alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

JOHN-PIERRE BANEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2013-3003 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. DA0752120158-I-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

The Department of Justice moves to recaption to name 

the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent. Mr. 

Baney opposes. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns 

the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The employing 

agency is designated as the respondent when the Board 

reaches the merits of the underlying case. Here, the Board 

Case: 13-3003 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2012
JOHN-PIERRE BANEY V. MSPB 2

dismissed Baney’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the 

Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. The revised official caption is 

reflected above. The Board’s responsive brief is due 

within 21 days of the date of filing of this order. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s21 

Case: 13-3003 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2012
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B3.14: Beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2025, reduce the 15 percent PIA factor by 2 percentage points per year so that it reaches 5 percent for those newly eligible in 2029 and later.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
### **Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT ENGINEERS**

As independentengineering consultants, Ryder Scott Company, LP hereby consents to the use ofour report entitled “Southwest Royalties, Inc., Estimated Future Reserves andIncome Attributable to Certain Leasehold and Royalty Interests, SEC Parameters,as of December 31, 2006” dated March 15, 2007 and data extracted therefrom(and all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this Form 10-KAnnual Report to be filed on or about March 16, 2007 and to theincorporation by reference of this Form 10-K Annual Report (including theuse of our report and references to our Firm herein) into that certainRegistration Statement on Form S-3 filed by Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. withthe Securities and Exchange Commission, file number 333-116825, and thosecertain Registration Statements on Form S-8 filed by Clayton Williams Energy,Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission, file numbers 33-68320,33-68318, 33-68316, 33-69688, and 33-92834 covering theBonus Incentive Plan of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., 1993 Stock CompensationPlan of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., Outside Directors Stock Option Plan ofClayton Williams Energy, Inc., Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan &Trust, and the Executive Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Clayton WilliamsEnergy, Inc., respectively.

RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, LP

Houston, Texas

March 15, 2007

----
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3437 

AN ACT 

To extend certain COVID–19 bankruptcy relief provisions 

through March 27, 2022. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 3437 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘COVID–19 Bank3 ruptcy Relief Extension Consolidation Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSIONS. 

5 Section 1001 of division FF of the Consolidated Ap6 propriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260; 124 Stat. 

7 3216) is amended by striking ‘‘the date that is 1 year after 

8 the date of enactment of this Act’’ each place the term 

9 appears and inserting ‘‘March 27, 2022’’. 

Passed the Senate December 18 (legislative day, December 17), 2021. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3437 

AN ACT 

To extend certain COVID–19 bankruptcy relief 

provisions through March 27, 2022.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

                      GEORGIA BANK FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARY


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Year ended
                                                                                  December 31,
                                                          ------------------ ---------------------- ---------------
                                                                2000                 1999                1998
                                                          ------------------ ---------------------- ---------------
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>                    <C>
Net income available to common shareholders                $  4,002,296         $  3,969,508         $ 2,915,384

Basic and diluted net income per share:(1)
    Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                                     2,084,632            2,093,152           2,093,152

Basic net income per share                                 $       1.92         $       1.90         $      1.39

    Weighted average number of common
        and common  equivalent shares                         2,086,085            2,093,152           2,093,152
outstanding

Diluted net income per share                               $       1.92         $       1.90         $      1.39
</TABLE>

(1)  Adjusted on a comparative basis for the 15% stock dividend payable August
     28, 1999.

                                      92
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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Florida Banks, Inc.
(the  "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the "Form  10-Q"),  I, T. Edwin
Stinson,  Jr., 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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

                                                     /s/ T. Edwin Stinson, Jr.
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     T. Edwin Stinson, Jr.
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     August 14, 2002
### Proposed Provision: H7. Replace the current-law thresholds for federal income taxation of OASDI benefits with a single set of thresholds at $50,000 for single filers and $100,000 for joint filers for taxation of up to 85 percent of OASDI benefits, effective for tax year 2025.  These thresholds would be fixed and not indexed to price inflation or average wage increase. Reallocate a portion of revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits to the HI Trust Fund such that the HI Trust Fund would be in the same position as if the current-law computation (in the absence of this provision) applied.  The net amount of revenue from taxing OASDI benefits, after the allocation to HI, would be allocated to the combined Social Security Trust Fund.

back
### Proposed Provision: D5. Limit the spousal benefit to that received by the spouse of the 75th percentile career-average worker, beginning with retired workers newly eligible in 2030. For future cohorts, this limit would be indexed for inflation annually using chain weighted CPI-U. The provision affects divorced spouses and young spouses (retired workers) but not spouses of disabled workers.

back
CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of Don Marcos Trading Co. (the Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Earl T. Shannon, President, and Scott W. Bodenweber, Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
 
 Date:  March 31, 2011
 
 /s/ Earl T. Shannon
 Earl T. Shannon,
 President
 
 /s/ Scott W. Bodenweber
 Scott W. Bodenweber,
 Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John A. Skolas, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Genaera Corporation; 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 registrant and have: 

 

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 is made known to us by others withinthe entity, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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; 

 

d) disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses 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; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 15, 2005
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 10.7


                               PROMISSORY NOTE


Dallas, Texas                   $15,000,000.00                    March 12, 1998


     CompUSA Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Borrower"), for value 
received, promises to pay to the order of BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A. ("Lender"), 
at the principal office of NationsBank of Texas, N.A., in lawful money of the 
United States of America, the principal sum of FIFTEEN MILLION AND NO/100 
DOLLARS ($15,000,000.00), or such lesser sum as shall be due and payable from 
time to time hereunder, as hereinafter provided.  All terms used but not 
defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Credit Agreement 
described below.

     Principal of and interest on the unpaid principal balance of Advances 
under this Note from time to time outstanding shall be due and payable as set 
forth in the Credit Agreement.

     This Note is issued pursuant to and evidences Advances under a Second 
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of March 12, 1998, among the 
Borrower, NationsBank of Texas, N.A., as Administrative Lender, certain 
Co-Agents and the lenders parties thereto (as amended, restated, 
supplemented, renewed, extended or otherwise modified from time to time, 
"Credit Agreement"), to which reference is made for a statement of the rights 
and obligations of the Lender and the duties and obligations of the Borrower 
in relation thereto; but neither this reference to the Credit Agreement nor 
any provision thereof shall affect or impair the absolute and unconditional 
obligation of the Borrower to pay the principal sum of and interest on this 
Note when due.

     The Borrower and all endorsers, sureties and guarantors of this Note 
(without waiving any notice that any Lender is specifically required to give 
pursuant to SECTION 8.1 of the Credit Agreement) hereby severally waive 
demand, presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of 
intention to accelerate the maturity of this Note, notice of acceleration of 
this Note, diligence in collecting, the bringing of any suit against any 
party and any notice of or defense on account of any extensions, renewals, 
partial payments or changes in any manner of or in this Note or in any of its 
terms, provisions and covenants, or any releases or substitutions of any 
security, or any delay, indulgence or other act of any trustee or any holder 
hereof, whether before or after maturity.

     THIS NOTE, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS, REPRESENTS THE FINAL 
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND MAY NOT

<PAGE>

BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL 
AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES HERETO.  THERE ARE NO UNWRITTEN ORAL AGREEMENTS 
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

                                       CompUSA Inc.



                                       By:    /s/  Robert Gary
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Robert Gary
                                             Title:  Vice President-Finance


                                      -2-
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-41476

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HERBERT EDWARD JAMES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

USDC Nos. 1:97-CV-164 & 1:92-CR-163-1

_________________________________________________________________

January 29, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Herbert Edward James, federal prisoner # 04134-078, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to

set aside his sentence. Based on the certificate of appealability,

the only issue before the court is whether James received

ineffective assistance of counsel because of his attorney’s failure

to challenge the indictment because two counts (counts 10 and 18)

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) were tied to the same drug conspiracy.
2

Use of more than one gun during a single drug-trafficking

offense does not support multiple counts of conviction under 

§ 924(c). United States v. Privette, 947 F.2d 1259, 1262 (5th Cir.

1991). Because the weapons listed in counts 10 and 18 are linked

to the same underlying drug offense--conspiracy to knowingly and

intentionally distribute and possess with intent to distribute

cocaine--sentencing James on both counts violated double jeopardy

principles. See id. Counsel’s failure to raise this challenge

amounts to deficient performance, and the 20-year consecutive

sentence James received evidences prejudice resulting from

counsel’s performance. Accordingly, James has established that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). His conviction on count 18 is

VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for

resentencing.

VACATED and REMANDED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARRYL DANTE RODGERS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 44 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### ASBESTOS TRADING AND FINANCE COMPANY, INC., v. L. V. BALLARD.

(Filed 2 December, 1925.)

Plaintiff appealed from Montqomeey Superior Court, *Shaw, J.*

Action to recover $217 with interest from 3 December, 1923, on trade acceptance for goods sold and delivered.

From a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, on a verdict, plaintiff appealed. No error.

*Bogle & Bogle for plaintiff.*

*B. T. Boole for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe defendant denied that be executed tbe trade acceptance sued on. Plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that tbe signature in tbe name of tbe defendant was in bis band-writing. Defendant denied that be signed it and offered evidence tending to show that it was not in bis bandwriting, and upon a proper charge as favorable to tbe plaintiff as it could obtain under tbe law, tbe jury has resolved this question of fact in favor of tbe defendant. There is no prejudicial error upon tbe record. Therefore, let it be-certified that there is

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31083]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32822]


Lancaster Northern Railway--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--
Line of Consolidated Rail Corporation

    Lancaster Northern Railway (LANO), a noncarrier, has filed a notice 
of exemption to acquire and operate approximately 12.90 miles of rail 
line owned by Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), known as the 
Akron Secondary Track LC 20-0337, between the connection with Conrail 
at approximately milepost 0.05 at Sinking Spring, Berks County, PA, and 
the end of the track at Stevens, approximately milepost 12.94, in 
Lancaster County, PA. The proposed transaction was expected to be 
consummated on November 30, 1995.
    This proceeding is related to Finance Docket No. 32823, John C. 
Nolan--Continuance in Control Exemption--Lancaster Northern Railway, 
wherein John C. Nolan has concurrently filed a notice of exemption to 
continue in control of LANO when LANO becomes a rail carrier upon 
consummation of the transaction described in this notice.
    Any comments must be filed with: Office of the Secretary, Case 
Control Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423. A 
copy of any pleading filed with the Commission should be sent to 
applicant's representative: John K. Fiorilla, 390 George St., P.O. Box 
1185, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1150.31. If the notice contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may be filed 
at any time.<SUP>1 The filing of a petition to revoke will not 
automatically stay the transaction.

    \1\  Legislation to sunset the Commission on December 31, 1995, 
and transfer remaining functions is now under consideration in 
Congress. Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings should 
continue to use the current name and address.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Decided: December 14, 1995.

    By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31083 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
### Proposed Provision: E3.8. Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wage-indexed equivalent of $200,000 in 2017 (about $348,300 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 2031. Provide proportional benefit credit for additional earnings taxed, based on the payroll tax rate applied to the additional earnings divided by the full 12.4 percent payroll tax rate.
Exhibit
23.1



































CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board
of Directors





Clayton
Williams Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries:







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-68320, 33-68318, 33-68316, 33-69688, and 33-92834 )
and on Form S-3 (No. 333-116825) of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. and
subsidiaries of our reports dated March 14, 2008 with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the related financial
statement schedule as of December 31, 2007 and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports
appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Clayton
Williams Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries.  Our report dated March 14,
2008, refers to the Company’s adoption of the provisions of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004) “Share Based Payment”,
effective January 1, 2006 and the Company’s adoption of the provisions of
Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes”, effective January 1, 2007.










KPMG
      LLPDallas,
      TexasMarch
      14, 2008