alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Actuarial Studies

- Office of the Chief Actuary
-   
- Actuarial publications

In fulfilling its mission of      monitoring the current and future financial soundness of the     Social Security program, SSA's *Office of the Chief Actuary* conducts extensive      research.  We evaluate short-term and long-term demographic and economic      trends and analyze experience in mortality and morbidity rates.     The results of much of this work are made available to the     public through the publication of regular reports and special studies on      many aspects of the Social Security system.  The more extensive      of these reports are published in a series of Actuarial Studies (below),     while the briefer reports have appeared in a series of     Actuarial Notes.

| Decade    | Study numbers     |
|-----------|-------------------|
| 2020-2029 | #125 - #128       |
| 2010-2019 | #121 - #124       |
| 2000-2009 | #115 - #120       |
| 1990-1999 | #104, #106 - #114 |
| 1980-1989 | #80 - #103, #105  |
| 1970-1979 | #70 - #79         |
| 1960-1969 | #50 - #69         |
| 1950-1959 | #30 - #49         |
| 1940-1949 | #14 - #29         |
| 1930-1939 | #1 - #13          |
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B6.6: Starting in 2030, provide a uniform PIA increase in the 24th year of benefit eligibility. Phase in the PIA increase at 0.5 percent per year from the 15th through the 24th years of eligibility. The full PIA increase is equal to 5 percent of the average retired worker PIA in December of the 14th year of benefit eligibility. A similar additional PIA increase applies in the 43rd year of benefit eligibility (age 104), phased in from the 34th through the 43rd years of eligibility. For those past the 15th year of eligibility in 2029 (over age 76 for retirees), phase in the PIA enhancement over 10 years starting in 2030. Auxiliary beneficiaries receive benefit enhancement based on the PIA of the governing worker.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8354-8355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3572]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP93-198-004]


Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Co.; Proposed Change In FERC Gas 
Tariff

February 8, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 3, 1995, Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (Alabama-Tennessee), filed to revise the filing previously 
submitted by Alabama-Tennessee on November 29 1994 in Docket No. RP93-
198-003 (November 29 Filing). In particular, Alabama-Tennessee states 
that the instant filing is designed to reflect a dollar-for-dollar 
refund of $37,631.73 that Alabama-Tennessee recently received from 
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) relating to a Tennessee 
billing error.
    According to Alabama-Tennessee its November 29 Filing provided for 
the recovery by Alabama-Tennessee of the net debit balance due and 
payable by shippers on Alabama-Tennessee's system under Section 33.4(f) 
of the General Terms and Conditions of Alabama-Tennessee's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, resulting from a true-up performed 
by Alabama-Tennessee following the elimination of its Transportation 
Cost Rate Adjustment. As a further result of the flow-through of the 
subject refund, however, those shippers which owed Alabama-Tennessee 
the true-up amounts shown in the November 29 Filing will now receive a 
credit.
    Alabama-Tennessee proposes that the November 29 Filing be deemed 
revised by the instant filing and that it be permitted to credit the 
amount due each customer under this revised filing on bills Alabama-
Tennessee will be rendering in March 1995, for services provided during 
February, 1995.
    Alabama-Tennessee has requested that the Commission grant such 
waivers as may be necessary to accept and approve the filing as 
submitted.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests should be filed on or before February 15, 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. Copies of this filing are [[Page 8355]] on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3572 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

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

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

| Coverage of Employment | Description of Proposed Provision:      Provide for OASDI payroll tax coverage of employer provided group health insurance cost, starting in 2010.  Specifically, any cost toward such group health insurance borne by employees would cease to be deductible, and the cost borne by employers would now be allocated to employees as if it had been wages, for the purpose of payroll tax (and later, benefit) calculations.  Both employee and employer OASDI payroll taxes would be affected by this proposal. |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2008 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified July 16, 2008 |
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID MERO , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. ( 4:17

- cr - 00013

- MSD

- RJK

- 1 ; 4:20

- cv - 00038

- MSD )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
David Mero , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIA M: David Mero seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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 c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the disposi tive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion 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))

. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Mero’s informal brief , we conclude that Mero has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an im portant document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions a re adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-46728, 33-86830, 333-07391, 333-18563 and 333-28789 of Fisher Scientific
International Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report dated February 26, 1999 appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fisher Scientific International Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
------------------------- 
  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
New York, New York
March 30, 1999
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Single-Year Tables Consistent With 2017 OASDI Trustees Report

2017 OASDI Trustees Report

      The tables listed below provide estimates by      alternative economic and/or demographic assumptions.      For some of the tables, we also provide historical data.      The tables carry the same designation as in the published report.      Reference should be made to the report      to understand the context in which the estimates are presented.      

 

Questions?   Address Questions about these tables to     actuary@ssa.gov

Footer menu
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3597 

To amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize 

the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 3), 2022 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 

to reauthorize the Deschutes River Conservancy Working 

Group, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Deschutes River Con5 servancy Reauthorization Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DESCHUTES RIVER CONSER7 VANCY WORKING GROUP. 

8 (a) DEFINITION OF WORKING GROUP.—Section 

9 301(a) of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3597 IS

1 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–534; 122 Stat. 

2 836) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting 

3 the following: 

4 ‘‘(1) WORKING GROUP.—The term ‘Working 

5 Group’ means the Deschutes River Conservancy 

6 Working Group composed of a board of directors of 

7 not fewer than 10, but not more than 15, members 

8 nominated by the group represented by the member, 

9 of whom— 

10 ‘‘(A) 2 members shall be representatives of 

11 the environmental community in the Deschutes 

12 River Basin; 

13 ‘‘(B) 2 members shall be representatives of 

14 the irrigated agriculture community in the 

15 Deschutes River Basin; 

16 ‘‘(C) 2 members shall be representatives of 

17 the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

18 Reservation of Oregon; 

19 ‘‘(D) 1 member shall be a representative of 

20 the hydroelectric production community in the 

21 Deschutes River Basin; 

22 ‘‘(E) 1 member shall be a representative of 

23 1 of the Federal agencies with authority and re24 sponsibility in the Deschutes River Basin; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3597 IS

1 ‘‘(F) 1 member shall be a representative of 

2 an agency of the State of Oregon with authority 

3 and responsibility in the Deschutes River Basin, 

4 such as— 

5 ‘‘(i) the Oregon Department of Fish 

6 and Wildlife; or 

7 ‘‘(ii) the Oregon Water Resources De8 partment; and 

9 ‘‘(G) 1 member shall be a representative of 

10 a unit of local government in the Deschutes 

11 River Basin.’’. 

12 (b) REAUTHORIZATION; ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.— 

13 Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 

14 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–534; 122 

15 Stat. 836) is amended— 

16 (1) in subsection (b)— 

17 (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘2016’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘2032’’; and 

19 (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘5 per20 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘10 percent’’; and 

21 (2) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘2016’’ and 

22 inserting ‘‘2032’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### F. E. McCASKILL v. LORENZO McCASKILL et al., Administrators.

(Filed 7 December, 1927.)

Appeal by defendants from *Schenclc, J.,*at June Special Term, 1921, of MONTGOMERY.

Civil action brought by Florence E. McCaskill against the administrators of her father’s estate to recover on contract or *quantum meruit*for services rendered defendants’ intestate over a period of three years immediately prior to his death.

Upon denial of liability and a counterclaim set up for board and lodging of plaintiff’s three small children during the time she was at defendants’ intestate’s home, the jury returned the following verdict:

“1. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff, F. E. McCaskill, entitled to recover of the defendants, J. 0. McCaskill *et al.,*administrators of A. E. McCaskill, deceased? A. $1,620.

“2. "What amount, if any, are the defendants, J. C. McCaskill *et al.,*administrators of A. B. McCaskill, deceased, entitled to recover of the plaintiff, F. E. McCaskill? Answer: $864.”

From a judgment on the verdict in favor of plaintiff for the difference between the amounts set down as answers to the first and second issues, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.

*B. S. Hurley and Brittain, Brittain & Brittain for plaintiff.*

*B. T. Poole cmd H. F. Seawell & Son for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

The controversy on trial narrowed itself to issues of fact, determinable alone by a jury. No reversible error has been made to appear on any of appellants’ exceptive assignments of error. The verdict and judgment, therefore, will not be disturbed.

No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   283545
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                289782
<PP&E>                                         2705371
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2305371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  693916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           756252
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        649
<COMMON>                                          7241
<OTHER-SE>                                       62336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    693916
<SALES>                                         836411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                836411
<CGS>                                           225782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2805837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               11460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1980260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1980260)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7750-7751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3284]



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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forms Under Review by Office of Management and Budget

February 3, 1995.
    The Department of Agriculture has submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) since 
the last list was published. This list is grouped into new proposals, 
revisions, extension, or reinstatements. Each entry contains the 
following information:
    (1) Agency proposing the information collection; (2) Title the 
information collection; (3) Form numbers(s), if applicable; (4) Who 
will be required or asked to report; (5) An estimate of the number of 
responses; (6) An estimate of the total number of hours needed to 
provide the information; (7) Name and telephone number of the agency 
contact person.
    Questions about the items in the listing should be directed to the 
agency person named at the end of each entry. Copies of the proposed 
forms and supporting documents may be obtained from:

[[Page 7751]] Department Clearance Officer, USDA, OIRM, Room 404-W 
Admin. Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20250; (202) 690-2118.

Revision

<bullet> Food and Consumer Services
Model Food Stamps, Periodic Reporting, Notice of Late Incomplete 
Reporting, Adequate Notice, Sponsored Aliens, Duplication 
Participation, and Disqualified Recipient Report
FCS-385, 386, 387, 394, 441, 442
Individuals or households; State, local or tribal government; 
111,008,185 responses; 36,964,654 hours
Patricia Maggi (703) 305-2468

<bullet> Agricultual Marketing Service
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for 7 CFR Part 29
Forms TB-87 and TB-92
Business or other for-profit; 13,414 responses; 5,569 hours
Larry L. Crabtree (202) 205-0101

Extension

<bullet> Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Field Inspection And Claim For Indemnity
FCI-74, FCI-74 T-P-C, FCI-63 Citrus, and FCI-63 Raisin
Individuals or households; Farms; 40,000 responses; 10,000 hours
Bonnie L. Hart (202) 254-8393

New Collection

<bullet> Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
Exotic Newcastle Disease in Birds and Poultry; Chlamydiosis in Poultry
Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Farms; State, 
Local or Tribal Government; 45 responses; 21 hours
Dr. Christopher M. Groocock (301) 436-8240

<bullet> Food Safety and Inspection Service
Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 
Systems
Business or other for-profit; 10,662 responses; 14,371,901 hours
Lee Puricelli (202) 720-7163
Donald E. Hulcher,
Deputy Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3284 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3365 

To eliminate certain requirements with respect to dredging and dredged 

material, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2021 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To eliminate certain requirements with respect to dredging 

and dredged material, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Incentivizing the Ex5 pansion of U.S. Ports Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DREDGING; DREDGED MATERIAL. 

7 (a) DREDGING.—Section 55109(a)(3) of title 46, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘, or is exempt’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘, is exempt’’; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3365 IS

1 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert2 ing ‘‘, or is otherwise eligible for such a certificate 

3 and endorsement without regard to the requirement 

4 under section 12112(a)(2)’’. 

5 (b) EXCLUDING DREDGED MATERIAL FROM TRANS6 PORTATION REQUIREMENTS.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 55110 of title 46, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (A) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘OR

10 DREDGED MATERIAL’’; and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘or dredged material’’. 

12 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis 

13 for chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, is 

14 amended by striking the item relating to section 

15 55110 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 55110. Transportation of valueless material.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dennis Calvert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
amended Annual Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: March 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    DENNIS
CALVERT
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Dennis Calvert President and Chief Executive Officer

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

I, Charles K. Dargan II, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the amended Annual Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: March 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    CHARLES K. DARGAN
II
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  | Charles K. Dargan II Chief Financial Officer

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