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 -1.49 -1.54 -41% -35%

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: B3.17. Increase the current-law first bend point by 22 percent and increase the 90 

percent PIA factor to 95 percent for all beneficiaries eligible for benefits as of January 2024 and for those 

newly eligible for benefits after 2023. This provision will result in an approximate $257 increase in PIA for 

most workers newly eligible for retirement or disability benefits in 2024.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

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 32.1

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 of NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David H. Hancock, 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.


August 7, 2009             By: /s/ David H. Hancock
                               David H. Hancock
                               Chairman and Chief
                                 Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for
any other purpose.

<Page>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                               MCA FINANCIAL CORP.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31,
                                 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1998        1997            1996          1995         1994
                                     ------      ------          ------        ------       ------
<S>                              <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>
Income (Loss) Before Federal
   Income Taxes ..............   $ 4,520,035   $ 1,404,338   $ 1,127,530   $  (175,162)   $   972,185

Add:
  Portion of Rents
   Representative of
   the Interest Factor .......       368,478       273,840       216,360       134,075         72,234
  Interest on Indebtedness ...    16,941,032    11,426,082     7,565,044     6,018,518      4,428,925
  Amortization of
   Debt Expense ..............     1,109,683       957,956       687,390       421,189        286,009
                                 -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------    -----------

                                 $22,939,228   $14,062,216   $ 9,596,324   $ 6,398,620    $ 5,759,353
                                 ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========    ===========

Fixed Charges:
  Portion of Rents
   Representative of
   the Interest Factor .......   $   368,478   $   273,840   $   216,360   $   134,075    $    72,234
  Interest on Indebtedness ...    16,941,032    11,426,082     7,565,044     6,018,518      4,428,925
  Amortization of Debt Expense     1,109,683       957,956       687,390       421,189        286,009
                                 -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------    -----------

                                 $18,419,193   $12,657,878   $ 8,468,794   $ 6,573,782    $ 4,787,168
                                 ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========    ===========

Ratio of Earnings
   to Fixed Charges ..........         1.25x         1.11x         1.13x           n/a          1.20x

Deficiency of Earnings
   over Fixed Charges ........   $        --   $        --   $        --   $  (175,162)   $        --
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50229

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

EMILIO RESENDEZ GOMEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:08-CR-693-5 

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Emilio Resendez 

Gomez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gomez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50229 Document: 00513920117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2017
No. 16-50229

2 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-50229 Document: 00513920117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2017
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20293 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL ALOYSIUS, also known as

Michael Amadi, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-93-0250

- - - - - - - - - - February 2, 1996 Before JOHNSON, KING, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Aloysius appeals from his judgment of conviction and the district court's denial of his motion for new trial. Aloysius argues that the search of his bedroom violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures, that the district court erred by refusing to suppress his oral statements to government agents after he was taken into custody, that government agents lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a nonroutine border search of his briefcase at theNo. 95-20293 -2- airport, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance, that the district court's alleged racial comments against Nigerians constituted reversible error, that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of the term "willfully," and that the district court's reasonable-doubt instruction was in error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
Opinion filed September 29, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ 

No. 11-22-00241-CR 

___________ 

DILLAN KAYDE HOLMES, Appellant

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court 

Howard County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 15693

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Dillan Kayde Holmes, Appellant, pled guilty in 2019 to the offense of murder, 

and the trial court assessed his punishment at imprisonment for forty years. 

Appellant has recently filed a notice of appeal. Because Appellant did not timely 

file a notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. 

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal is due 

to be filed either (1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed or 

suspended in open court or (2) if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, 
2

within ninety days after the date that sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. 

TEX.R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk 

of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this appeal 

indicate that Appellant’s sentence was imposed on November 13, 2019, and that

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court on August 25,

2022—well over two years after his sentence was imposed. The notice of appeal

was therefore untimely. 

Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for 

extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–

23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1993). Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction 

over this appeal and must dismiss it. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

When the appeal was docketed in this court, we notified Appellant that the 

notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, and we informed him that this appeal may 

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We requested that Appellant file a response 

showing grounds upon which this appeal could continue. Appellant has filed a 

response, but he has not provided this court with any grounds upon which this appeal 

may continue. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

September 29, 2022

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           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 of Motor Cars Auto Group
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Barry Tenzer, Principal 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Report, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

Date:  March 17, 2004

/s/ Barry Tenzer
---------------------------
Barry Tenzer
Principal Executive Officer
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% 0.47% 1.71% -1.23% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

July 16, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: For OASI beneficiaries becoming eligible for benefits in 2021 and laterfactors by the ratio of life expectancy at 67 for 2016 to the life expectancy at age 67 for the the year of benefit eligibility. Unisex life expectancies, based on period life tables, would be projected by SSA's Office of the Chief Actuary. Disability benefits are not affected by the pworker beneficiaries, upon attaining normal retirement age, would be subject to a proportiobenefits based on the worker's years of disability.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

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

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
                             PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors
Data Systems and Software, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos.  33-88442,  33-99196,  33-94974,  333-65799,   333-36159,  333-82418,  and
333-82416)  on  Form  S-8  and  the  registration  statements  (Nos.  333-90017,
333-76614,  333-92174 and  333-102334) on Form S-3 of Data Systems and Software,
Inc. of our report dated March 7, 2003, except as to the first paragraph of Note
3 and the third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph of Note 8(a), which
are as of April  10,  2003,  with  respect  to the  consolidated  statements  of
operations,  changes in shareholders'  equity and cash flows of Data Systems and
Software,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  for the year ended  December 31, 2002,  which
report  appears in the  December  31,  2004  annual  report on Form 10-K of Data
Systems  and  Software,  Inc.  Our report  refers to changes in  accounting  for
goodwill and intangible assets beginning January 1, 2002.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey

April 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8108-8109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3417]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration


Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee; 
Aviation Weather Subcommittee; Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-362; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a 
meeting of the Aviation Weather Subcommittee of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) 
Advisory Committee to be held Friday, February 24, 1995, 2 p.m. to 5 
p.m. The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, in the 
MacCracken Room on the tenth floor.
    The agenda for this meeting will include: a review and discussion 
of the task statement; discussion of work assignments for committee 
members; and consideration of issues to be discussed at the next 
meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public, but limited to space 
available. With the approval of the subcommittee chairman, members of 
the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing 
to present oral [[Page 8109]] statements, obtain information, or access 
the building to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Carl McCullough, 
ASE-10, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, at (202) 287-
8595, who will serve as the FAA Designated Federal Official to the 
Subcommittee.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
subcommittee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 1995.
Andres Zellweger,
Director, Office of Aviation Research.
[FR Doc. 95-3417 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

In addition, we note that by order of the court dated October 14, 2008, this matter

was submitted on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). 

**The Honorable Timothy D. Leonard, United States District Judge,

Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 30, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE ANTONIO GUERREROCHAVEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-2266

(D.C. No. 2:04-cr-01749-BB-1)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge, and LEONARD,

**

District Judge.

This matter is before the court following our receipt of notice that

defendant Jose Antonio Guerrero-Chavez was deported to Mexico on August 13,

2008. In an order dated October 15, 2008, we directed the parties to file written
2

responses addressing whether the appeal is now moot. On October 22, the

government filed a response confirming the deportation and requesting dismissal

of the appeal on mootness grounds. See United States v. Vera-Flores, 496 F.3d

1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2007). Counsel for Mr. Guerrero-Chavez joins in that

assessment. 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3840]




[[Page 9257]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Indian Affairs



_______________________________________________________________________



Indian Gaming; Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / 
Notices 
[[Page 9258]] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approved Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710, of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-497), the Secretary of the Interior shall 
publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved Tribal-State 
Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III (casino) gambling on 
Indian reservations. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through her delegated authority, has 
approved the Tribal State Gaming Compact Between the Confederated 
Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians and the State of 
Oregon, which was executed on December 8, 1994.

DATES: This action is effective February 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Scrivner, Acting Director, 
Indian Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, 
D.C. 20240, (202) 219-4068.

    Dated: February 2, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-3840 Filed 2-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
#### CORBITT TRUCK COMPANY v. W. H. AVERETT et al.

(Filed 28 May, 1930.)

Civil aotioN, before *Devin, J.,*at October Term, 1929, of GeaNville.

The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants, alleging that the defendants were partners, and that on or about 17 October, 1927, it sold a passenger bus to the defendant, *W.*H. Averett, and that in purchasing said bus the said Averett was acting for and in behalf and as agent for the partnership. The defendant denied partnership.

The trial judge submitted the following issue to the jury: “Were the defendants, Valeria Averett and John *W.*Hester, partners of the defendant, *~W.*H. Averett, and, as such, jointly liable for the purchase of the bus, as alleged in the complaint ?”

The jury answered the issue “No.”

From judgment upon the verdict the plaintiff appealed.

*826*Hancock & Taylor and Gatling, Morris & Parker for plaintiff.'*

*Thormuell Lamer for defendants.*

Pee Cue-iam.

The case was tried upon the sole theory that the defendants were partners. The law of partnership as applied to the facts^ was accurately defined and expounded by the trial judge. The evidence warranted the submission of the cause to the jury, and the verdict of the jury determines the merits of the controversy.

No error of law is disclosed and the judgment is affirmed.

No error.
#### EAST CAROLINA LUMBER COMPANY, INC., v. G. A. WHITFORD, JR., Administrator c.t.a. of the Estate of G. A. WHITBORD, Deceased; SARAH LUCRETIA WHITFORD; G. A. WHITFORD, JR., and Wife, LULA IPOCK WHITFORD; VERA WHITFORD TOLER and Husband, ISIAH W. TOLER; CRAVEN COUNTY, a Body Politic and Corporate; B. W. JONES, Trustee, and T. D. WARREN, JR., Receiver.

(Filed 12 October, 1955.)

Appeal by defendants from *Bone, J.,*at May Term, 1955, of Craven.

Civil action to remove alleged clouds from the title to real estate.

The defendants demurred to the complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. From judgment overruling the demurrers, the defendants appeal.

*B. B. Hollowell, R. E. Whitehurst, W. B. R. Guión, R. A. Nunn, Barden, Stith & McCotter, and Ward & Tucker for Defendants, Appellants.*

*Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, McClelland & Burney, and Jones, Reed & Griffin for Plaintiff, Appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment overruling the demurrers will be upheld in this case on authority of what is said in the opinion filed simultane*731ously herewith in *Lumber Co. v. Pamlico County, ante,*728, which is precisely decisive of the question raised by the instant appeal. Decision here will control the consolidated companion cases referred to in the stipulation appearing in the record.

Affirmed.

WiNBORNE, PARKER, and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.