alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 0.36 0.50 10% 11%

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: B4.5. For retired and disabled workers, reduce the maximum number of dropout 

years to 4 for workers newly eligible in 2025, to 3 for workers newly eligible in 2026, and to 2 for workers 

newly eligible in 2027 and later.

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
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Mark N. Schwartz, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Hypertension Diagnostics, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: May 13, 2005                                                       /s/ Mark N. Schwartz   Mark N. Schwartz   Chief Executive Officer  
22
### 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+".

back
#### KINGAN AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, v. J. L. WILLIAMS.

(Filed 28 September, 1932.)

Appeal by defendant from *Cranmer, J.,*at May Term, 1932, of Pitt.

No error.

*Julius Brown for appellant.*

*W. A. Darden for appellee.*

Per Curiam.

This is a civil action to recover an amount alleged to be due the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $193.24, with interest from 1 January, 1928.

"We have considered the exceptions taken by the appellant and find none which entitles him to a new trial.

No error.
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 (3.2 MB)

Tags:USSPACECOM, Global Sentinel, GlobalSentinel22, GS22, Global Sentinel 2022

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.0

                        Scientific Games Holdings Corp.
                                  Subsidiaries


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               State/jurisdiction
                                                               of incorporation/                 Other names under which
Name                                                             organization                    business is conducted
--------------------                                           -------------------               -----------------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>                               <C>
Scientific Games Inc.                                          Delaware

Scientific Games (Greece), Inc.                                Delaware

Scientific Games Acquisition Corp.                             Delaware                          Formerly GameTec Inc.

Scientific Games Foreign Sales Corporation                     Barbados

Scientific Games International Limited                         United Kingdom
  Line of business: instant ticket manufacturer
  Number of subsidiaries within US = 0
  Number of subsidiaries outside US = 4

Scientific Games International GmbH                            Austria

  Line of business: on-line lottery systems
  Number of subsidiaries within US = 0
  Number of subsidiaries outside US = 0

Scientific Games Finance Corporation                           Delaware

Scientific Games Royalty Corporation                           Delaware

Scientific Games France Inc.                                   Delaware
</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of SHAMIR LOVE, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered November 22, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the IME scheduling letters and denial of claim forms at issue had been properly mailed (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; <i>Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co.</i>, 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of this determination, plaintiff's remaining contention is moot.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: September 27, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### STATE v. RICHARD MAYES.

(Filed 29 November, 1939.)

Criminal Daw § 80—

When defendant fails to make out and serve his statement of case on appeal within the time allowed, no agreement for extension of time having been made, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 17, but when defendant stands convicted of a capital crime this will be done only when no error is apparent on the face of the record.

1ÍOTION by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

Stacy,C. J.

At the August Special Criminal Term, 1939, Mecklen-burg Superior Court, the defendant herein, Bichard Mayes, was tried upon indictment charging him with burglarizing the home of E. A. Fowler on the night of 25 July, 1939, which resulted in a conviction of burglary in the first degree and sentence of death as the law commands upon such verdict. *S. v. Morris,*215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554. Prom the judgment thus entered, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed 40 days from 18 August, *5431939, to make up and serve bis statement of case on appeal, and tbe solicitor was given 20 days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or countercase. Tbe clerk certifies “that tbe appeal was not perfected within tbe time provided by law and no agreement made by counsel for an extension of time to file case on appeal.” *S. v. Stovall,*214 N. C., 695, 200 S. E., 426.

Tbe time for serving statement of case on appeal has expired. *S.*v. *Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455. Appeal bond of $100 was adjudged to be sufficient, but none seems to have been given.

As no error is apparent on tbe face of'tbe record, tbe motion of tbe Attorney-General to docket and dismiss tbe appeal under Rule 17 will be allowed. *S. v. Day,*215 N. C., 566, 2 S. E. (2d), 569.

Judgment affirmed.. Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2

                            ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS(LOSS)
                         SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Number of           Percent
                                                                  Shares          Outstanding         Equivalent Shares
                                                                ----------         -----------         -----------------
<S>                                                             <C>                <C>                 <C>
Prior to Initial Public Offering
  1997 Common Stock Offering                                           639           100.00%                         639

After Initial Public Offering
  1998 Common Stock Offering                                    15,000,000           100.00%                  15,000,000
  Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                     60,511,692           100.00%                  60,511,692
  1999 Common Stock Offering                                    21,041,100           100.00%                  21,041,100
  2000 Common Stock Offering                                    10,703,109            81.30%                   8,702,101
  Treasury Shares                                                 (327,495)           76.68%                    (251,136)
  Warrants Exercised                                               626,094            95.41%                     597,345
  Stock Options Exercised                                          643,953            64.59%                     415,914
  Cash in Lieu of Stock Split                                         (577)           67.59%                        (390)
  Employee Stock Discount Purchase Plan Shares issued              194,520            94.65%                     184,120
  Common Stock Issued for Business Acquisitions                    393,482             8.57%                      33,713
                                                                                                       -----------------
  WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                        106,235,098

  NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK                                                                  $    (118,000,000)

  NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED                                                                $           (1.11)
                                                                                                       =================
</TABLE>
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30106

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SEAN O. WATSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(CR-90-175-M)

Janury 20, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Convicted by a jury of distributing cocaine base and using and carrying a

firearm during and in relation to a drug offense, Sean O. Watson appeals the trial

court’s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct1 116 S.Ct. 501 (1995).

2

his sentence. Watson contends that the facts of his offense do not support his

conviction for “using” a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in light of the

Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Bailey v. United States

, 1 and that the jury

was not instructed properly on the elements necessary to support a conviction for

carrying a firearm.

Our review of the record persuades beyond peradvent ure that the jury was

instructed adequately on the elements of “carrying” a firearm and that the evidence

abundantly supports Watson’s conviction for that offense. Watson drove an auto

containing crack cocaine with a large pistol protruding from beneath the driver’s

seat. Watson admitted to ownership of the cocaine and the pistol which he said he

carried for protection from robbery. Because of this finding and conclusion we

need not determine whether Watson has raised a constitutional argument

cognizable on section 2255 review.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.2: Increase the taxable maximum such that 90 percent of earnings would be subject to the payroll tax (phased in 2024-2033). Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
#### MATILDA RIDDICK WILLIAMS, MARTHA RIDDICK HUNTER, and WILL RIDDICK, Heirs, Same Being MAVIN RIDDICK, BEATRICE WILLIAMS, MARTHA JANE WILLIAMS and EMMA GRIFFIN, Deceased, Heirs; CHRISTINA DURHAM, EULA ROACH, DOROTHY McDANIEL, RUTH ......, and GERTRUDE WHITE, Deceased, Heirs Which Are DAVID LEE WHITE, ALEXANDER MAE WHITE, JOE LOUIS WHITE, ARTHUR LEE WHITE, EMMA WHITE, and SAM WHITE; KINNEY RIDDICK, Deceased, Heirs, and C. L. GRIFFIN v. W. D. SHARBER.

(Filed 21 September, 1955.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Clifton L. Moore, Judge,*March Term, 1955, of Pasquotank.

Civil action to establish title to 2.4 acres of woodland and to recover damages for trespass.

Robert Riddick’s Will, under which both plaintiffs and defendant claim, disposes of the testator’s tract of 42.7 acres in these provisions, viz.:

*610“Item Fiest: I give and devise to my beloved wife and her two children all of the land where I now live except that part of the same in wood on the south end of same from my back gate that is next to Milton Eason heirs and the use of wood for firewood purpose of any or all of the woods I now own.

“Item SECOND: I give and devise to my three older children, Will Riddick, Martilda Williams (nee Riddick) and Martha Hunter (nee Riddick) all of the remainder of my real estate share and share alike.”

Plaintiffs, children of testator’s first wife, claim title to the 2.4 acres under Item SecoND. Defendant contends that title thereto passed under Item First to testator’s second wife and her two children; and that he has acquired such title by purchase.

The sole question is whether the 2.4 acres was included in or excepted from the devise made to the second wife and her two children in Item First.

Upon waiver of jury trial, the court heard the evidence and found the facts. The findings identify by metes and bounds the lands devised in Item First and in Item SecoND. Upon these findings, judgment was entered for defendant. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

*Robert B. Lowry and John H. Hall for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Worth & Horner for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

All of testator’s land was devised to his wife and her two children by Item First *except*“that part of the same in wood on the south end of same from my back gate that is next to Milton Eason heirs.” The court, upon competent evidence, found that the land specifically excepted from this devise does not embrace the 2.4 acres but is a different portion of testator’s 42.7 acre tract. These findings, which are conclusive, control decision. The judgment predicated thereon is

Affirmed.

WiNBORNE and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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 0.32 0.33 9% 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: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: E3.16. Beginning in 2025, apply 4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings above the 

wage-indexed equivalent of $400,000 in 2015 (about $589,500 in 2025), with the threshold wage-indexed 

after 2025. Provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed, using a secondary PIA formula. This 

secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual earnings taxed only between 2015 

wage-indexed equivalents of $400,000 and $500,000, or about $589,500 and $736,800 in 2025 (with 

thresholds wage-indexed after 2025); and (2) a formula factor of 2 percent on this newly computed 

"AIME+".

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
### Proposed Provision: C2.4. Starting for those age 62 in 2024, increase both the normal retirement age (NRA) and the earliest eligibility age (EEA) by 36/47 of a month per year until the NRA and EEA reach 70 and 65 respectively. For each year, the computed NRA and EEA round down to the next lower full month.

back
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED
  1.
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Kathleen M. CruscoName:
    Kathleen M. CruscoTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer The foregoing certification which accompanies the Report is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.