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

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 2.08% 5.78% 0.15% 0.0

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Beginning with those newly eligible in 2013, multiply the 90 and 32 PIA fyear by 0.9925 and 0.982, respectively. Stop reductions in 2050. Beginning with those newl2008, multiply the 15 factor by 0.982. Stop reduction of the 15 factor in 2045. DI will have prscheduled benefit and proportional reduction at conversion to retired worker benefits at normage, based on years of disability.

January 4, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7619-7620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3127]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration


Notice of Merger of Approved Trustee

    Notice is hereby given that all of the right, title and interest of 
First City, Texas-Beaumont, National Association, Beaumont, Texas, was 
transferred and assigned to New First City Texas-Beaumont, Beaumont, 
Texas, on October 30, 1992. New First City Texas-Beaumont, merged with 
and into Texas Commerce Bank-Beaumont, National Association, effective 
February 13, 1993. Texas Commerce Bank-Beaumont, National Association 
merged with and into Texas Commerce Bank, National Association, P. O. 
Box 2558, Houston, [[Page 7620]] Texas 77252- 8341, with Texas Commerce 
Bank, National Association as the surviving corporation in the merger.


    Dated: February 2, 1995.

    By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Murray A. Bloom,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3127 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3435]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration


University of Wisconsin-Madison, Notice of Decision on 
Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 94-134. Applicant: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 
Madison, WI 53706. Instrument: Heating and Cooling Stage for 
Petrographic Microscope, Model THMSG 600. Manufacturer: Linkam 
Scientific Instruments Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice 
at 59 FR 63762, December 9, 1994.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) operation 
without glass in the microscope beam path (no infrared absorption) for 
FTIR spectroscopy, (2) temperature range from -196 deg.C to 600 deg.C 
and (3) computer control for precise regulation of temperature and 
generation of video text overlay on data images. The U.S. Geological 
Survey advised on January 17, 1995 that (1) this capability is 
pertinent to the applicant's intended purpose and (2) it knows of no 
domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the 
foreign instrument for the applicant's intended use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.


Pamela Woods
Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff
[FR Doc. 95-3435 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6007** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS DANIELS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. W. Earl Britt , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00057

- BR

- 1; 5:12

- cv - 00532

- BR )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Cornelius Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Cornelius Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. I n a civil case in which the United States or its officer or age ncy is a party, parties have sixty days following the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)( B). The district court may , however, extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if a party so moves within thirty days after expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the extension
. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)

- (ii) ; Washington v. Baumgarner , 882 F. 2d 899, 900

- 01 (4th Cir. 1989)
. The district court dismiss ed Daniels’ § 2255 motion on October 16, 2012
. Thus, Daniels had until Monday , December 17 , 2012, to file a notice of appeal. * Daniels filed his notice of
appea l on Tuesday, December 18, 2012, one day beyond the expiration of t he appeal period but within the thirty

- day excusable neglect period. We construe as a timely request for

* The sixtieth day fell on Saturday, December 15, 2012. Thus, Daniels was required to file his notice of appeal no later than the following Monday. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).3 an extension of time the letter accompanying Daniels’ notice of appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited pur pose of determining whether Daniels has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3632 

To amend the program for local substance use disorder services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2022 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Ms. ERNST, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. INHOFE, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. 

SCOTT of Florida, Mr. DAINES, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the program for local substance use disorder 

services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cutting Rampant Ac5 cess to Crack Kits Act of 2022’’ or the ‘‘CRACK Act of 

6 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3632 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR LOCAL SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER 

2 SERVICES. 

3 Section 2706(b) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 

4 2021 (Public Law 117–2) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITED USES.—Amounts made avail7 able under this section may not be used to procure, 

8 supply, or distribute pipes, cylindrical objects, or 

9 other paraphernalia that can be used to smoke, in10 hale, or ingest narcotics.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 8442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3690]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / 
Sunshine Act Meetings
[[Page 8442]] 




DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given of the following Board 
meeting and staff briefing:

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., February 21, 1995.

PLACE: Board Conference Room, Suite 700, 625 Indiana Ave., NW, 
Washington, DC 20004.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Board will reconvene and continue the 
open meeting conducted on January 19, 1995, to deliberate upon the 
Secretary of Energy's response to Board Recommendation 94-1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Andersen, General Counsel, 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 
700, Washington, DC 20004, (202) 208-6387.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Staff will continue to brief the Board 
on the Secretary's response to Board Recommendation 94-1 and related 
topics, including, but not limited to, DOE's studies on vulnerabilities 
associated with the DOE's storage of spent nuclear fuel, and the 
current status of DOE remediation of conditions identified in Board 
Recommendation 94-1.
    The Board specifically reserves its right to further schedule and 
otherwise regulate the course of this public meeting, to recess, 
reconvene, postpone or adjourn the meeting, conduct further reviews, 
and otherwise exercise its power under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended.

    Dated: February 9, 1995.
Kenneth M. Pusateri,

General Manager.

[FR Doc. 95-3690 Filed 2-10-95; 9:32 am]

BILLING CODE 3670-01-M
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Apply 3 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over $300,000 in 2017, with the $300,000 threshold wage-indexed after 2017.  Give no benefit credit for additional earnings in AIME for benefit computation. |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified May 14, 2010 |
* 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

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50742 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EULALIO GRANADOS-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-143-ALL-FM

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Eulalio GranadosVasquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0331. MERIWETHER & THARP, LLC et al. v. JENNIFER VALADE.

The appellants, in a November 1, 2021 filing, have indicated that they do not

plan to file an appellate brief in this case, because we already decided their claims on

appeal in Case Nos. A21A1010, A21A1011, and A21A1012. Accordingly, appellee 

Jennifer Valade’smotion to dismissthe appeal inCase No. A22A0331 is GRANTED,

and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 18, 2021

11/18/2021
## Provisions Affecting Individual Accounts

- Office of the Chief Actuary
- Individual Provisions

	   The current Social Security program is a defined benefit social	   insurance program.  A worker and eligible dependents receive	   monthly benefits based on a formula that takes into account the 	   worker's earnings history.  Financing of the program is 	   pay-as-you-go.  The payroll contributions of workers each	   month help provide these benefits to eligible retirees,	   disabled workers, and survivors in the same month.  In contrast,	   individual accounts provide benefits to each beneficiary using:	   (1) their own worker contributions; (2) the contributions to 	   their account from their employer; and (3) investment earnings on 	   these contributions.	 Thus, individual accounts are completely 	   funded in advance. 	   

	   The potential sources of the contributions to individual accounts 	   are: (1) a redirection of some portion of Social Security	   payroll tax; (2) transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury;	   (3) additional contributions from workers (and/or the employers);	   or (4) some combination of the above.  In addition, individual	   accounts can be mandatory or voluntary.	   

	   Many of the individual account provisions included in comprehensive	   proposals would redirect some portion of each participating worker's	   Social Security payroll tax to an individual account and later pay a	   reduced traditional monthly Social Security benefit.	 Some plans base	   the amount of reduction, or "benefit offset", on a hypothetical or	   shadow account balance accumulated to retirement (or to entitlement	   to disability benefits in some proposals).  The rate of return at	   which hypothetical accounts accumulate is generally set at a level	   such that workers should have a good chance of doing better with	   their actual investments over a working lifetime.  These "benefit	   offsets" are a source of savings to the Social Security trust funds.	   Individual account provisions of this type generally do not, in	   themselves, improve the solvency of the Social Security trust funds. 	   As a result, some proposals often include some additional revenues	   (like General Fund transfers) for a period of years while the benefit	   offset provision is maturing.	   

	   The effect of individual accounts on long-range financing of the 	   Social Security benefit varies considerably depending on: (1) the size 	   of the individual accounts (i.e., the percentage of taxable 	   earnings invested in individual accounts); (2) the source of the 	   contribution to the accounts; and (3) the specifications of any 	   "benefit offset" provision. Several 	   comprehensive proposals	   provide examples of proposals that include individual accounts.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-322]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. ER94-1505-000, ER95-42-000, ER95-70-000 and ER95-81-000]


Illinois Power Company; Notice of Filing

December 30, 1994.
    Take notice that on December 21, 1994, Illinois Power Company 
(IPC), tendered for filing an amendment to the agreements between IPC, 
Louis Dreyfus Electric Power Inc., Electric Clearinghouse, Inc., AES 
Power, Inc. and Enron Power Marketing, Inc. in the dockets listed 
above. IPC states that the purpose of this amendment is to revise the 
charges when IPC is buying from a third party and selling to any of the 
above parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before January 13, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-322 Filed 1-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.2



I, Lewis J. Derbes, Jr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Conrad Industries, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer 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)) [omitted in accordance with section III.E of SEC Release No. 34-47986] 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) [omitted in accordance with section III.E of SEC Release No. 34-47986]



c) 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



d) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrant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 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; and



b) 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.



Date: August 16, 2004



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ LEWIS J. DERBES, JR.                
|Lewis J. Derbes, Jr.                    
|Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6354

THOMAS DAVIS INGRAM, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-hc-02198-BO-RJ)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Davis Ingram, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6354 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Davis Ingram, Jr., a North Carolina pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ingram has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6354 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2