alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Proposed Provision: B3.8. Beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2030, create a new bend point at the 50th percentile of the AIME distribution of newly retired workers and gradually reduce all PIA factors except for the 90 percent factor. By 2063: a) the 32 percent PIA factor below the new bend point reduces to 30 percent; b) the 32 percent PIA factor above the new bend point reduces to 10 percent; and c) the 15 percent PIA factor reduces to 5 percent.

back
#### JOHN W. WALKER v. EDITH MAE WALKER.

(Filed 28 May, 1930.)

Appeal by defendant from *Finley, J.,*at April Term, 1930, of Cherokee.

Affirmed.

*Dillard & Ilill and Moody & Moody for plaintiff.*

*J. D. Mdllonee and D. Witherspoon for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought suit to annul his marriage with defendant, and to this end set out three causes of action in his complaint. The defendant demurred for misjoinder of causes and her demurrer was overruled.

The judgment is affirmed. *Hoke v. Glenn,*167 N. C., 594; *Trust Co. v. Wilson,*182 N. C., 166; *S. v. Trust Co.,*192 N. C., 246; *Griffin v. Baker, ibid.,*297; *S. v. McCanless,*193 N. C., 200.

Affirmed.
(March 29, 2004)

#### Jaime Angulo, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Jonathan B. Kay, Sued Herein as Bryan J. Kay, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 573]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Jonathan Bryan Kay, sued herein as Bryan Jonathan *708Kay appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated February 4, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

On July 10, 1998, the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped over a raised sidewalk slab adjacent to a residence owned by the appellant. After the plaintiff commenced this action, the appellant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

The law is well-settled that an abutting landowner may be liable to a pedestrian passing by on a public sidewalk if the landowner negligently repaired the sidewalk, thereby creating a dangerous condition *(see Hausser v Giunta,*88 NY2d 449, 453 [1996]), or “uses it for a special purpose” *(Otero v City of New York,*213 AD2d 339, 340 [1995]).

Kay established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that he did not repair the subject sidewalk or use it for a special purpose *(see Diaz v Vieni,*303 AD2d 713 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Leggio v Gearhart,*294 AD2d 543, 544 [2002]).

Although the plaintiff argues that certain photographs depicted repairs that were made to the sidewalk, she did not establish when the repairs were made or that the appellant made them *(see Ritts v Teslenko,*276 AD2d 768, 769 [2000]; *Ribacoff v City of Mount Vernon,*251 AD2d 482, 483 [1998]; *Palazzo v City of New Rochelle,*236 AD2d 528, 529 [1997]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

The plaintiffs contention that a prior owner of the property repaired the sidewalk is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see Mourounas v Shahin,*291 AD2d 537 [2002]), and in any event, is without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Februa ry 2 7, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1103 3

D. C. Dock et Nos

. 03-014 43 CV-T -23TBM 97-002 73-CR-T -2 JAM ES MIC HAEL T ERRY, Pe tit ion er -Appe lla nt,

ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Respondent -A ppellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D ist ri ct

of F lor ida (F eb ru ar y 27 , 200 7) Before DU BIN A a nd COX , C ircuit Judg es, and SCHL ES IN GE R,* D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

___________________________ *Honora ble Har vey E. Schlesing er, U nited States District J udg e for the Middle District of Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation.2

A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d a nd r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e af fi rm the district court’ s order deny ing Terr y ’ s second 28 U. S. C. § 225 5 m otion

. Under § 2244 (b )( 4) , adis tr ic t c ourt sh al l di sm iss a ny c la im pr es en te d in ase co nd o r

suc ce ssi ve appl ic at ion tha t do es not m ee t t he r equir em en ts s et f or th i n § 22 44 (b )(2 ). Se e, e . g. , I

n re M orr is , 328 F

. 3d 7 39, 740 -4 1 ( 5th Ci r. 200 3) ( gr an tin g pe tit ion er ’ s a

ppl ic at ion f

or le av e to f

ile asuc ce ssi ve m oti on, but not ing tha t t he dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d di sm iss pe tit ion er ’ s m oti on w ith out r ea ch ing the m er its if

it de te rm in ed th at th e p et it io ne r di d n ot sat is fy th e req ui rem en ts in § 2 24 4( b) (2 )). T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y c onc lud ed

tha t no ne of

T er ry ’ s c la im s sa tis fi ed

the se requirem ents. A ccordingly , w e af firm the district court’ s order. AFFIR MED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2

                            ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.

                         COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS

                      Nine Months Ended September 30, 1999

               (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            NUMBER OF SHARES    PERCENT OUTSTANDING    EQUIVALENT SHARES
                                                            ----------------    -------------------    -----------------
<S>                                                         <C>                 <C>                    <C>
1997 Common Stock Offering                                               426                 100.00%                 426
1998 Common Stock Offering                                        10,000,000                 100.00%          10,000,000
Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                         40,341,128                 100.00%          40,341,128
Treasury Shares                                                      (25,312)                 79.86%             (20,213)
1999 Employee Stock Discount Purchase Plan Shares Issued              83,057                  76.98%              63,941
1999 Common Stock Offering                                        14,027,400                  59.98%           8,413,589
Warrants Exercised                                                   360,538                  46.78%             168,650
Stock Options Exercised - 1997 Plan                                   72,905                  28.18%              20,548
Stock Options Exercised - 1998 Plan                                    4,693                  17.00%                 798

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                           58,988,867

NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK                                                                    $    (154,774,738)

NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED                                                                  $           (2.62)
                                                                                                       =================
</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# ENGAGE

#### **QUICK LINKS**

#### Accessibility  |  Section 508    Web PolicySite Map  |  Defense.gov  |  Intel.govQuestions  |  Privacy and SecurityContact Us  |  Inspector General  |  FOIAOPM.gov  |  Plain Writing Act | MISONo Fear Act  |  Links DisclaimerUSA.gov  |  DoD Open Government

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - LinkedIn
                  - Civilian Careers

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00781

- CV

IN RE Travis Price DORSETT

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 1, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 2 1, 202 3 , relator T ravis Price Dorsett filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

After considering the petition and record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(a ).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2022CI23869 , styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Laura Elizabeth

Dorsett and Travis Price Dorsett and In the Interest of L.E.D., a Minor Child , pending in the 288th Judicial District

Court

, Bex ar County, Texas, the Honorable Nadine Melissa Ni e to presiding.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

        CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8, No. 33-66832, 33-52820, 33-80911, 333-12169, 333-62059 and
333-45820) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Plan, the 1992 Stock Plan, the 1995
Equity Incentive Plan, the 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, and the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3, No.
33-60526, 333-52471, 333-62309, 333-77543, 333-81481, 333-84487, 333-85673, and
333-30938) of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated January 26,
2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SciClone
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000.

                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

                                   Palo Alto, California
                                   March 26, 2001
EXHIBIT 31.2 -- CERTIFICATION

         I, Alan Rubin, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Alec Bradley Cigar
Corporation;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
         caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

                  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
         about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
         of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
         evaluation; and

                  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal
         quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
         or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditor and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

                  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
         the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
         which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
         ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
         and

                  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
         management or other employees who have a significant role in the
         registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

         Date: August 10, 2005

/s/ Alan Rubin
--------------
Alan Rubin
Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Sixty-Seventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (135) Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Sixty-Seventh RTCA Special Committee 135 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Sixty-Seventh RTCA Special Committee 135 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 29-31, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be held at Honeywell, PRN A Conference 
Rooms, 21111 N. 19th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 85027, Tel: (202) 330-0680.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Karan Hofmann, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#076c6f68616a666969477573646629687560"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e68d8e89808b878888a694928587c8899481">[email protected]</span></a>, (202) 
330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 135. The agenda 
will include the following:

Monday, March 29, 2016

1. AM Session: Ground Reference Fluctuations
2. PM Session: RF Susceptibility

Tuesday, March 30, 2016

1. AM Session: EMI; Vibration & Shock
2. PM Session: Power Inputs, Explosive, Waterproofness, Fluids, Salt 
Fog

Wednesday, March 31, 2016

1. Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions
2. Approval of Summary from the Sixty-Sixth Meeting--(RTCA Paper No. 
014-16/SC135-705)
3. Review Working Group Activities
4. Review Terms of Reference
5. Review DO-160G Errata Sheet
6. New/Unfinished Business
7. Establish date/locations for Next SC-135 Meetings
8. Closing and Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be 
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain 
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services 
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-02561 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7326

In Re: AMIL ALFRED DINSIO, SR.; JAMES F.

DINSIO,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

 (3:92-cr-00155-FDW)

Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amil Alfred Dinsio, Sr., James F. Dinsio, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Amil Alfred Dinsio, Sr., and James F. Dinsio petition for

a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to

recall the detainer lodged against them for a supervised release

violation. We conclude that they are not entitled to mandamus

relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when a petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

The relief sought by Amil and James Dinsio is not

available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E2.18: Apply the combined OASDI payroll tax rate on covered earnings above $400,000 paid in 2025 and later, and tax all covered earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $400,000. Increase the computed level of the AWI for years after 2024 by amounts ranging from 0.5 percent for 2025 to 0.9 percent for 2047 and later. Credit the additional earnings taxed for benefit purposes by: (a) calculating a second average indexed monthly earnings ("AIME+") reflecting only earnings taxed above the current-law taxable maximum, (b) applying a 1 percent factor on this newly computed "AIME+" to develop a second component of the PIA, and (c) adding this second component to the current-law PIA.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Substantial Gainful Activity
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3514 

To repeal COVID–19 vaccination requirements imposed by the District of 

Columbia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 18, 2022 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. WICKER, 

and Mr. CRAMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal COVID–19 vaccination requirements imposed by 

the District of Columbia. 

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 ‘‘Restore Parental and 

5 Consumer Medical Rights in the Nation’s Capital Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DC VACCINE MANDATES. 

7 The following shall have no force or effect: 

8 (1) Order 2021–148 issued by the Mayor of the 

9 District of Columbia on December 22, 2021. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3514 IS

1 (2) The Coronavirus Immunization of School 

2 Students and Early Childhood Workers Amendment 

3 Act of 2021 (D.C. Act 24–285), enacted by the Dis4 trict of Columbia Council on January 12, 2022. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7758-7759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3267]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Name Change

AGENCY: U.S. Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The name of the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, 
Michigan 48397-5000 has been changed to U.S. Army-Automotive and 
Armaments Command, Warren, Michigan 48397-5000 .

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Federal Register Liaison Officer, HQ USAPPC, Room 
1050, Hoffman Building 1, Alexandria, VA 22331-0302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth L. Denton, (703) 325-6277.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Name change reflects the additional 
armament/chemical materiel management mission transferred from AMCCOM 
to TACOM via the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center 
(ARDEC), and the Armament and [[Page 7759]] Chemical Acquisition and 
Logistics Activity.
Kenneth L. Denton,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3267 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Southeastern Bank Financial Corporation



|                                                          |  |                              
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Georgia Bank & Trust Company of Augusta                   |  | Georgia                      
|                                                          | 
|Southeastern Bank Financial Statutory Trust I             |  | Connecticut                  
|                                                          | 
|Southeastern Bank Financial Trust II                      |  | Delaware                     
|                                                          | 
|Southern Bank & Trust                                     |  | South Carolina               
|                                                          | 
|SB&T Capital Corporation                                  |  | South Carolina               
|(subsidiary of Georgia Bank and Trust Company of Augusta) |  |                              



131