alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 11.1****COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE****GEORGIA BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION****AND SUBSIDIARY**

 

|                                                                      |   | **Year ended****December 31,** |      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|-----------|
|                                                                      |   |                                |      |
|                                                                      |   | **2002**                       |      | **2001** |   | **2000** |   |
|                                                                      |   |                                |      |  |   |  |   |
| Net income                                                                |   | $                              | 6,010,125 |   | $ | 4,561,004 |   | $ | 4,002,296 |   |
|                                                                      |   |                           |      |   |   |   |   |
| Basic and diluted net income per share:(1)                                |   |                           |      |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                      |   | 2,385,280                      |      | 2,385,280 |   | 2,397,327 |   |
|                                                                      |   |                           |      |   |   |   |   |
| Basic net income per share                                                |   | $                              | 2.52      |   | $ | 1.91 |   | $ | 1.67 |   |
|                                                                      |   |                           |      |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of common and common equivalent sharesoutstanding |   |  

2,397,613              |      |  

2,389,149 |   |  

2,398,260 |   |
|                                                                      |   |                           |      |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted net income per share                                              |   | $                              | 2.51      |   | $ | 1.91 |   | $ | 1.67 |   |

   (1)    Adjusted on a comparative basis for the 15% stock dividend payable August 31, 2001.
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Number of Social Security Primary Awards

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Award data

Beneficiary data

The graph below shows the number of people (in thousands) awarded      Social Security benefits on the basis of their earnings.  We call such       awards primary awards.      The two types of primary awards are awards to retired workers and      awards to disabled workers.

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| For both the retired worker awards     (top of graph) and disabled worker awards (bottom), we show both the monthly     number (thinner line) and the corresponding 12-month moving average (thicker line).
     The first cohort of baby boomers, who were born in 1946, reached age 62 in 2008.     The graph above shows the number of awards to retired workers increasing beginning in 2008.

	 If a beneficiary is entitled to both a    *primary* benefit (as a retired or disabled worker) and another benefit    (say as a spouse or widow(er)), the person is counted only once in our    statistics as a primary beneficiary. |

Footer menu
1 District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting

by designation.

 

2 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 94-11046

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

SOLAH KASSEM ABOU-KASSEM,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:87 CR 14 E)

______________________________________________________

August 4, 1995

Before DAVIS, JONES, Circuit Judges, and HINOJOSA1, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:2

Abou-Kassem appeals the dismissal of his § 2255 petition. We

dismiss the appeal as moot.

In November 1987, a jury convicted Abou-Kassem of two counts

of hostage taking, two counts of attempted air piracy, one count of

unlawful possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, and four

counts of using a firearm in a crime of violence. Before trial,

the district court granted Abou-Kassem's request for a competency
2

hearing and, following the hearing, declared him mentally competent

to stand trial. 

Before sentencing, Abou-Kassem requested another hearing to

assess his mental condition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4244 and 4257.

The district court granted his request and determined that AbouKassem suffered from a mental condition requiring treatment.

Pursuant to § 4244, the district court committed him to a federal

mental facility under a provisional sentence of life plus forty

years. Abou-Kassem then filed a § 2255 petition challenging his

provisional sentence. He filed the instant appeal when the

district court denied his petition. After Abou-Kassem filed his

notice of appeal, however, the district court determined that he

was competent to be sentenced and imposed a final sentence. AbouKassem subsequently filed a direct appeal from his final sentence.

Abou-Kassem's provisional sentence was terminated when the

district court issued its final sentence. Because of the

termination of his provisional sentence, we can no longer grant him

the relief he seeks in his § 2255 petition. His appeal of the

district court's denial of his § 2255 petition is therefore moot.

See In re Sullivan Cent. Plaza, I, Ltd., 914 F.2d 731, 733-34 (5th

Cir. 1990)("The mootness doctrine is grounded primarily and

originally in the appellate court's inability to fashion relief.").

Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5770 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5770

  To amend the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011 to 
extend authority granted to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency to waive certain debts relating to disaster 
   assistance provided to individuals and households, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2014

Mr. Meeks (for himself, Mr. King of New York, and Mr. Grimm) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011 to 
extend authority granted to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency to waive certain debts relating to disaster 
   assistance provided to individuals and households, 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 ``Disaster Assistance Recoupment 
Fairness Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY.

    Section 565 of title V of division D of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2012 (125 Stat. 982; also known as the ``Disaster 
Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011'') is amended in subsection 
(b)(1)(B) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 
31, 2014''.
                                 <all>
```
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 27, 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00436

- CR

NOAH DAVIS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1559721

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant was charged with and pleaded “ guilty ” to possession of cocaine weighing four grams or more but less than 400 grams with intent to deliver. Texas Controlled Substances Act, Te x. Health & Safety Code §§ 481.102(3)(D) , 481.112(a), (d)

. Following a presentence investigation hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for eight years with no fine. Tex. Penal Code § 12.32 . Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is that hi s sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crimes and therefore violate s the Eighth Amendment to the2

United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution.
A complaint that a punishment is grossly disproportionate is waived on appeal if that complaint is not raised in the trial court. See Lozano v. State , 577 S.W.3d 275, 277 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (holding that disproportionate

punishm ent challenges cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); Quick v. State
, 557 S.W.3d 775, 788 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d) (holding that disproportionate

- punishment challenges under Texas Constitution cannot be
raised for the firs t time on appeal). A ppellant did not lodge any complaint in the trial court regarding his punishment. Therefore, he has not preserved error for appellate review. See Lozano , 577 S.W.3d at 277; Quick , 557 S.W.3d at 788

. . We overrule appellant ’ s sole issu e and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

.
Exhibit
      32


CERTIFICATION





The
      undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:





(1)
      The
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
      2007, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date: February
                  14, 2008
              
              /s/
                    Mark N.
                    Schwartz
                  Chief
                    Executive OfficerDate: February
                  14, 2008
              
              /s/
                    Mark P.
                    O’Neill
                  Manager
                    of Finance and Accounting










25
The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District

1

Judge for the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 96-1129

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

William Gamble, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 28, 1996 

 Filed: July 12, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Gamble appeals the district court's denial of his motion to 1

dismiss an indictment charging him with drug and firearm offenses. As he

did below, Gamble argues that a prior administrative forfeiture proceeding

against cash found in his residence, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881,

constituted punishment and posed a double jeopardy bar to his indictment.

Reviewing the district court's ruling de novo, see United States v. Petty,

62 F.3d 265, 267 (8th Cir. 1995), we find Gamble's argument is foreclosed

by the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Ursery, 1996 WL

340815, *16 (U.S. June 24, 1996) (No. 95-345) (holding that in rem civil

forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) are neither "punishment" nor

criminal for purposes of Double Jeopardy Clause).
-2-

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

   

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-46728, 33-86830, 333-07391, 333-18563 and 333-28789 of Fisher Scientific
International Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report dated February 18, 1998 (March 9,
1998 as to Note 2) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fisher
Scientific International Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.
 
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
March 19, 1998
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
136223 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 136223 COA: 283512 Montcalm CC: 07-009015-FC LOUIS ALAN LATHROP, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0616 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.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
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




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ecoland
International, Inc. for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2009, I, David A.
Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of Ecoland International, Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




1.           Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ending May 31, 2009, 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 such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2009, fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Ecoland International, Inc.




Dated
December 21, 2009.




/s/ David A. WallaceDavid
      A. Wallace, Chief Executive Officer ofEcoland
      International, Inc.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of KKR Financial Holdings LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), William C. Sonneborn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jeffrey B. Van
Horn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 2,
2009

/s/ WILLIAM C. SONNEBORN William C. Sonneborn Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ JEFFREY B. VAN HORN Jeffrey B. Van Horn Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 31.2SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerI, Paula J. Meiler, certify that: 1 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CSB Bancorp, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’ internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 24, 2006       /s/ Paula J. Meiler Paula J. Meiler
## Actuaries at SSA

Office of the Chief Actuary

1. What is an actuary?

2. What do actuaries do?

3. What does actuarial work in the federal government involve?

4. What do actuaries in the Social Security Administration do?

5. What is needed to prepare for an actuarial career?

6. What are Social Security actuaries paid?

7. How do I get further information about actuarial work at Social Security?

1. **What is an actuary?**
2. **What do actuaries do?**
3. **What does actuarial work in the federal government involve?**4. **What do actuaries in the Social Security Administration do?**5. **What is needed to prepare for an actuarial career?**
 Office of Personnel Management
6. **What are Social Security actuaries paid?**7. **How do I get further information about actuarial work at Social Security?**
For further information on meeting eligibility requirements for federal employment as an actuary, write to Jason Schultz.

Footer menu
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 0.05 0.08 1% 2%

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: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B7.10. Replace the current-law WEP with a new calculation for most OASI and DI 

benefits based on covered and non-covered earnings, phased in for beneficiaries becoming newly eligible 

in 2030 through 2039. For this new approach, compute a PIA based on all past earnings (covered and noncovered), and multiply by the "non-covered earnings ratio." This ratio is equal to the current-law concept of 

the average indexed monthly earnings computed without non-covered earnings divided by a modified 

average indexed monthly earnings that includes both covered and non-covered earnings in agency 

records.

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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GARRICK GIDEON JOHN

, Appellant,

v.

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ and FLORIDA DENTAL CENTER OF LAKE

PARK, INC.,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 1533

[ February 9, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Jaimie R. Goodman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502010CA017346

.

Garrick Gideon John

, Lake Butler , pro se.

No appearance for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.