alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Proposed Provision: B1.1. Price indexing of PIA factors beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2030: Reduce factors so that initial benefits grow by inflation rather than by the SSA average wage index.

back
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (3.37 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3786

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Daniel Pena Ramirez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 22, 2010 Filed: October 28, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After Daniel Pena-Ramirez (Ramirez) pled guilty to drug conspiracy and weapon charges, the district court 1 imposed the mandatory minimum of 120 months on the drug conspiracy count, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and the mandatory minimum of 7 years on the firearm count after concluding that Ramirez brandished the firearm during the underlying drug trafficking offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). On appeal, counsel move d to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez filed a pro se supplemental brief.2 We are cognizant of the Supreme Cour t’s recent grant of certiorari in Abbott v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 1284 (2010), and Gould v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 1283 (2010) (consolidated with Abbott ), to determine whether the “any other provision” language of section 924(c)(1)(A) includes th e underlying drug-trafficking offense.
-2- The arguments raised in the Anders brief fail. Counsel argues that Ramirez’s guilty plea was involuntary, but this claim is not cognizable here because Ramirez did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea below. See United States v. VillarealAmarillas , 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir. 2006). Next , we reject counsel’s argument that the government’s refusal to file a substan tial-assistance departure motion violated due process: nothing in the record supports such an argument and Ramirez did not even attempt to compel the government to file a departure motion. Third, we reject counsel’s challenge to the district c ourt’s finding that Ramirez brandished the handgun at issue, because the government provided evidence at sentencing that Ramirez displayed a handgun to an undercove r officer to whom Ramirez was going to front methamphetamine to ensure thatthe officer would pay his drug debt. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4) (“brandish” means to disp lay all or part of firearm in order to intimidate person).

Finally, circuit precedent forecloses Ramirez’s argument that the plain language of section 924(c)(1) forbids the imposition of its mandatory minimum sentence when a defendant is subject to another larger mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 598 F.3d 997, 1007 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Alaniz , 235 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir. 2000). 2

We reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We gran t counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Ramirez about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________
#### LOUISE CARPENTER LITTLE v. GAITHER LITTLE.

(Filed 14 December, 1932.)

Divorce E d — Judgment holding defendant in contempt for failing to obey order to pay alimony under C. S., 1667, is upheld in this case.

Where upon a hearing upon a rule directing the defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for disobedience of the court’s order for him to pay certain weekly sums to his wife under C. S., 1667, the court finds that the defendant’s refusal to obey the order was wilful, with utter contempt, and characterized by an absence of any effort by the defendant to obey the order, judgment that the defendant was in contempt and that he be imprisoned will be upheld on appeal, it being manifest that the defendant was financially able to comply with the order.

Appeal by defendant from an order of *Warticle, J.,*made at Chambers in Catawba County on 30 April, 1932.

The cause was heard upon a rule directing the defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for disobedience of the court’s order requiring him to pay to the plaintiff a stated sum each week for her support, doctor’s bills, and fees for counsel, under C. S., 1667.

The plaintiff and the defendant are married to each other but are living in a state of separation through the fault of the defendant. At the hearing the court in substance found as a fact that the defendant was able to comply with the order and that “wilfully, with utter contempt,” he had failed and refused to do so, or to make any effort to do so; also, that the plaintiff was not able to work, and had no means out of which to support herself or to provide for the birth of her child, of whom the defendant is the father. The court thereupon adjudged that the defendant was in contempt and that he be imprisoned. The defendant excepted and appealed.

*John C. Stroupe and Theodore F. Cummings for plaintiff.*

*J. L. Murphy and L. Á. Whitener for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

It is manifest from the findings of fact that the defendant is financially able to comply with the order of the court. The case of *West v. West,*199 N. C., 12, is therefore not in point. The court found, moreover, that the defendant’s refusal to obey the order was wilful, “with utter contempt,” and characterized by an absence of any effort to respect the court’s direction. He alone is responsible for the consequences of his contemptuous conduct. Judgment

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDIA, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,530
<PP&E>                                          39,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 669,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,540
<BONDS>                                        469,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   669,894
<SALES>                                        315,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               315,988
<CGS>                                          229,398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  229,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,451
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,011
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,011
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
whc2q10qretirerest.htm





Exhibit 10.2

AMENDMENT ONE TO THE

WHITNEY HOLDLING CORPORATION

RETIREMENT RESTORATION PLAN

 

Effective for Benefit Commencement Dates on or after December 1, 2008, Section 4.4, Form
of Restoration Benefit, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

4.4           Form of Restoration Benefit

 

A Participant's Restoration Benefit hereunder shall be payable in the form designated by a Participant during his or her Retirement Election Period, from among the following:

 


	
  
	
a.
	
Single Life Annuity - Equal monthly payments for the life of the Participant with no period of guaranteed payment.





	
  
	
b.
	
Term Certain Annuity - Equal monthly payments for the life of the Participant, with a period of 120 or 180 monthly guaranteed payments designated by the Participant.   If both the Participant and the Participant’s Beneficiary die before all of the guaranteed monthly payments have been made, the remaining monthly payments will be paid to the contingent Beneficiary designated by the Participant.





	
  
	
c.
	
Joint and Survivor Annuity - Equal monthly benefits payable for the life of the Participant and the Participant's Beneficiary, with 100%, 75% or 50% of the amount of the monthly payments made during the life of the Participant paid to the Participant’s Beneficiary after the Participant’s death.





	
  
	
 d.
	
Joint and 100% Survivor Annuity with Guaranteed Payments - Equal monthly benefits payable for the life of a Participant with 100% of the amount of the monthly payment made during the life of the Participant paid to the Participant's Beneficiary after the Participant's death, with a period of 120 monthly payments, measured from the Participant's Benefit Commencement Date guaranteed. If
both the Participant and the Participant’s Beneficiary die before all of the guaranteed monthly payments have been made, the remaining monthly payments will be paid to the contingent Beneficiary designated by the Participant.




 

If no designation is made, benefits hereunder shall be paid (a) in the form of a joint and 100% survivor annuity (if a Participant is married as of his or her Benefit Commencement Date), or (b) in the form of a single life annuity (if a Participant is not married as of his or her Benefit Commencement Date).  For purposes of this
Plan, a Participant’s right to a series of annuity payments is treated as the right to separately identified payments.

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

 

The Corporation has adopted this Amendment on the date shown below, but effective as of the date set forth above.

 


	
  
	
WHITNEY HOLDING CORPORATION




Date:  June 24, 2009                                        By: /s/
Paul D. Bergeron

                                                                            
Paul D. Bergeron

                                                                             Senior
Vice President, Director of HR
### Proposed Provision: B3.15. Increase the 90 percent PIA formula factor to 91 percent for beneficiaries newly eligible in 2028, 92 percent for those newly eligible in 2029, ..., reaching 95 percent for those newly eligible in 2032 and later.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001059083
<NAME>                        NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.000
<CASH>                               5086
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       14558
<ALLOWANCES>                          822
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    20813
<PP&E>                              15439
<DEPRECIATION>                       6840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     137629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               17225
<BONDS>                            100000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                          (150)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       137629
<SALES>                             55150
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    55150
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    52779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   6218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (3847)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (3847)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (3847)
<EPS-BASIC>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
### Proposed Provision: A8. Starting December 2024, for OASI beneficiaries only (DI beneficiaries would only be affected when their benefit converts to OASI at NRA), the annual COLA would be based on the chain-weighted version of the CPI-U.
EXHIBIT 21.01





MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES





Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of IncorporationThe Art Institutes International, Inc.

PennsylvaniaThe Art Institute of Atlanta, Inc.

GeorgiaThe Art Institute of CaliforniaLos Angeles, Inc.

CaliforniaThe Art Institute of CaliforniaOrange County, Inc.

CaliforniaTAIC, Inc.d/b/a The Art Institute of CaliforniaSan Diego

CaliforniaTAICSan Francisco, Inc. d/b/a The Art Institute of CaliforniaSan Francisco

CaliforniaThe Art Institute of Charlotte, Inc.

North CarolinaThe Art Institute of Colorado, Inc.

ColoradoThe Art Institute of Dallas, Inc.

TexasThe Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, Inc.

FloridaThe Art Institute of Houston, Inc.

TexasThe Illinois Institute of Art, Inc.

IllinoisThe Illinois Institute of Art at Schaumburg, Inc.

IllinoisThe Art Institute of Las Vegas, Inc.

NevadaThe Art Institutes International Minnesota, Inc.

MinnesotaThe New England Institute of Art & Communications, Inc.

MassachusettsThe Art Institute of New York City, Inc.

New YorkThe Art Institute of Phoenix, Inc.

ArizonaThe Art Institute of Portland, Inc.

OregonThe Art Institute of Seattle, Inc.

WashingtonThe Art Institute of Washington, Inc.

District of ColumbiaInternational Fine Arts College, Inc.

FloridaArgosy Education Group, Inc.

IllinoisAcademic Review, Inc.

IllinoisAssociation for Advanced Training in the Behavioral Sciences

CaliforniaThe Connecting Link, Inc.

GeorgiaWestern State University of Southern California

California
No. 1334, Misc.

*Samuel D. Menin*for petitioner. *Duke W. Dunbar,*Attorney General of Colorado, *Frank E. Hickey,*Deputy Attorney General, and *John E. Bush,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

#### Mills *v.*Tinsley, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41433 Conference Calendar

IN RE: JAMES LEONARD McCURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-00-CV-699

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Leonard McCurry, Texas prisoner #735421, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following certification that his appeal was taken in bad faith, pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997). McCurry argues that the sanctions order on which the district court relied to deny him leave to file a lawsuit in another judicial district did not require him to pay the monetary sanction before filing future lawsuits but rather allowed him to obtain permission without regard to the monetary sanction; that any requirement that he pay the sanction before filing future suits deprives him of access toNo. 00-41433 -2- the courts; and that the district court violated the Due Process Clause and F ED . R. C IV . P. 11 when imposing the sanction. McCurry took no appeal from the order imposing sanctions on him; any appeal now would be untimely. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1). We will not consider a direct attack on the sanctions order. McCurry’s argument that enforcement of the sanction order deprives him of access to the courts is unavailing –- a litigant’s inability to pay a monetary sanction does not excuse the litigant from the effect of the sanction. Gelabert v. Lynaugh , 894 F.2d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 1990). Contrary to McCurry’s assertion, the order does not provide that he either pay the sanction or obtain permission to file. McCurry’s factual argument regarding the sanctions order is without merit. McCurry’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.18: Increase the taxable maximum linearly over 4 years to $279,900 for 2028. After 2028, index the taxable maximum to AWI plus 0.5 percentage point. Apply benefit credit on additional earnings taxed.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
Exhibit 31.2
       a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls 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 report based on such evaluation;
and
 c.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ MARTIN R. GAUSVIKMartin R. Gausvik
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
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 -0.00 -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: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B5.5. Beginning for those newly eligible in 2025, reconfigure the special minimum 

benefit: (a) A year of coverage is defined as a year in which either 20 percent of the "old law maximum" is 

earned or a child is in care. Childcare years are granted to parents who have a child under 6, with a limit of 

8 such years. (b) At implementation, set the PIA for 30 years of coverage equal to 133 percent of the 

Census monthly poverty level (about $1,556 in 2022). For those with under 30 years of coverage, the PIA 

per year of coverage over 19 years is $1,556/11 = $141.40. (c) Index the initial PIA per year of coverage 

by wage growth for successive cohorts. (d) Scale work requirements for disabled workers, based on the 

number of years of non-disabled potential work.

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