alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov |  | **Search**  |
|------------------------|--|------------------|

| Solvency Provisions | Provisions Affecting Cost-of-Living Adjustment |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|

| Number | Table and graph selection                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A1     | Beginning in December 2009, reduce the annual COLA by        1 percentage point.              Summary measures and graphs         (PDF version)       Detailed single year tables          (PDF version)                                                             |
| A2     | Beginning in December 2009, reduce the annual COLA by 0.5        percentage point.              Summary measures and graphs         (PDF version)       Detailed single year tables          (PDF version)                                                           |
| A3     | Beginning in December 2009, use the "superlative" (or "chained") CPI        for COLAs, estimated to reduce the COLA by 0.3 percentage point.              Summary measures and graphs         (PDF version)       Detailed single year tables          (PDF version) |
|        | Above provisions        Summary measures                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified May 12, 2009 |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30835]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Genetic Resources Advisory Council

    According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972 
(P.L. 92-463), the Agricultural Research Service announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: National Genetic Resources Advisory Council.
    Date: February 14-15, 1996.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., February 14, 1996; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 
p.m., February 15, 1996.
    Place: USDA, South Building, Room 3109, 14th and Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250.
    Type of Meeting: Open to the public. Persons may participate in 
the meeting as time and space permit.
    Comments: The public may file written comments before or after 
the meeting with the contact person below.
    Purpose: To advance the development of the National Genetic 
Resources Program.
    Contact Person: Henry L. Shands, Director, National Genetic 
Resources Program, Building 005, Room 115, BARC-West, Beltsville, 
Maryland 20705. Telephone: 301-504-5059.

    Done at Beltsville, Maryland, this 11 day of December 1995.
Henry L. Shands,
Director, National Genetic Resources Program.
[FR Doc. 95-30835 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-M
#### ROSA WATKINS v. JOHN HARRIS, Trading as LITTLE ROSETTA TAXI.

(Filed 13 December, 1944.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sink, J.,*at October Term, 1944, High Point Division, of Guileord.

Civil action to recover for alleged personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, while riding in a taxi belonging to the defendant.

At the close of all the evidence, the defendant renewed his motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made at the close of plaintiff’s evidence; motion granted and plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*C. A. York and Walser & Wright for plaintiff.*

*Gold, McAnally & Gold for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

An examination of the evidence disclosed on this record leads to the conclusion that the motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly granted, under the authority of the companion case, *Watkins v. Grier, ante,*339, 30 S. E. (2d), 219.

Affirmed.
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




Director Compensation




Compensation of directors who are not salaried employees of Avatar Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) is
$52,500 per annum. Members of the Executive Committee who are not salaried employees of the
Company receive a retainer of $2,000 per annum. Members and the Chairperson of the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee receive additional compensation of $4,000 and $7,000, respectively.
Members and the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee receive additional compensation of $4,000
and $5,000, per annum, respectively.



Non-employee directors may elect to defer up to 50% of their annual cash retainer and any committee
fees into shares of common stock of the Company (the “Common Stock”) under the Avatar Holdings Inc.
Amended and Restated 1997 Incentive and Capital Accumulation Plan (2005 Restatement), as amended
(the “Plan”). The cash amount of the deferral is converted into notional shares of Common Stock
based on the closing price of a share of Common Stock on the date such fees would otherwise be
payable in cash. Such notional shares (including any notional dividend equivalents) are converted
into an equivalent number of shares of Common Stock and distributed to the non-employee director on
dates selected by the director (or, if earlier, the date on which such director no longer serves as
a member of the Board of Directors).



In addition, under the Plan, non-employee directors may receive discretionary equity awards for
service on the Board of Directors. On May 28, 2009 (the “Award Date”), each non-employee director
was awarded 840 restricted stock units (“RSUs”) for service as a director for the term beginning
May 28, 2009. The RSUs will vest and be converted into an equivalent number of shares of Common
Stock upon the earlier of the first anniversary of the Award Date and the date immediately
preceding the date of the next Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Company, provided that such
non-employee director is a member of the Board of Directors of the Company on such vesting date.
The RSUs will vest immediately upon the death or disability of the non-employee director or upon a
change in control of the Company. If the non-employee director ceases to be a member of the Board
for any other reason, the RSUs will be forfeited.



Directors who are salaried employees of the Company do not receive additional compensation for
serving on the Board of Directors.



Members of the Board of Directors are reimbursed for actual expenses in connection with attending
Board, committee and stockholder meetings.
#### G. W. BUCHHOLZ v. THE H. K. FERGUSON COMPANY et al.

(Filed 21 May, 1930.)

Bill of Discovery B a — Order for examination of adverse party affirmed under the facts of this case.

Where on defendant’s appeal from an order made upon plaintiffs motion for the examination of the former before a commissioner to procure evidence for drafting the complaint, it appears that the order was issued after careful consideration, and there is nothing to indicate an effort on the part of the plaintiff to set a dragnet for the defendant or to harass or annoy him, the order will be affirmed on appeal.

*700Appeal by defendants, Tbe H. K. Ferguson Company and American Enka Corporation, from *Johnson, Special Judge,*at November Special Term, 1929, of BüNcombe.

Civil action pending in tbe Superior Court of Buncombe County.

Tbe H. K. Ferguson Company, as contractor, and tbe plaintiff, as subcontractor for tbe brick and masonry work, erected a factory for tbe American Enka Corporation at Enka, N. C. Plaintiff contends that be is entitled to collect from defendants a large sum for labor and work performed and materials furnished and used in tbe construction of said factory building. Under tbe terms of tbe contract between tbe plaintiff and tbe principal contractor, an alleged arbitration was bad, resulting in an award for tbe plaintiff. Tbe validity of tbis award is denied by Tbe H. K. Ferguson Company and tbe American Enka Corporation. For tbe purpose, therefore, of determining whether tbe plaintiff should base bis action upon tbe purported arbitration award, or upon tbe original contract, be filed a duly verified petition and motion in tbe cause and obtained an order directing certain officers and agents of tbe appealing defendants to appear before a commissioner for examination by tbe plaintiff to enable him to procure information for tbe drafting of bis complaint. From tbis order tbe said defendants appeal, assigning error.

*Anderson & Howell and Garter & Garter for plaintiff.*

*Bernard, Williams & Wright for defendants, Ferguson Company and American Hnha Corporation.*

Stacy, C. J.

It has been suggested in a number of cases that an order for examination, such as tbe plaintiff seeks, should not be issued except after careful consideration and scrutiny, which seems to have been made in tbe instant case. *Bailey v. Matthews,*156 N. C., 78, 72 S. E., 92. We have found nothing on tbe record to indicate any effort on tbe part of tbe plaintiff to set a dragnet for tbe defendants, or to annoy or harass them. Bell *v. Bank,*196 N. C., 233, 145 S. E., 241; *Chesson v. Bank,*190 N. C., 187, 129 S. E., 403. But should tbis appear later on tbe examination, tbe parties will still be entitled to protection as suggested in *Ward v. Martin,*175 N. C., 287, 95 S. E., 621.

A perusal of tbe record leaves us with tbe impression that tbe order was judiciously entered.

Affirmed.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B6.8: Starting in 2025, provide an additional monthly benefit equal to 1/12th of 2 percent of the AWI for the second prior year.  This additional benefit would be available to those meeting any of the following four requirements:  (a) Social Security beneficiaries who have attained age 82; (b) Social Security beneficiaries who have attained NRA and have both AIME at or below the first PIA bend point ($1,115 for 2023 initial eligibility) and at least 11 "years of coverage" as used for Windfall Elimination Provision purposes (earnings above $29,700 for 2023); (c) Individuals who have received Social Security benefits and/or SSI payments for at least 240 distinct months after attaining age 19; or (d) SSI recipients who have attained the Social Security NRA.  This additional benefit would be paid out of the applicable Social Security OASI or DI Trust Fund for any month in which the individual is in receipt of a Social Security benefit; it would be paid out of the General Fund of the Treasury for any month in which the individual is in receipt of an SSI monthly payment but not a Social Security monthly benefit.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
## Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, in CPI-Indexed            2023 Dollars —            2023 OASDI Trustees Report

| Single-Year Tables | Historical data | Intermediate Assumptions | Low-Cost Assumptions | High-Cost Assumptions |
|--------------------|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Elizabeth Helbing v. Oliver Alan Hunt and John William Deaver

Appellate case number: 01-11-00590-CV

Trial court case number: 2009-31060-A

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

Appellees, Oliver Alan Hunt and John William Deaver, have filed a Motion for 

Reconsideration En Banc of this Court’s opinion and judgment issued November 29, 2012. 

Appellees’ motion fails to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provide that a 

motion for en banc reconsideration “must be no longer than 15 pages.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.10. 

Accordingly, we strike appellees’ Motion for Reconsideration En Banc. Appellees have until 

January 24, 2013 to file a motion for reconsideration that complies with the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge=s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually Q Acting for the Court

Date: January 9, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 573 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 573

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2013

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
 Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American 
                                 Samoa.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    (a) In General.--The first section and section 2 of Public Law 93-
435 (48 U.S.C. 1705, 1706) are amended by inserting ``the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after ``Guam,'' each place it 
appears.
    (b) References to Date of Enactment.--For the purposes of the 
amendment made by subsection (a), each reference in Public Law 93-435 
to the ``date of enactment'' shall be considered to be a reference to 
the date of the enactment of this section.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3338]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Albert Bowman, et al.; Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they 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 indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than February 24, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
    1. Albert Bowman, Rhame, North Dakota; Lorraine Bowman, Rhame, 
North Dakota; Roger Berglund, Bowman, North Dakota; Susan Berglund, 
Bowman, North Dakota; Gwenn Jones, Bowman, North Dakota; Wendy 
Jorgenson, Bismarck, North Dakota; Bruce Bowman, Rhame, North Dakota; 
and Dakota Western Bank Profit Sharing Plan, Bowman, North Dakota 
(collectively, the Bowman Group), to acquire an additional 46.45 
percent, for a total of 100 percent, of the voting shares of Dakota 
Western Bankshares, Inc., Bowman, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Dakota Western Bank, Bowman, North Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 6, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-3338 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3563 

To amend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 

to provide for the addition of certain equipment and services produced 

or provided by DJI Technologies to the list of covered communications 

equipment or services published under such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks 

Act of 2019 to provide for the addition of certain equipment and services produced or provided by DJI Technologies to the list of covered communications equipment 

or services published under such Act, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Countering CCP 

5 Drones Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3563 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES 

2 OF DJI TECHNOLOGIES TO COVERED LIST. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(c) of the Secure and 

4 Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 

5 U.S.C. 1601(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(5) The communications equipment or service 

8 being— 

9 ‘‘(A) telecommunications or video surveil10 lance equipment produced by Shenzhen Da11 Jiang Innovations Sciences and Technologies 

12 Company Limited (commonly known as ‘DJI 

13 Technologies’) (or any subsidiary or affiliate 

14 thereof); or 

15 ‘‘(B) telecommunications or video surveil16 lance services provided by an entity described in 

17 subparagraph (A) or using equipment described 

18 in such subparagraph.’’. 

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 2 of the 

20 Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 

21 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1601) is amended by striking ‘‘para22 graphs (1) through (4)’’ each place it appears and insert23 ing ‘‘paragraphs (1) through (5)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### E. F. SHUTT, Administrator, v. REYNOLDS-LYBROOK FARM.

(Filed 2 November, 1927.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harding, J.,*at March Term, 1927, of Fobsyth.

Civil action in tort to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of defendant.

*804Eugene Shutt, a man 34 years of age, bad worked on defendant’s farm for more than seven years and had been foreman of the place about three and one-half years, when on 29 September, 1923, while disking a field with a caterpillar tractor, preparatory to sowing grain, he was mortally injured in a fall beneath the tractor as it ran too near a ditch, the bank giving way and causing the tractor to turn over.

It is not alleged that the tractor was defective. Plaintiff bottoms his action on the alleged circumstance of negligence in that the defendant failed to warn the deceased of the soft ground and the danger of running too near the ditch.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the defendant lodged a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, which was allowed. Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Wallace- & Wells and Benbow, Hall & Benbow for plaintiff.*

*Manly, Hendren & Womble for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Plaintiff’s intestate was the victim of an unfortunate accident, but the evidence fails to disclose any liability on the part of the defendant.

Affirmed.
******** 

 

 

**** 

Exhibit 32.2

 

**** 

**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 Washington Banking Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Shields, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

 

This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report or under such Acts. 

 

 

/s/ Richard A. Shields         

Richard A. Shields 

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

August6, 2010

 

                                                                               

----
1 Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, I nc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 2015 WL 14173 29, at *8 (Del . Sup er.) (c itin g Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Kirkland, 2010 WL 61075, at *34 (Del. Ch.)(“I will assume that if e ach side’s expenditures are reasonably similar...the fees and costs were reasonably incurred.”)). SUPERIOR COU

RT OF THE STATE OF D ELAWAR

E Mary M. Johnston Judge New Castl e County Courthous e 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, DE 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0668 April 7, 2015 Blake Bennett, Esquire Cooch and T aylor The Bra ndywine Building 1000 West

Street, 10 th Floor P.O. Box 1680 Wilm ington, DE

19899-1680 Michael Kelly, E squire McCarter & Englis h Renaissance Centre 405 N. Kings Street, 8 th Floor Wilm ington, DE

19801

Re: PICA v. Hewlett Packard C. A. No. N 12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD

Dear C ounsel: The Cour t has reviewed counse l’s lett ers dated April 1, 2 and 6, 2015

. As the Cou

rt stated in its Marc h 23, 2015 O pinion: Should HP dispute

the reas onableness of the dolla r am ount represented

by 75% of PICA ’s attor

neys’ fees, HP shallprovide a full account ing o f HP’ s own fee s and costs in defending the ent irety of this litigation. The Court then will mak e a determ ination as to reasona

bleness. 1This ruling is clear. HP can attem pt to demonstrate t

hat PICA ’s fee

request is not ap prop riate by prov idin g its own fee s for c omparis on. In othe r word s, if HP ’s counsel submit s an affi davit stating that 75% of HP’ s total attorney s’ fees is less than $1,028,130 .38, the Courtwill require both parties to provide a full accounting of fees to determ ine reaso nableness. The same procedure applies to PICA’s calculation of the fees aw arded under the Rule 37(b) sanction s. However, PICA is directed to review

its fee c alculatio ns to ens ure th at P ICA is n ot rec ov eri ng th e sa me fees twice, as HP claims. The Court dec lin es t o req uir e PIC A to b reak dow n th e Ru le 3 7(b ) fee s by c ateg ory. Fin all y, the Court a

warded 7 5% of

PICA’ s total attorney s’ fee s. This includes the post-tr

ial proce edings. HP shall file any

objecti ons to the Proposed F inal Order and Judgm ent by n o later than Apri l 14, 2015. Post judg ment interest will run as of the date the Court enters the Final Or der and Judg

ment. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston Mary

M. Johnston

MMJ/tjm oc: Prothonotary