------                     ------------------        --------------------------------
<S>                                               <C>                      <C>
Scientific Games Inc.                               Delaware

Scientific Games (Greece) Inc.                      Delaware

GameTec Inc.                                        Delaware               Scientific Games Acquisition, Inc.

Scientific Games Foreign Sales Corporation          Barbados

Scientific Games International Limited            United Kingdom           Formerly known as Opax International Limited
 Line of business; instant ticket manufacturer
 Number of subsidiaries within US = 0
 Number of subsidiaries outside US = 4

</TABLE>
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UL Y 07, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 3 1 1 7 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 2 0 5 6 7

- C R

- A J

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

M A R I L Y N D E L A P A Z , a

. k

. a

. M a r i l y n M a r t i s ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J u l y 7 , 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e B L A C K , P R Y O R a n d H I L L , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

T h o m a s J o h n B u t l e r , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r M a r i l y n D e L a P a z i n t h i s d i r e c tc r i m i n a l a p p e a l , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e

a p p e l l a n t a n d f

i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

.
1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e
i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t ,

c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d D e L a P a z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d

s e n t e n c e s a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.01 0.01 0% 0%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Family Members

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: D7. Beginning in January 2026, require full time school enrollment as a condition of 

eligibility for child benefits at age 15 up to 18.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31241]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Mobility

AGENCY: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Mobility 
will meet in closed session on January 9-10, 1996 at Science 
Applications International Corporation, McLean, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
for Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will engage in a broad review of strategic mobility under a range 
of scenarios. The review should include the joint and service processes 
for planning, executing, protecting, and sustaining force deployments. 
It should also include the resources and activities that provide 
command and control, communications and information systems in support 
of strategic mobility.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this meeting 
will be closed to the public.

    Dated: December 19, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-31241 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
## Immigration Assumptions —            2023 OASDI Trustees Report

| Single-Year Tables | Historical data | Intermediate Assumptions | Low-Cost Assumptions | High-Cost Assumptions |
|--------------------|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|
#### E. C. HIGHSMITH v. A. H. EWING.

(Filed 19 June, 1940.)

Appeal by defendant from *Stevens, J.,*at October-November Term, •1939, of PeNdee.

Civil action to recover for lumber sold and delivered.

Tbe defendant, a general contractor of Eichmond, Ya., was under contract to build a bouse in-Wilmington, N. C. On competitive bidding, tbe Charles E. Barnes Lumber Company, of Ealeigb, N. C., was awarded *798the contract to furnish the lumber according to specifications. The lumber company in turn placed a part of the order with the plaintiff, a sawmill operator of Rocky Point, N. C., to be filled. It is in evidence that the plaintiff declined to fill the order from the lumber company and so notified the defendant. Whereupon the defendant notified the lumber company that he would purchase the needed lumber on the open market. The lumber was thereafter purchased from the plaintiff by defendant’s foreman.

Plaintiff billed the defendant for the lumber on 13 September, 1937, which amounted to $381.44. Payment was declined on 18 September, 1937, on the ground that the lumber was furnished under a contract with the Barnes Lumber Company, to whom plaintiff was informed he should look for payment. The defendant paid the Barnes Lumber Company for the lumber in question on 20 October, 1937.

Upon denial of liability and issue joined, the jury responded in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Clifton L. Moore, C. E. McCullen, Jr., and I. C. Wright for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Rountree & Rountree for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The legal questions involved are not altogether free from difficulty, albeit the Challes R. Barnes Lumber Company, who has received payment for the lumber in question, is not a party to the action. Plaintiff omits to explain why he declined to fill the order for the Barnes Lumber Company when he had the needed lumber on hand. Nevertheless, all disputed matters were submitted to the jury and resolved in favor of the plaintiff. It would seem that the verdict might well have been otherwise. However, the issue was for the jury. No doubt the defendant’s failure to protect himself by refusing to pay the lumber company after notice of plaintiff’s claim had much to do with the result. The exceptive assignments of error are apparently insufficient to warrant a new trial. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134342 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134342 COA: 278324 Wayne CC: 01-012200-01 ERNEST L. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 15, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

d1022 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.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3338 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3338

 To revise the boundary of the Ste. Genevieve National Historical Park 
           in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 8, 2021

 Mr. Blunt (for himself and Mr. Hawley) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To revise the boundary of the Ste. Genevieve National Historical Park 
           in the State of Missouri, 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 ``Ste. Genevieve National Historical 
Park Boundary Revision Act''.

SEC. 2. STE. GENEVIEVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY REVISION.

    (a) Map.--Section 7134(a)(3) of appendix C of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2018 (16 U.S.C. 410xxx(a)(3)), is amended by 
striking ``numbered 571/149,942, and dated December 2018'' and 
inserting ``numbered 571/177,464, and dated September 2021''.
    (b) Authority To Correct Errors in Map.--Section 7134(d) of 
appendix C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (16 U.S.C. 
410xxx(d)), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Map'' and inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--The Map''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Authority to correct errors.--The Secretary may 
        correct any clerical or typographical errors in the Map.''.
    (c) Visitor Center.--Section 7134(e) of appendix C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (16 U.S.C. 410xxx(e)), is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Visitor center.--The Secretary--
                    ``(A) may acquire, by donation, the land (including 
                any improvements to the land) owned by the city of Ste. 
                Genevieve, Missouri, and used as the visitor center for 
                the Historical Park, as generally depicted on the Map 
                as `Proposed Boundary Addition'; and
                    ``(B) on acquisition of the land described in 
                subparagraph (A), shall revise the boundary of the 
                Historical Park to include the acquired land.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4549 Filed: 11/01/19 Entered: 11/01/19 13:49:00 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4549 Filed: 11/01/19 Entered: 11/01/19 13:49:00 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4549 Filed: 11/01/19 Entered: 11/01/19 13:49:00 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4549 Filed: 11/01/19 Entered: 11/01/19 13:49:00 Page 4 of

4
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael W. Katz, certify that:



|(1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Perfumania Holdings, Inc.;
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: June 1, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|By: /S/ MICHAEL W. KATZ              
|Michael W. Katz                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           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 of Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Edward B. Rudner, Principal Officer of the Company, 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.


Date: May 14, 2007


/s/ Edward B. Rudner
--------------------
Edward B. Rudner
Principal Financial Officer
#### AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK v. M. L. STARKEY and JOSEPH S. GOLDBERG.

(Filed 21 October, 1925.)

Appeal by defendants from *Dunn, J.,*at April Term, 1925, of New HaNOvee. No error.

*John D. Bellamy & Sons for plaintiff.*

*Herbert McGlammy for defendants.*

Pee CueiaM.

On 22 November, 1922, the defendants executed a negotiable promissory note in the sum -of $900 payable to the order of the Commercial National Bank of Wilmington. The plaintiff alleged-that the note had been signed and endorsed by the defendants and that the Commercial National Bank for value received had sold and transferred the note before maturity to the plaintiff. The defendants denied 'these allegations and pleaded fraud in procuring the execution of the note; but admitted that it has not been paid.

*868Upon proper issues tbe jury found tbat tbe execution of tbe note bad been procured from tbe defendants by false and fraudulent representations; tbat tbe plaintiff is a bolder in due course; and tbat tbe defendants are indebted to plaintiff in tbe sum of $900 witb interest from 21 January, 1923. Judgment was given for tbe plaintiff and tbe defendants excepted and appealed.

We find no error wbicb entitles tbe defendants to a new trial. If tbe plaintiff became a bolder in due course, as tbe verdict determines, it took tbe note free and discharged of tbe defendants’ equities; and tbe controversy upon this question was fairly presented to tbe jury. Tbe exceptions do not disclose good cause for a new trial.

No error.