alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.12.2





 Exhibit 10.12.2 

 
 



 
 BENEFICIENT MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, L.P. 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE BENEFICIENT MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, L.P. 2019 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN: BMP PROFITS INTEREST 

This First Amendment to the Beneficient Management Partners, L.P. 2019 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Amendment”) is made effective as of
December 29, 2019, by Beneficient Management Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Company”). 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2019, the General Partner of the Company approved the adoption of the Beneficient Management Partners, L.P. 2019 Equity Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, the Plan limits participation in the Plan to current employees and other service providers of the Company and its
affiliates; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to allow for participation in the Plan by former employees and other service providers
of the Company and its affiliates; NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	 Section 5 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:



  

	5.	 Eligibility and Participation. The Administrator, in its sole discretion, will select
Participants from among those current and former Employees and other providers of services to the Partnership or its Affiliates. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, Awards may be granted to entities which are wholly-owned, either directly or
indirectly, by an Employee or other provider of services to the Partnership or its Affiliates. 


  

	2.	 The penultimate sentence of Section 16(b) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as
follows: 


 Concurrent with this reacquisition of the Repurchased Class B Units, the Partnership is authorized and directed to
modify the Partnership allocation and distribution terms for the Repurchased Class B Units to receive a Profits allocation and cumulative cash distributions equal to the actual EBITDA (which EBITDA shall not include income from assets included
in Net Monetary Assets of the Private Operations), which shall be subordinated to Tax Distributions (as defined in Article IV of the LP Agreement), for a five year period following the repurchase of the Repurchased Class B Units. 

 

	3.	 Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain
in full force and effect. 


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly
authorized officer on the date set forth above. 
  

			
	THE BENEFICIENT MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, L.P.
	
	By: Beneficient Management Group, L.L.C., its General Partner
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brad Heppner

	Name:	 	Brad Heppner
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer


  
 1
EXHIBIT 11.1



COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE



GEORGIA BANK FINANCIAL CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARY



|                                                                           |  |                         |           |      |   |           |  |   |          
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | --------- |  | - | ---------
|                                                                           |  | Year ended December 31,
|                                                                           |  | 2004                    |           | 2003 |   | 2002     
|Net income                                                                 |  | $                       | 8,704,276 |      | $ | 7,933,101 |  | $ | 6,010,125
|                                                                           |  |                         |          
|Basic and diluted net income per share:(1)                                 |  |                         |           |      |   |           |  |   |          
|Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                       |  |                         | 5,247,901 |      |   | 5,247,204 |  |   | 5,247,204
|                                                                           |  |                         |          
|Basic net income per share                                                 |  | $                       | 1.66      |      | $ | 1.51      |  | $ | 1.15     
|                                                                           |  |                         |          
|Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares Outstanding |  |                         | 5,323,924 |      |   | 5,359,815 |  |   | 5,327,286
|                                                                           |  |                         |          
|Diluted net income per share                                               |  | $                       | 1.63      |      | $ | 1.48      |  | $ | 1.13     

---

|(1) | Adjusted on a comparative basis for both the 10% stock dividend payable August 29, 2003 and the 2:1 stock split payable November 21, 2003.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



142
### Proposed Provision: D9. Provide for pro-rata benefit payment for the month of death of a beneficiary, rather than no payment for month of death. For situations where an auxiliary beneficiary is changed from one type of benefit to another upon the death of the worker, benefits for the month of the worker's death would be determined on a pro-rata basis. This provision would apply for deaths in 2024 or later.
#### STATE v. EUGENE HINES.

(Filed 12 April, 1933.)

Criminal Haw H a—

Where nothing is done to perfect the appeal of a defendant, although he was allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis,*and the appeal is not ready for argument at the call of the district to which it belongs, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the State.

MotioN by State to docket appeal, affirm judgment and dismiss the appeal.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seaiuell for the State.*

Stacy, C. J.

At the November Term, 1932, Forsyth Superior Court, Eugene Hines was tried upon an indictment charging him with the murder of one Lacy "Weatherspoon, which resulted in a conviction and sentence of death. The prisoner gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, but this has not been prosecuted as required by the rules, albeit he was allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis,*and was given sixty days from 17 November within which to make out and serve statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was allowed sixty days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or countercase.

*508Apparently nothing has been done on behalf of the prisoner to perfect his appeal. The case should have been ready for argument at the call of the Eleventh District, 4 April, 1933, the district to which it belongs. The motion of the State will be allowed. Judgment

Affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7281

BRIAN GIANNOLLA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN DALIUS; WARDEN

DEWART; A. W. RIVERA; HARRIS, Unit Manager;

SCARANTINO, Case Manager; SAM L. BATTS, Unit

Manager; MARIN, Counselor,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-02-453-5-H)

Submitted: September 9, 2003 Decided: October 14, 2003

Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Giannolla, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Giannolla appeals the district court’s order denying his

petition for writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

See Giannolla v. Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-02-453-5-H (E.D.N.C.

Aug. 19, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Carreker Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lisa K. Peterson,Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
|        |
|--------|
| /s/    | LISA K. PETERSON |   |
|   | Lisa K. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

Dated:    June 8, 2006

----
| 2007 OASDI Trustees Report |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|----------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|                            |

	II. OVERVIEW

II.D1	Short-Range OASDI Trust Fund Ratios

II.D2	OASDI Income and Cost Rates Under Intermediate Assumptions

II.D3	Number of Covered Workers Per OASDI Beneficiary	

II.D4	Cumulative OASDI Income Less Cost, Based on Present Law Tax Rates and Scheduled Benefits

II.D5	OASDI Cost and Scheduled Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

II.D6	OASDI Annual Balances: 2006 and 2007 Trustees Reports

II.D7	Long-Range OASDI Trust Fund Ratios Under Alternative Assumptions

	IV. ACTUARIAL ESTIMATES

IV.A1	Short-Range OASI and DI Trust Fund Ratios

IV.B1	Long-Range OASI and DI Annual Income Rates and Cost Rates

IV.B2	Number of OASDI Beneficiaries Per 100 Covered Workers

IV.B3	Long-Range OASI and DI Trust Fund Ratios

IV.B4	Test of Long-Range Close Actuarial Balance

IV.B5	OASDI Annual Balances: 2006 and 2007 Reports

	V. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL ESTIMATES

V.C1	Primary-Insurance-Amount Formula for the 2007 Cohort

V.C2	Maximum-Family-Benefit Formula for the 2007 Cohort

V.C3	DI Disabled Worker Incidence Rates, 1970-2016

	VI. APPENDICES

VI.E1	Annual Trust Fund Ratios

VI.E2	Annual Cost Rates

VI.F1	Estimated OASDI Income and Cost in Constant Dollars, Based on Intermediate Assumptions

----

|  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|--|--|--|--|--|--|--------|

|                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     | Actuarial Publications | April 23, 2007 |
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Washington Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michal D. Cann, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of,
          and for, the periods presented in the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

/s/ Michal D. Cann

Michal D. CannChief Executive
Officer

May 17, 2004
EX-35.2
(logo) Litton Loan Servicing

4828 Loop Central Drive
Houston TX 77081
Telephone 713-966-8966
Fax 713-218-4595
www.littonloan.com



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

GSAMP Trust 2007-H1


The undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP provides the Annual
Statement as to Compliance as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
for the above referenced security and certifies that (i) a review of the
activities of the Servicer during such preceding calendar year (or such shorter
period in the case of the first such report) and of performance under this
Agreement has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under this Agreement in all material respects for 2007.



Date: March 3, 2008



/s/ Elizabeth Folk
Elizabeth Folk
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Litton Loan Servicing LP
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 -0.29 -0.36 -8% -8%

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: B6.8. Starting in 2025, provide an additional monthly benefit equal to 1/12th of 2 

percent of the AWI for the second prior year. This additional benefit would be available to those meeting 

any of the following four requirements: (a) Social Security beneficiaries who have attained age 82; (b) 

Social Security beneficiaries who have attained NRA and have both AIME at or below the first PIA bend 

point ($1,115 for 2023 initial eligibility) and at least 11 "years of coverage" as used for Windfall Elimination 

Provision purposes (earnings above $29,700 for 2023); (c) Individuals who have received Social Security 

benefits and/or SSI payments for at least 240 distinct months after attaining age 19; or (d) SSI recipients 

who have attained the Social Security NRA. This additional benefit would be paid out of the applicable 

Social Security OASI or DI Trust Fund for any month in which the individual is in receipt of a Social 

Security benefit; it would be paid out of the General Fund of the Treasury for any month in which the 

individual is in receipt of an SSI monthly payment but not a Social Security monthly benefit.

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1284

RICHARD PEAMON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

BILL NORRIS; MICHAEL RICH,

Plaintiffs,

versus

A AND R DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (1:06-cv-02974-WMN)

Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Peamon, Appellant Pro Se. Paul D. Shelton, MCKENNON,

SHELTON & HENN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Paula Jeanette McGill,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard Peamon seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting the Defendant’s motion to set aside a default judgment and

quashing service of process. This court may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.

541 (1949). The order Peamon seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Franklin Santana, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 594]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered August 15, 2001, *799convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although a particular comment that the prosecutor made during her opening statement was improper *(see People v Brosnan,*32 NY2d 254 [1973]; *People v Kennedy,*216 AD2d 491 [1995]), any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see *People v Brosnan, supra*at 262). In addition, although the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses constituted improper bolstering (see *People v Trowbridge,*305 NY 471 [1953]), the error was harmless because the accuracy of the bolstered identification was not contested (see *People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969 [1982]; *People v James,*262 AD2d 139 [1999]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.19: Increase the taxable maximum such that 90 percent of earnings would be subject to the payroll tax (phased in linearly from 2025-2030). Provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from additional annual earnings taxed over the current-law taxable maximum; and (2) a formula factor of 2.5 percent on this newly computed "AIME+".**

|  |  |
|--|--|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7349

JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN R. KUPLINSKI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-389-3-JRS) Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: January 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Johnathan Lee X Smith, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and his motion for reconsideration, for failure to exhaust state remedies. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3441 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3441

 To amend the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions 
   Act of 1994 to reauthorize and improve the community development 
 financial institutions bond guarantee program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 2022

 Ms. Smith (for herself and Mr. Rounds) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions 
   Act of 1994 to reauthorize and improve the community development 
 financial institutions bond guarantee program, 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 ``CDFI Bond Guarantee Program 
Improvement Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. GUARANTEES FOR BONDS AND NOTES ISSUED FOR COMMUNITY OR ECONOMIC 
              DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.

    Section 114A of the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4713a) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``, multiplied by an 
        amount equal to the outstanding principal balance of issued 
        notes or bonds'';
            (2) in subsection (e)(2)(B), by striking ``$100,000,000'' 
        and inserting ``$25,000,000''; and
            (3) by striking subsection (k).
                                 <all>
```