alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Proposed Provision: B7.12. Provide an option to split the 8-percent delayed retirement credit (DRC) to offer a lump sum benefit at initial entitlement equal to 2 percent of the 8 percent DRC earned, and a 6 percent DRC on subsequent monthly benefits, effective for workers newly entitled to retired worker benefits in 2026 and later.  Widows are held harmless from the lump-sum decision.

back
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3499 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3499

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to 
     repeal certain obsolete requirements, 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. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE DHS CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS.

    The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Public 
Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1394) is amended by striking section 692 (6 
U.S.C. 792).

            Passed the Senate June 7, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3499

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to 
     repeal certain obsolete requirements, and for other purposes.
```
#### OBERLY & NEWELL LITHOGRAPH CORPORATION v. WATSON CLARK.

(Filed 11 October, 1939.)

Appeal by defendant from *Rousseau, J.,*at February Term, 1939, of Rutherford.

No error.

Action to recover the contract price of certain labels, box tops and other goods manufactured for the Clark Knitting Mill, of which it was alleged the defendant' was owner or partner. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed.

*Paul Boucher for plaintiff.*

*M. P. Spears and T. J. Edwards for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Determinative issues of fact were decided by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. On the record we find no ruling of the trial court which should be held for reversible error.

No error.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BALTIMORE, MD 21235-0001

SOCIAL SECURITY

Office of the Chief Actuary

December 6, 2011

The Honorable Timothy F. Geithner

Secretary of the Treasury

Washington, D.C. 20220

The Honorable Jacob J. Lew

Director, Office of Management and Budget

Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. Geithner and Mr. Lew:

We have reviewed the language in the “Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011” (S. 1944), introduced 

yesterday by Senator Casey. We estimate that the enactment of this bill would have a negligible 

effect on the financial status of the Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance 

(OASDI) program in both the near term and the long term. We estimate that the projected level 

of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be unaffected by enactment of this provision.

Section 2 of the bill would make the following changes for payroll tax rates and OASDI 

financing: (1) for wages and salaries paid in calendar year 2012 and self-employment earnings 

in calendar year 2012, reduce the OASDI payroll tax rate by 3.1 percentage points, (2) transfer 

revenue from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI Trust Funds so that total 

revenue for trust funds would be unaffected by this provision, and (3) credit earnings to the 

records of workers for the purpose of determining future benefits payable from the trust funds so 

that such benefits would be unaffected by this provision. For wage and salary earnings, the 

3.1-percent rate reduction would apply to the employee share of the payroll tax rate. For

self-employment earnings, the personal income tax deduction for the OASDI payroll tax would 

be 66.67 percent of the portion of such taxes attributable to self-employment earnings for 2012. 

Other sections of the bill would have no direct effects on the OASDI program.

Sincerely,

Stephen C. Goss

Chief Actuary
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B5.3: Beginning for those newly eligible in 2024, reconfigure the special minimum benefit: (a) A year of coverage is defined to be either a year in which 4 quarters of coverage are earned or a child is in care. Childcare years are granted to parents who have a child under 5, with a limit of 8 such years. (b) At implementation, set the PIA for 30 years of coverage equal to 125 percent of the monthly poverty level (about $1,416 in 2022). For those with under 30 years of coverage, the PIA per year of coverage over 10 years is $1,416/20 = $70.80. (c) Index the initial PIA per year of coverage by wage growth for successive cohorts.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, JeffreyCrystal, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of IntertapePolymer Group Inc.; 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate 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; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4.    The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] and internal control over financial reporting [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)] for the Company and have: 

a.    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

b.    Designed such internal control over financing reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles; 

c.    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

d.    Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.    The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a.    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b.    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 29, 2017
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

I, John T. Stephens, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CFS
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
               quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully
               complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 78o(d)) and

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


Date:  May 14, 2003                         By: /s/    John T. Stephens
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               John T. Stephens, Executive Vice
                                               President and Chief Financial
                                               Officer



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 901 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO CFS BANCORP, INC., WILL BE RETAINED BY CFS BANCORP, INC., AND WILL
BE FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
REQUEST.
## 2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-23-2005 

# U S A v . Lor e
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3043

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . L or e " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 9. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/9

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 03-3043, 03-3217, 03-4349, 03-4350

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. JOSEPH LORE, Appellant in No. 03-3043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. DENISE BOHN, Appellant in No. 03-3217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. JOSEPH PELLICCIA, Appellant in No. 03-4349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. WILLIAM HURLEY, Appellant in No. 03-4350

## 2 

## On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Crim. No. 99- cr-00292-4/3/6/5) Honorable Mary Little Cooper, District Judge

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 28, 2005 BEFORE: SLOVITER, FISHER, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 2, 2005)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION
It is hereby ordered that the last complete sentence in the first complete paragraph on page 30 of the slip opinion in this case is deleted. The sentence deleted reads as follows: Moreover, notwithstanding the alternative to the loss calculation, the problem of enhancements based upon facts found by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence still remains. See Lore App. at 267-77 (district court imposing enhancement for obstruction of justice based upon a preponderance of the evidence. By the court, /s/ Morton I. Greenberg Circuit Judge DATED: December 23, 2005 DMM/cc: Marc Fernich, Esq. Michael P. Koribanics, Esq. Mr. Joseph Pelleccia Leonard Meyerson, Esq. George S. Leone, Esq. David B. Lat, Esq.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2018

No. 04-18-00687-CV

INTEREST OF J.A.R.,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01303

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of a September 13, 2018 order terminating the parental 

rights of appellant. The appeal must be disposed of by this court within 180 days from the date 

notice of appeal was filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. The appellant’s notice of appeal was filed 

in the trial court on September 24, 2018. The appellate record was complete on October 15, 

2018, making the original due date for the appellant’s brief November 5, 2018. Appellant 

requested and received one extension of twenty days, extending the deadline for the appellant’s 

brief to November 26, 2018. As of this date, neither the appellant’s brief nor a motion for 

extension of time has been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing 

within ten (10) days from the date of this order why her appeal should not be dismissed for want 

of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(a)(1), 38.8(a)(1). 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 14th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
### Proposed Provision: B6.5. Starting in 2026, provide a 5 percent uniform PIA increase 20 years after benefit eligibility. Phase in the PIA increase at 1 percent per year from the 16th through 20th years after eligibility. The full PIA increase is equal to 5 percent of the PIA of a worker assumed to have career-average earnings equal to the SSA average wage index.  Auxiliary beneficiaries receive benefit enhancement based on the PIA of the governing worker.
### Proposed Provision: B6.4. Starting in 2024, provide a 5 percent uniform benefit increase 24 years after initial benefit eligibility. Phase in the benefit increase at 1 percent per year from the 20th through 24th years after eligibility. For disabled workers, the eligibility age is the initial entitlement year to the benefit. The benefit increase is equal to 5 percent of the PIA of a worker assumed to have career-average earnings equal to SSA's average wage index.  Auxiliary beneficiaries receive benefit enhancement based on the PIA of the governing worker.
#### LIZZIE SWAIM CREED v. SHERMAN ANDREW WHITLOCK

(Filed 6 April, 1960.)

1. Trial § 49—

Motion to set aside the verdict as being contrary to tbe greater weight .of tbe evidence is addressed to tbe discretion of tbe trial court.

2. Appeal and Error § 42—

An exception to the charge will not be sustained when the charge, considered contextually, is without prejudicial error.

3. Appeal and Error § 24—

An assignment of error to the court’s failure to charge the law and explain the evidence as required by statute is a broadside exception and will not be considered.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gambill, J.,*September Civil Term, 1959, of Wilices.

Personal injury action growing out of a collision that occurred January 12,1958, about 12:30 p.m., on the Traphill Road, between a 1952 Chevrolet, operated by plaintiff, and a 1950 Chevrolet, owned and operated by defendant. Prior to the collision, both cars were proceeding in the same (north) direction, the car operated by defendant following the car operated by plaintiff. The collision occurred when plaintiff was in process of making a left turn into the driveway to her home and defendant was in process of overtaking and passing plaintiff.

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages, raised by the pleadings, were submitted to the jury. The jury answered the negligence issue, “Yes,” and answered the contributory negligence issue, “Yes,” and did not reach the issue relating to plaintiff’s alleged damages.

Judgment for defendant, in accordance with the verdict, was entered. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Parks G. Hampton and Whicker ■& Whicker for plaintiff, appellant.*

*W. G. Mitchell for defendant, appellee.*

PER Curiam.

Plaintiff’s motion that the court “set aside the verdict as being against the greater weight of the evidence, and for a new trial,” was addressed to the court’s discretion; and plaintiff’s assignment of error No. 1, directed to the denial of said motion, is untenable.

Plaintiff’s assignment of error No. 2, based on her exception to the signing of the judgment, is formal.

When the charge is considered contextually, the portions thereof *337to which plaintiff’s assignments of error Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are directed do not disclose prejudicial error. It is noted: Pertinent to the contributory negligence issue, the conflict in the evidence related to whether plaintiff did or did not give a signal of her intention to make a left turn, not to the sufficiency or insufficiency of such signal.

Plaintiff’s assignment of error No. 10 is to the court’s failure “to charge the law and explain the evidence required under General Statutes 1-180.” This assignment is broadside and untenable. *S. v. Corl,*250 N.C. 262, 265, 108 S.E. 2d 613, and cases cited; Strong, N. C. Index, Vol. 1, Appeal and Error § 24.

Upon conflicting evidence, the case was properly submitted for jury determination; and it appears “that the law of the case was presented to the jury in such manner as to leave no reasonable cause to believe that it was misled or misinformed in respect thereto.” *Vincent v. Woody,*238 N.C. 118, 121, 76 S.E. 2d 356.

No error.
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 1.37 1.13 38% 26%

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: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: E3.15. Increase the taxable maximum such that 90 percent of earnings are subject to 

the payroll tax (phased in 2024-2033). In addition, apply a tax rate of 6.2 percent for earnings above the 

revised taxable maximum (phased in from 2024-2033). Provide benefit credit for earnings taxed up to the 

revised taxable maximum.

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
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mark F. Daoust, Appellant. Overnight Transportation Company, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 616]

Peters, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 20, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a truck driver, was discharged by his employer for his alleged involvement in the theft of some chainsaws he was tasked with delivering to a customer. In connection with this incident, claimant was later arrested and charged with criminal *829possession of stolen property in the third degree, a class D felony. Claimant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the initial determination that claimant was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving such benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals and we affirm.

Contrary to claimant’s contention, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. It is well settled that “[a]n employee’s apparent dishonesty . . . can constitute disqualifying misconduct” *(Matter of Huggins [Samaritan Med. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor],*257 AD2d 877, 878 [1999]; *see Matter of Petrosov [Commissioner of Labor],*284 AD2d 874, 875 [2001]). Here, claimant admitted at the hearing that he pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree in connection with his involvement in the theft of the chainsaws. Thus, the Board was entitled to rely on such evidence of claimant’s dishonesty, as well as the sworn affidavits of accomplices implicating claimant in the crime, as a basis for disqualification *(see*Labor Law § 593 [3]; *Matter of Edwards [New York City Police Dept.—Commissioner of Labor],*1 AD3d 679 [2003]; *Matter of Zegarelli [Sweeney],*241 AD2d 616 [1997]). Although claimant maintains his innocence and argues that the Board failed to properly weigh other mitigating circumstances surrounding his plea, such conflicting evidence presented credibility issues falling within the exclusive province of the Board, which was not obligated to adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s contrary credibility determinations *(see Matter of Cooney [Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.—Commissioner of Labor],*283 AD2d 820, 821 [2001]; *Matter of Thompson [New York City Off. of Bronx Borough President—Commissioner of Labor],*270 AD2d 551, 552 [2000]). Claimant’s remaining arguments have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.