alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E1.10: Increase the payroll tax rate by 0.1 percentage point per year for 2025 through 2034 so that it equals 13.4 percent for 2034 and later. The increase would be split evenly between the employer and employee share, and would be split between OASI and DI in proportion to currently scheduled payroll tax rates.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
**Exhibit
      32**





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 Remote Knowledge, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Randy S. Bayne, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, and D. Henry Houston, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to and solely for the purpose
      of
      18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to the best of his knowledge and belief, that:





1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





Date:
      August 13, 2007





/s/
      Randy
      S. Bayne





Chief
      Executive Officer








/s/
      D.
      Henry Houston





D.
      Henry
      Houston


Chief
      Financial Officer
#### J. M. LAMBERT v. GUILFORD COUNTY et al.

(Filed 15 June, 1931.)

(For digest see *Martin v. Guilford, County, ante,*63.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Finley, J.,*at May Term, 1931, of Guil-EORD.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover of the defendants, Guilford County and W. C. Coble, treasurer of said county, the sum of $18.07.

The said sum of money was paid by the plaintiff to the sheriff of Guilford County as taxes levied on property, real and personal, owned by plaintiff, and assessed for taxation for the year 1930, under and pursuant to the laws of this State.

This action was begun in the court of a justice of the peace of Guil-ford County, after plaintiff had fully complied with the provisions of O. S., 7880(189). From the adverse judgment of said court, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Guilford County, where the action was tried, *de novo•,*on a statement of facts agreed.

Plaintiff contended that the property, real and personal, owned by him, and assessed for taxation under the laws of this State, was exempt from such taxation, under the laws of the United States, for the reason that he is a veteran of the World War, and that said property was purchased and paid for with money paid to him by the government of the United States, under the provisions of the act of Congress for the relief of veterans of the World War.

The court was of opinion that this contention was not well founded.

From judgment that plaintiff recover nothing of the defendants by this action, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Austin & Turner for plaintiff.*

*B. L. Fentress, D. Newton Farnell, Jr., and Frazier & Frazier for defendants.*

*68Oonnub, J.

The question of law presented for decision by this appeal has been this day decided in *Martin v. Guilford County, ante,*63. The decision of this question involves, primarily, a construction of the pro-' visions of the act of Congress for the relief of veterans of the World War found in sections 454 and 618, of Title 38, U. S. C. A. In accordance with our decision in *Martin v. Guilford County, supra,*the judgment is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Florida Banks, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended  September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Form  10-Q"),  I, Charles E.
Hughes,  Jr., 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 Form 10-Q fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934; and
(2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  November 12, 2002          By:  /s/ Charles E. Hughes, Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           Charles E. Hughes, Jr.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00524-CV

David Grupa 

v.

Lillie D. Basset, Stanley E. Dickson, Carolyn Spiller, Clifford Dickson, and Janice Craddock

NO. 32491 IN THE 506TH DISTRICT COURT OF GRIMES COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

RPT RECORD

SUPP CLK RECORD

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$3,194.50

$20.00

$51.00

$175.00

$20.00

01/02/2015

12/04/2014

10/07/2014

09/03/2014

08/06/2014

07/16/2014

06/30/2014

06/27/2014

06/27/2014

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$3,500.50.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 
certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this December 11, 2015.
Mario



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 28, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00307

- CV

AUTOZONE, INC. and Autozoners L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

Mario FLORES

, Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County , Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 15

- 6

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file his brief is granted. We order appellee's

brief due August 17, 2015.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8387-8388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3614]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


City Holding Company; Notice of Application To Engage de novo in 
Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The company listed in this notice has filed an application under 
Sec.  225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) 
for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to engage de novo, either directly or 
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the [[Page 8388]] application has 
been accepted for processing, it will also be available for inspection 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may 
express their views in writing on the question whether consummation of 
the proposal can ``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the 
public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in 
efficiency, that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue 
concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts 
of interests, or unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing 
on this question must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a 
written presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, 
identifying specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, 
summarizing the evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and 
indicating how the party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of 
the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
February 28, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
    1. City Holding Company, Charleston, West Virginia; to engage de 
novo in providing to non-affiliated financial institutions data 
processing services for processing the user bank's deposit and loan 
applications pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(7) of the Board's Regulation 
Y. These activities will take place in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, 
Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 8, 
1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-3614 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3684 

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to provide for a single point 

of contact at the Social Security Administration for individuals who 

are victims of identity theft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2022 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for a single point of contact at the Social Security Administration for individuals who are victims of identity 

theft. 

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 ‘‘Improving Social Secu5 rity’s Service to Victims of Identity Theft Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3684 IS

1 SEC. 2. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT FOR IDENTITY THEFT 

2 VICTIMS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title VII of the Social Security 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 714. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT FOR IDENTITY 

7 THEFT VICTIMS. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of Social Se9 curity shall establish and implement procedures to ensure 

10 that any individual whose social security account number 

11 has been misused (such as to fraudulently obtain benefits 

12 under title II, VIII, or XVI of this Act, or in a manner 

13 that affects an individual’s records at the Social Security 

14 Administration, or in a manner that prompts the indi15 vidual to request a new social security account number) 

16 has a single point of contact at the Social Security Admin17 istration throughout the resolution of the individual’s case. 

18 The single point of contact shall track the individual’s case 

19 to completion and coordinate with other units to resolve 

20 issues as quickly as possible. 

21 ‘‘(b) SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT.— 

22 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection 

23 (a), the single point of contact shall consist of a 

24 team or subset of specially trained employees who— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3684 IS

1 ‘‘(A) have the ability to coordinate with 

2 other units to resolve the issues involved in the 

3 individual’s case, and 

4 ‘‘(B) shall be accountable for the case until 

5 its resolution. 

6 ‘‘(2) TEAM OR SUBSET.—The employees in7 cluded within the team or subset described in para8 graph (1) may change as required to meet the needs 

9 of the Social Security Administration, provided that 

10 procedures have been established to— 

11 ‘‘(A) ensure continuity of records and case 

12 history, and 

13 ‘‘(B) notify the individual when appro14 priate.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect 180 days after the date 

17 of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3530]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Research


High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; Renewal

    Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act and in accordance with title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Section 101-6.1015(a)(1), and following consultation with the Committee 
Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is 
hereby given that the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel has been 
renewed for a two-year period beginning in January 1995. The Panel will 
continue to provide advice to the Director of Energy Research, on long-
range planning and priorities in the national high energy physics 
program.
    The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the Panel is 
essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public 
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the 
Department of Energy by law. The Panel will continue to operate in 
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), and rules 
and regulations issued in implementation of those Acts.
    Further information regarding this Panel may be obtained from 
Marsha Marsden at (301) 903-4140.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 8, 1995.
JoAnne Whitman,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3530 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #14612 and #14613]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Washington (FEMA—4253—DR), dated 02/02/2016. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storm, Straight-Line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides, and a Tornado. *Incident Period:*
                         12/01/2015 through 12/14/2015. *Effective Date:*
                         02/02/2016. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/04/2016. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/02/2016.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/02/2016, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Lewis, Mason, Pacific Skamania, Wahkiakum. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14612B and for economic injury is 14613B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2016-02560 Filed 2-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### MRS. S. C. PULLIAM v. GEORGE O. HEGE, Executor.

(Filed 3 November, 1926.)

Evidence — Deceased Persons — Cross-Examination, — Statutes — Transactions and Communications — Appeal and Error — Objections and Exceptions.

It is incompetent as a transaction with a deceased person (0. S., 1795), in an action against his estate to recover for services rendered him under a contract, for the plaintiff to testify as to personal services rendered by her as coming within her demand for damages, though brought out on her cross-examination, when the answer so elicited was not necessarily called for and exception was duly entered.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Oglesby, J.,*at September Term, 1926, of FORSYTE.

Civil action to recover for board and services rendered Mrs. Emma Stevenson, now deceased, tried in tbe Forsytb County Court, where verdict and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff; and on appeal to tbe Superior Court tbe cause was remanded for another bearing for error in tbe admission of evidence. From this order, tbe plaintiff appeals, contending that no reversible error was committed by tbe county court.

*Parrish & Peal and W. J. Swaim for plaintiff.*

*Swinh, Clement, Hutchins & Feimster for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe plaintiff, in her original complaint, sought to recover of tbe defendant tbe sum of $3,304.00 for services rendered Mrs. Stevenson during her lifetime. Later tbe amount was changed to $6,-500.00. On cross-examination, tbe plaintiff was asked why she bad practically doubled her demand*.*Her answer was that she bad omitted one year’s account, and her services were really worth more.

In further explanation, tbe witness continued: “I done so much for her '(objection as this involves a personal transaction; overruled; exception) ; I bad to wait on her, ‘tote’ meals to her (objection; overruled ; exception); I done everything I could for her and she promised me something and I thought I ought to have something.” Motion to strike out; overruled; exception.

This evidence related to a personal transaction or communication between tbe interested witness and tbe deceased. It was, therefore, incompetent under C. S., 1795. Tbe fact that it was limited to an explanation of why tbe plaintiff amended her complaint and asked for a larger sum does not render it competent. Tbe statute excludes it for all purposes. *460We do not think the defendant “opened the door” by asking plaintiff for an explanation as to why she bad changed the amount of her demand. *Williams v. Cooper,*113 N. C., 286. The question related to a matter which took place after the institution of the present suit.

The cause was properly remanded for a new trial.

Affirmed.
#### VIRGINIA PIERCE BASNIGHT v. T. G. BASNIGHT, JR.

(Filed 28 September, 1955.)

1. Divorce § 16—

Judgment of contempt for wilful refusal of defendant to make payments to his wife in compliance with a former order of the court is erroneous when it directs that defendant be committed to jail for an indefinite period rather than for thirty days as prescribed by statute, G.S. 5-4.

a. Appeal anti Error § 38—

Where the Supreme Court is unanimous in opinion that the judgment should be modified, but is evenly divided in opinion as to whether prejudicial or reversible error otherwise has been shown, the judgment will be modified and affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, J.,*at May Term, 1955, of Pitt.

Contempt proceedings in civil action for subsistence under G.S. 50-16.

The court below, on facts found, concluded and adjudged that the defendant is in contempt of court for wilful and contumacious failure and refusal to make payments to his wife in compliance with a former order of the court. The judgment decrees that the defendant be confined in jail “until he shall have complied” with the former order, “or until he is otherwise discharged according to law.”

From the judgment so entered, defendant appeals.

*James & Speight for plaintiff, appellee.*

*James & Hite for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Cuhiam.

Two members of the Court, *Winborne*and *Higgins, JJ.,*not sitting, but with *Devin, Emergency Justice,*participating in lieu of *Winborne, J.,*and the Court being of the unanimous opinion that the judgment entered below is erroneous in directing that the defendant be committed to jail for an indefinite period rather than for thirty days as prescribed by statute, G.S. 5-4, but with the six sitting members of the Court being evenly divided in opinion whether prejudicial or reversible error otherwise has been shown, the judgment below will be modified so as to limit the defendant’s confinement in jail to thirty days. Subject to this modification, the judgment is affirmed in accordance with the precedents which require a majority vote to overthrow a judgment of the Superior Court. *Alexander v. Autens Auto Hire,*175 N.C. 720, 95 S.E. 850.

Modified and affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE **ATTORNEY** GENERAL OF 'I'-Honorable Ii. **A.** CUea, **Page** B

You are thintore edtls~d that, by euthority oi the Stats Boar4 of XJduoatlon,thsro amy be ozpan4.4 orrt af the 

### appro,&.atlan of the balanas in the 

### t&ate Toxtbmk nutd ruoh sumo? money

### for irdght 011 use4 textbook8 ln 

### a&dltion to 

### Chat opea?fioatlp 

### provided bJrtho Legi&urw, em imy to tha Stata Boa-4 aT Iliduoatlm appear to be a~o*ioary for that pur300th Yourn ralty’tmll?