alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3307 

To modify the boundary of the Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield in the 

State of Missouri, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 2, 2021 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mr. HAWLEY) introduced the following bill; which 

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

Resources 

A BILL 

To modify the boundary of the Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield in the State of Missouri, 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 ‘‘Wilson’s Creek Na5 tional Battlefield Boundary Revision Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WILSON’S CREEK NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD BOUND7 ARY MODIFICATION. 

8 Section 1(b) Public Law 86–434 (16 U.S.C. 

9 430kk(b)) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3307 IS

1 (A) in the second sentence, by striking 

2 ‘‘The map’’ and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(C) AVAILABILITY OF MAPS.—The maps 

4 described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)’’; 

5 (B) by striking ‘‘(1) The boundaries’’ and 

6 inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(1) ADDITIONAL LAND.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The boundaries’’; 

9 (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) 

10 (as so designated) the following: 

11 ‘‘(B) NEWTONIA BATTLEFIELD ADDI12 TION.—The boundary of the Wilson’s Creek 

13 National Battlefield is revised to include the ap14 proximately 624 acres of land identified as 

15 ‘Proposed Addition’ on the map entitled ‘Wil16 son’s Creek National Battlefield Proposed 

17 Boundary Modification’, numbered 410/ 

18 177,379, and dated September 2021.’’; and 

19 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(D) ERRORS.—The Secretary of the Inte21 rior may correct any clerical or typographical 

22 error in a map described in subparagraph (A) 

23 or (B).’’; and 

24 (2) in paragraph (2)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3307 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘(2) The Secretary is au2 thorized to acquire the lands referred to in 

3 paragraph (1)’’ and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) METHOD OF ACQUISITION.—The Secretary 

5 of the Interior may acquire the land described in 

6 subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)’’; and 

7 (B) in the second sentence, by striking 

8 ‘‘park’’ and inserting ‘‘Wilson’s Creek National 

9 Battlefield’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Year Cost Rate

Income 

Rate

Annual 

Balance

2008 11.20 12.77 1.57 359

2009 11.26 12.81 1.54 369

2010 11.36 12.82 1.46 378

2011 11.52 12.84 1.32 387

2012 11.74 12.87 1.12 392

2013 12.00 12.90 0.90 395

2014 12.27 12.92 0.65 397

2015 12.54 12.94 0.40 396

2016 12.82 12.96 0.14 395

2017 13.10 12.98 -0.12 391

2018 13.35 13.00 -0.35 387

2019 13.60 13.02 -0.59 381

2020 13.85 13.03 -0.82 375

2021 14.09 13.05 -1.04 368

2022 14.31 13.06 -1.24 360

2023 14.52 13.08 -1.45 351

2024 14.73 13.09 -1.64 341

2025 14.92 13.11 -1.82 330

2026 15.10 13.12 -1.99 319

2027 15.28 13.13 -2.15 307

2028 15.44 13.14 -2.30 294

2029 15.59 13.15 -2.44 281

2030 15.72 13.16 -2.56 267

2031 15.82 13.17 -2.65 253

2032 15.91 13.18 -2.73 239

2033 15.97 13.18 -2.79 224

2034 16.00 13.19 -2.82 209

2035 16.02 13.19 -2.83 194

2036 16.03 13.19 -2.84 179

2037 16.02 13.19 -2.83 164

2038 16.00 13.19 -2.81 149

2039 15.96 13.19 -2.77 134

2040 15.91 13.19 -2.72 119

2041 15.86 13.19 -2.67 104

2042 15.81 13.19 -2.62 89

2043 15.76 13.19 -2.58 74

2044 15.71 13.18 -2.53 59

2045 15.67 13.18 -2.49 44

2046 15.63 13.18 -2.45 29

2047 15.60 13.18 -2.42 13

2048 15.57 13.18 -2.39 ----

2049 15.55 13.18 -2.37 ----

2050 15.54 13.18 -2.36 ----

2051 15.53 13.18 -2.35 ----

2052 15.53 13.18 -2.35 ----

2053 15.53 13.18 -2.35 ----

2054 15.54 13.18 -2.36 ----

2055 15.56 13.18 -2.37 ----

2056 15.58 13.19 -2.39 ----

2057 15.60 13.19 -2.41 ----

2058 15.62 13.19 -2.43 ----

2059 15.64 13.19 -2.45 ----

2060 15.66 13.19 -2.47 ----

2061 15.68 13.19 -2.49 ----

2062 15.71 13.20 -2.51 ----

2063 15.73 13.20 -2.53 ----

2064 15.75 13.20 -2.55 ----

2065 15.78 13.20 -2.58 ----

Detailed Single Year Tables

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Eliminate dropout years for OASI and DI computation of primary insurance amount 

(PIA) for individuals newly eligible for benefits from 2010 to 2018. Specifically, for OASDI benefit 

computation, reduce the maximum number of drop-out years from 5 for benefit eligibility in 2009, with a 

decrease of 1 computation year in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018.

Expressed as a percentage of taxable payrol Trust Fund 

Ratio 

1-1-year
2066 15.81 13.20 -2.61 ----

2067 15.84 13.21 -2.63 ----

2068 15.87 13.21 -2.66 ----

2069 15.90 13.21 -2.69 ----

2070 15.93 13.21 -2.72 ----

2071 15.97 13.21 -2.76 ----

2072 16.01 13.22 -2.79 ----

2073 16.04 13.22 -2.82 ----

2074 16.08 13.22 -2.86 ----

2075 16.12 13.22 -2.89 ----

2076 16.16 13.22 -2.93 ----

2077 16.20 13.23 -2.97 ----

2078 16.24 13.23 -3.01 ----

2079 16.28 13.23 -3.05 ----

2080 16.33 13.23 -3.09 ----

2081 16.37 13.24 -3.13 ----

2082 16.41 13.24 -3.17 ----

2083 16.46 13.24 -3.22 ----

2084 16.50 13.24 -3.26 ----

2085 16.54 13.25 -3.29 ----

Summarized Rates: OASDI

2008 Cost Rate Income Rate

Actuarial 

Balance

-2082 14.95% 13.90% -1.05% 0.65%

Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

Estimates based on Intermediate Assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report

Change in 

Actuarial Balance

November 13, 2008
### Proposed Provision: E2.11. Eliminate the taxable maximum in years 2029 and later. Phase in elimination by taxing all earnings above the current-law taxable maximum at: 2.48 percent in 2025, 4.96 percent in 2026, and so on, up to 12.40 percent in 2029. Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum that are subject to the payroll tax, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual earnings from each year after 2024 that were in excess of that year's current-law taxable maximum; and (2) a formula factor of 5 percent on this newly computed "AIME+".

back
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7443

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME PREZZY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-430-5, CA-98-1329-5) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: April 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Jerome Prezzy, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Prezzy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Prezzy , Nos. CR-95-430-5; CA-98-1329-5 (D.S.C. Aug. 20 & Sept. 11, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,163

EX PARTE DAVID DENMARK BROWN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F04-72008-M IN THE 194th DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of deadly conduct

and sentenced to thirty-seven years’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Brown v. State, No. 05-05-00902-CR (Tex. App.–Dallas, delivered January 12, 2007,

pet. ref’d). 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that histrial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because

he failed to request a self-defense instruction on the lesser included charge of deadly conduct. 
2

The trial court, based upon the record, has determined that trial counsel was ineffective in

that he failed to request a self-defense instruction on the charge of deadly conduct and that such

ineffective representation prejudiced applicant. We find, therefore, that applicant is entitled to relief.

The judgment of conviction in Case No. F04-72008-M from the 194th Judicial District Court

of Dallas County is vacated and the applicant is remanded to the Sheriff of Dallas County to answer

the charges set out in the indictment.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: June 3, 2009

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
dated March 2, 2000, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, into PTEK
Holdings, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements (Files Nos. 333-11281,
333-17593, 333-29787, 333-36557, 333-39693, 333-52357, 333-79599, 333-87635
and 333-89891). It should be noted that we have not audited any financial
statements of the Company subsequent to December 31, 1999 or performed any audit
procedures subsequent to the date of our report.

                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 62807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29825]



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

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD


Formal Determinations on Records Release: Correction

AGENCY: Assassination Records Review Board.

ACTION: Notice of Formal Determinations: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Assassination Records Review Board (Review Board) met on 
November 13, and November 14, 1995, and made formal determinations on 
the release of records under the President John F. Kennedy 
Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act). The Review 
Board published a notice document in the Monday, December 4, 1995, 
Federal Register, reflecting those determinations. In that notice 
document 95-29389 beginning on page 62066, make the following 
corrections:
    On page 62066, in the third column of the FBI documents table, make 
the following corrections:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Previously published        Corrected     
  Record identification No.        information           information    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
124-10058-10403.............  0, 1, Postponed in    0, 1, Postponed in  
                               Full, 2017.           Part, 2017.        
124-10243-10078.............  0, 1, Postponed in    0, 1 Postponed in   
                               Full, 2017.           Part, 2017.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 4, 1995.
T. Jeremy Gunn,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-29825 Filed 12-06-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-TD-P
#### Eslen’s Estate.

April 23, 1906:

*Decedents’ estates*— Orphans’ *court*— Disallowance *of claim*— Findings *of fact*— Review.

Where an auditing judge disallows a claim against a decedent's estate for goods sold and delivered, and Ms decision is affirmed by -the orphans' court in banc, the appellate court will not reverse the decree in the absence of manifest error.

Argued Oct. 5, 1905.

Appeal, No. 75, Oct. T., 1905, by John Sparhawk, Jr., Trustee iu Bankruptcy of Charles M. Stoever, trading as Charles M. Stoever & Co., from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., April T., 1903, No. 161, overruling exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Joseph A. Eslen, deceased.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to adjudication.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was decree dismissing the exceptions.

*Charles H. Edmunds,*for appellant.

. *Charles J. Sharkey,*with him *F. Pierce Buckley,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The plaintiff’s claim was disallowed by the auditing judge and that action was affirmed in the orphans’ court. The evidence as to the claim is very meager and somewhat obscure. There is testimony which makes it uncertain whether the paper was the property of Stoever & Company; Potter, Sons & Company gave an order to a Mr. Allen, a commission man, for the paper; Stoever & Company shipped the goods; the paper came, however, directly from Joseph C. Godfrey Paper Company. It was rejected at first, but one lot was finally accepted. At the argument it was conceded that Stoever was not a competent witness and his testimony must, therefore, be left out of consideration. He was present when Potter, Sons & Com*476pany gave the check for the paper to Eslen and authorized payment to beso made. Potter, Sons & Company, being satisfied that Eslen was entitled to the money, gave him a check in payment for the paper.

An inference might also be drawn from the evidence that if the paper belonged to Stoever & Company, the transaction of the delivery of the check by Potter, Sons & Company to Eslen amounted to nothing more than an exchange of checks, the check of Eslen having been delivered at the same time, for the same amount, to Whitesides for Stoever. As the case is presented in the evidence we are not satisfied that the court was in error in the conclusion reached, and the decree is, therefore, affirmed.
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
Annual Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 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 Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: April 15, 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 Annual Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.

|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: April 15, 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<CIK>          0001059137
<NAME>         SIERRA HOLDINGS GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                            13584
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  13584
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    13584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             11425
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                           9327
<OTHER-SE>                                        (7168)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      13584
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      0
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  28152
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (28152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (28152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (28152)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### NOLAND COMPANY, INCORPORATED v. MARSH FURNITURE COMPANY, a corporation.

(Filed 6 May, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant from *Phillips, J.,*at October 20, 1958, Civil Term of Gtjilfoed— Greensboro Division.

Civil laotion to recover $1,905.10 on alleged breach of contract as set forth in complaint. Defendant answering, denies allegations of complaint, and averred matter in affirmative defense and for counterclaim.

The parties waived jury trial and agreed that the court sitting without a jury should hear and determine the controversy, and make its findings of fact and'answer the issues arising herein. And the parties stipulated and agreed upon a statement of facts.

After hearing, the court having answered the issues in favor of the plaintiff, as appears of record, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff have and recover of defendant the sum for which judgment is prayed in the complaint. To the judgment 'and the signing thereof defendant excepts and 'appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*278*Wharton & Wharton, A. L. Purrington, Jr., for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Roberson, Haworth & Reese for defendant, appellant.*

Pek Cukiam.

After careful consideration of the matters to which assignments of error relate, error is not made to appear. Hence the judgment from which'appeal is taken is

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                                   CORE, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



The following corporations are wholly-owned subsidiaries of CORE, INC.:

      AmHealth Clinics Corp. (a Delaware corporation) (inactive)

      Core Management, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

      Cost Review Services, Inc. (a Texas corporation)

      CORE Securities Corp., formerly known as "Peer Review Securities Corp."
      (a Massachusetts corporation)

The following corporations are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Core Management,
Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

      Integrated Behavioral Health (a California corporation)

      Core Management, Inc. (a California corporation)
#### HARRY R. ROTH v. AUGUSTA H. LUCK

(Filed 23 November, 1955.)

Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, J.,*July Term, 1955, of RaN-bolph.

*176This is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $347.63 in commissions alleged to be due from the defendant. It is alleged that the defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff four per cent commission on all merchandise sold for and on her behalf, and that pursuant to the agreement the plaintiff sold $8,690.86 worth of merchandise on which the commission has not been paid.

The jury returned a verdict for the amount claimed. From the judgment entered on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Ottway Burton for appellee.*

*H. Wade Yates for appellant.*

PER Cukiam.

We think the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Consequently, the defendant’s exceptions to the ruling of the court below on the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, are overruled. The additional exceptions present no error sufficiently prejudicial to justify a disturbance of the verdict below.

No error.

HiggiNS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.