alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

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

| Solvency provisions | Detailed Single Year Tables |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Cost-of-Living Adjustment | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning December 2009, reduce cost-of-living adjustment for OASDI benefits by 1 percentage point |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |

       Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program                Percentage of taxable payroll           Trust fundratio as ofJanuary 1CalendaryearCostrateIncomerateAnnualbalance 200811.2012.771.57 359200911.2712.811.54 369201011.2712.821.55 382201111.3412.831.50 394201211.4712.861.39 404201311.6412.891.24 412201411.8312.901.06 419201512.0412.910.88 424201612.2612.930.68 427201712.4912.950.47 429201812.7012.970.27 430201912.9212.980.06 429202013.1413.00-0.14 427202113.3513.01-0.33 425202213.5413.03-0.52 422202313.7313.04-0.69 418202413.9113.05-0.86 414202514.0813.06-1.02 409202614.2413.07-1.16 403202714.3913.09-1.30 396202814.5313.10-1.44 389202914.6613.10-1.55 381203014.7713.11-1.65 373203114.8513.12-1.73 365203214.9313.13-1.80 357203314.9713.13-1.84 348203415.0013.13-1.87 340203515.0113.14-1.87 332203615.0113.14-1.87 324203715.0013.14-1.86 316203814.9713.14-1.83 309203914.9313.14-1.80 301204014.8913.14-1.75 294204114.8413.14-1.70 287204214.7913.13-1.66 280204314.7513.13-1.62 274204414.7113.13-1.58 267204514.6713.13-1.54 260204614.6413.13-1.51 254204714.6213.13-1.49 247204814.6013.13-1.47 241204914.5813.13-1.45 234205014.5713.13-1.44 228205114.5713.13-1.44 221205214.5713.13-1.44 214205314.5813.13-1.45 207205414.5913.13-1.46 199205514.6113.13-1.48 192205614.6313.14-1.50 184205714.6513.14-1.52 176205814.6713.14-1.54 168205914.6913.14-1.55 160206014.7113.14-1.57 151206114.7313.14-1.59 142206214.7513.15-1.61 133206314.7713.15-1.62 124206414.7913.15-1.64 115206514.8113.15-1.66 105206614.8313.15-1.68 95206714.8613.15-1.70 85206814.8813.15-1.72 75206914.9013.16-1.75 64207014.9313.16-1.77 53207114.9613.16-1.80 42207214.9913.16-1.83 31207315.0213.16-1.86 19207415.0513.17-1.89 7207515.0913.17-1.92 ----207615.1213.17-1.95 ----207715.1613.17-1.98 ----207815.1913.17-2.02 ----207915.2313.18-2.05 ----208015.2713.18-2.09 ----208115.3113.18-2.13 ----208215.3413.18-2.16 ----208315.3813.18-2.20 ----208415.4213.19-2.23 ----208515.4613.19-2.27 ----Summarized RatesYearsCostrateIncomerateActuarialbalance         Change inactuarialbalance Estimates based on the Intermediate Assumptions                         of the 2008 Trustees Report2008-208214.13%13.86%-0.27% 1.43% Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 11, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    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 of NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David H. Hancock, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


February 9, 2006           By: /s/ David H. Hancock
                               David H. Hancock
                               Chairman and Chief
                                 Executive Officer


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


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

<Page>
#### LESESNE LEWIS MEEGAN and TRYON BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Banking Corporation, as Trustee for LESESNE LEWIS MEEGAN v. FLETCHER JOURNEY GRUBBS.

(Filed 21 September, 1960.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Fountain, Special Judge,*6 June 1960 Special Term, of Polk.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained' in an accident which occurred between the plaintiff Mrs. Meegan and the automobile of the defendant, on the night of 1 June 1957, on U. S. Highway 16, between 40th and 41st Streets, approximately 141 feet south of 41st Street where it intersects with Highway 17, in the Town of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. That portion of Highway 17 where the accident occurred is composed of two northbound lanes, separated by a grassy strip, approximately a car length in width, from the southbound lanes. The shoulder of the road east of the northbound lanes is about ten feet wide.

According to the evidence, the defendant was driving north in the right-hand lane. The plaintiff Mrs. Meegan was first observed on *64the highway by the defendant when she was only ten feet away, and the defendant’s car struck her. She was facing south.

The officer who investigated the accident found the defendant’s automobile to be in good condition mechanically; there was a bent place on the right front fender and on the hood on the right front side. After the accident Mrs. Meegan was found on the dirt, off the right side of the highway. She was seriously injured. The plaintiff was 79 years of age on 17 January 1957.

At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed and the plaintiffs appeal, assigning error.

*McCown, Lavender & McFarland; Gaines & Vermont for 'plaintiffs.*

*Van Winkle, Walton, Buck & Wall, and O. E. Starnes, Jr., for defendant.*

PeR Cueiam.

The evidence offered in the trial below, in our opinion, was insufficient to make out a case of actionable negligence against the defendant under the South Carolina decisions. There is no evidence of excessive speed on the part of the defendant; neither is there any evidence as to how long the injured plaintiff had been on the highway prior to the accident. The plaintiff was not mentally competent to testify in the hearing below. Negligence is not presumed from the mere fact that an injury has been inflicted.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Standard Parking Corporation(the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to thebest of their knowledge and belief, that:

 

1)             the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2)             the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |        | /s/  JAMES A. WILHELM                                |
|--------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:       | James  A. Wilhelm                                    |
|   | Title:      | *Director, President And Chief Executive Officer*    |
|   |        | *(Principal Executive Officer)*                      |
|   | Date:       | November 7,  2008                               |
|   |        |                                                 |
|   |        | /s/  G. MARC BAUMANN                                 |
|   | Name:       | G.  Marc Baumann                                     |
|   | Title:      | *Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer*  |
|   |        | *and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)*        |
|   | Date:       | November 7,  2008                               |
|   |        |                                                 |
|   |        | /s/  DANIEL R. MEYER                                 |
|   | Name:  | Daniel  R. Meyer                                     |
|   | Title:      | *Senior Vice President, Corporate Controller and*    |
|   |        | *Assistant Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer)* |
|   | Date:       | November 7,  2008                               |

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwisesubject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Suchcertification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to theextent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

----
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 NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David H. Hancock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


August 12, 2005          By: /s/ David H. Hancock
                             David H. Hancock
                             Chairman and Chief
                               Executive Officer


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


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

<Page>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS DANIELS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior 

District Judge. (5:11-cr-00057-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00532-BR)

Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Cornelius Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Cornelius Daniels seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. In a civil case in which the United States 

or its officer or agency is a party, parties have sixty days 

following the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B). The district court may, however, extend the time 

for filing a notice of appeal if a party so moves within thirty 

days after expiration of the original appeal period and 

demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the extension.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii); Washington v. Baumgarner, 

882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989).

The district court dismissed Daniels’ § 2255 motion on 

October 16, 2012. Thus, Daniels had until Monday, December 17, 

2012, to file a notice of appeal.* Daniels filed his notice of 

appeal on Tuesday, December 18, 2012, one day beyond the 

expiration of the appeal period but within the thirty-day 

excusable neglect period. We construe as a timely request for 

 * The sixtieth day fell on Saturday, December 15, 2012. 

Thus, Daniels was required to file his notice of appeal no later 

than the following Monday. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). 
3

an extension of time the letter accompanying Daniels’ notice of 

appeal. 

Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court 

for the limited purpose of determining whether Daniels has 

demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an 

extension of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, 

will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
NO. 07-06-0313-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	DECEMBER 20, 2006

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF H.N.W. AND H.M.W., CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDRESS COUNTY;

	NO. 9220; HONORABLE PHIL VANDERPOOL, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Dale and Laura Weatherington (Dale and Laura) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to H.M.W. and H.N.W.  We affirm.

	Counsel was appointed to represent Dale and Laura on appeal.  Subsequently, appointed counsel filed an Anders1 brief and a motion to withdraw.  In his Anders brief, counsel certified to the court that he had made a diligent search of the entire record and had concluded that there is no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Counsel discussed several possible issues on appeal and why each was, in his opinion, without merit. Counsel also certified that he had informed his clients of his conclusion and of their right, individually, to review the record and file a pro se response to the brief and motion.  This court has also contacted Dale and Laura, in writing, informing them of their counsel’s brief and motion and of their rights to individually respond thereto, after reviewing the record.  Dale has responded alleging several areas of error.  Laura has not responded.

	At the outset we note that this court has previously held that an appellate counsel may file an Anders brief in a proceeding where a party’s parental rights have been terminated.  In re AWT, 61 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2001, no pet.).  

	As previously stated, counsel detailed in his brief the possible issues for appeal.  Further, counsel provided citations to controlling authorities and analysis explaining why each possible issue was without merit.  High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).  Upon conducting our independent review of the record, we are convinced that appellate counsel is correct in his determination that all identifiable grounds for appeal are without merit.  As in a criminal case, our review of the record included a search for independent grounds for appeal not otherwise identified or discussed by counsel.  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found none.  Finally, we have reviewed the possible grounds raised by Dale in his response to the Anders brief.  None of the grounds raised have any arguable basis for appeal.  

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

						Mackey K. Hancock

						        Justice
#### Mary B. Heavner *v.*Town of Lincolnton and Maryland Casualty Company

(202 N. C., 400).

Appeal dismissed.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-88,531-01 AND -02
EX P ARTE JONATHAN GLEN JOHNSON, App licant
ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 1377007-A AND 1377006- A IN THE 263RD DISTRICT COURT F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cl er k o f the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habea s corp u s . E x parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 82 4 , 8 2 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two offe nses of a g g ravated robbe ry and sente nced to imprisonment. This Court previously denied these two habea s applications without written order based on the trial court’s finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. Applicant, through habea s counsel, sug g ests that this Court should rec onsider the denials. This Court withdraws the prior denials of habea s corpu s relief
. This Court’s independe nt revie w of the habea s rec ord shows that Applicant is not entitled to2

habea s relief

. The habea s applications are d en i ed
. C opies of this order shall be sent to the Texas D ep a r tment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division a n d Pa r d o n s a n d Pa r o le s D iv is io n .

Filed: September 18, 2019 Do not publish
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.8: Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wage-indexed equivalent of $200,000 in 2017 (about $348,300 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 2031. Provide proportional benefit credit for additional earnings taxed, based on the payroll tax rate applied to the additional earnings divided by the full 12.4 percent payroll tax rate.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
#### Mathushek Piano Manufacturing Company, Appellant, *v.*Engberry.

April 23, 1906:

*Appeals*— Assignments *of error*— Violation *of rules of court.*.

Assignments of error based upon the charge will be dismissed where the appellant did not except to the charge, or request that it be reduced to writing and filed, before verdict rendered.

Assignments of error based on answers to points and the admission of testimony, will not be considered where the points and the testimony referred to are not set out in the assignments.

The refusal to grant a new trial is not ground for reversal unless there be manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion.

Argued April 17, 1906.

Appeal, No. 55, April T., Í906, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Nov. T., 1904, No. 36, on verdict for defendant in case of Mathushek Piano Mfg. Co. v. I. M. Engberry and James H. Meek.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Porter, Morrison, Henderson, and Head, J J.

Affirmed.

Replevin for a piano. Before Taylor, J.

The form of the. assignments of error appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.

*R. H. Meloy,*for appellant.

*R. W. Irwin,*of *Irwin & Morgan,*with him *J. M. Patterson,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

All of the assignments of error based upon the charge must be dismissed, because the appellant did not except to the charge, *544nor request' that it be reduced to writing and filed, before verdict rendered: Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492. To the assignments based on the answers to the points and the admission of testimony there is the additional objection that the points and the testimony referred to are not set out in the assignments, as required by rules XV and XVI. As to the eighth assignment, it is sufficient to say, that the refusal to grant a new trial is not ground for reversal unless there be manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion, and that nothing of that kind appears here.

All the assignments of error are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                        
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: |  | August 5, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Ousley                    
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | James E. Ousley Chief
Executive Officer



43
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, A Laurence Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer of Activant Solutions Inc. (the
Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section
906), that, to the best of my knowledge:  
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and six months ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Activant
Solutions Inc. and will be retained by Activant Solutions Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. By:/s/ A LAURENCE JONES
    
    5/13/05A Laurence Jones
    
    DatePresident and Chief Executive Officer