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

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.75% 0.62% -1.25% -3.72%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 31, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Proposed Provision: Determine the level of the contribution and benefit base such that 90 percent of the 

earnings would be subject to the payroll tax (phased in 2010-2019). All earnings subject to the payroll tax 

would be used in determining benefits.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              VERTEL CORPORATION
                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Other Name(s)
                                    Jurisdiction            Under Which the
                                        of                  Subsidiary Does
Name of Subsidiary                 Incorporation               Business
-----------------------            -------------         --------------------
<S>                                <C>                   <C>
   Vertel Pacific                  California            Vertel Asia Pacific,
                                                         Vertel Korea
                                                         Vertel Japan

   Vertel B.V.                     Netherlands           Retix Ireland, Vertel Ireland,
                                                            Vertel France, Vertel
                                                            Germany, Vertel U.K.
                                                            Retix B.V.

   Vertel U.K. Limited             United Kingdom        Retix Property Company, Ltd.

   Vertel Germany GmbH             Germany               Retix (Deutschland) GmbH

   Vertel Poland Sp. z o.o         Poland                None

   Recodif Retix France (TM)       France                None

   Retix Italia SARL               Italy                 None
</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00805-CR

Kyle EXOM,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CR-10558A

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 20, 2013

DISMISSED

The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “defendant has waived the 

right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made 

part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on December 27, 

2012, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) 

unless an amended trial court certification that shows defendant has the right of appeal was made 
04-12-00805-CR

- 2 -

part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

2003, order); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1.

On January 22, 2013, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a letter stating “this court has no 

choice but to dismiss the appeal.” In light of the record presented, we agree with defendant’s 

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
#### Anastasia Britt, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Francis Alexander and others, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
#### JETER RAMSEY, Petitioner v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Respondent.

(Filed 19 October, 1960.)

Courts § 6: Eminent Domain § 9—

Where order confirming the award of appraisers is entered by the clerk on petitioner’s motion and only the respondent appeals, the court in its discretion may permit the respondent to withdraw the appeal, and petitioner may not thereafter contend that respondent’s appeal entitled both parties to a trial *de novo*before a jury in the Superior Court.

Appeal from *Pless, J.,*August 1960 Regular Civil Term, Madison Superior Court.

This special proceeding was instituted before the clerk superior court by the petitioner to recover compensation for the taking of an’ easement for railway purposes over petitioner’s land. The respondent had the cause removed to the United States District Court. By consent it was remanded to the superior court. Appraisers were appointed, viewed the premises, and awarded the petitioner $3,000 as compensation.

The respondent filed exceptions to the award. The clerk overruled the exceptions and on September 30, 1958, rendered judgment affirming the award. The respondent excepted to the judgment and appealed to the superior court in term. On respondent’s application the cause was again removed to the Federal court and on petitioner’s motion again remanded to the Superior Court of Madison County. Oh August 12, 1960, the petitioner filed a demand for a jury trial.

In term, the respondent moved for permission to withdraw its appeal. The court, in its discretion, entered an order permitting the withdrawal, and ordered that the award “stand as entered.” The petitioner excepted and appealed.

*Elmore & Martin, By: Harry C. Martin, Don C. Young, for petitioner, appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner, Jr., Ward & Bennett, for respondent, appellee.*

PER Cueiam.

The petitioner now contends that the respondent’s appeal from the clerk’s order confirming the award entitled both parties to a trial *de novo*in the superior court, and that his demand for a jury trial entitles him to have the jury pass on the issues of compensation. The answer is, the clerk, on petitioner’s motion, entered judgment confirming the award. Only the respondent appealed. When the court, in its discretion, permitted the appeal to be withdrawn, the clerk’s judgment became the final adjudication.

Affirmed.
### Proposed Provision: E3.13. Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wage-indexed equivalent of $400,000 in 2017 (about $696,600 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 2031. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.

back
#### LIZZIE L. ADAMS v. SOUTHERN TRANSIT CORPORATION and CAROLINA MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and S. B. ADAMS v. SOUTHERN TRANSIT CORPORATION and CAROLINA MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 17 November, 1926.)

(Por‘ digest see *Harrison v. Transit Oo.,*next preceding case.)

Appeal by tbe Casualty Insurance Company from *Shaw, J.,*at June Term, 1926, of tbe Superior Court of Guileobd County, overruling its demurrer to tbe complaint in eacb case.

*Allen Adams and King, Sapp & King, for plaintiffs.*

*John W. Hester and Shuping & Hampton for defendants.*

Adams, J.

Tbe plaintiff in eacb of these cases brought suit to recover damages for personal injury 'caused by tbe negligence of tbe Southern Transit Corporation. This defendant filed answers in tbe two cases; but tbe Casualty Company demurred to tbe complaints for misj'oinder of parties defendant and of causes of action. Tbe decision in *Harrison v. Southern Transit Corporation et al.*controls in tbe disposition of these appeals.

. In eacb case tbe judgment is

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Activant Solutions Inc. for the three and
nine months ended June 30, 2007;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 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:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
    By:
    /s/ KATHLEEN M. CRUSCOKathleen M. CruscoSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I, James M. Vanderhider, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-K of Belden & Blake Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual 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 annual
report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this annual 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of 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: April 5, 2006

/s/ James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider,  Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of: JOHN C. PHILLIPS, JR., Claimant, CHARLOTTE, N. C.; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Employer, CHARLOTTE, N. C.; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA on Relationship of the EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, RALEIGH, N. C.

(No. 532,

Fall Term, 1951)

Appeal by Employment Security Commission from *Binh, J.,*June, 1951, Regular Term of Mecklenburg Superior Court. Meoklenbtjbg-County.

Appeal dismissed upon authority of *In re Mitchell,*220 N.C. 65. This 7 November, 1951.

Valentine, J., for the Court.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6336

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ARMISTEAD D. MYERS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Catherine C. Blake , Senior District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00188

- CCB

- 1; 1:16

- cv - 02371

- CCB )

Submitted : August 31, 2022 Decided: September 13, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-6336 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/13/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Armistead D. Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collat eral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook , 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in the § 2255 motion. Id. at 696

- 97. Specifically, the court did not address Myers’ challenge to his career offender enhancement in light of Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. 591 (2015) , advanced in his instant § 2255 motion prior to amendment . It does not appear that Myers intended to abandon that claim during the pendency of his § 2255 motion. We therefore conclude that t he order Myers seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order

. Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim

. Porter , 803 F.3d at 699. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED USCA4 Appeal: 20-6336 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/13/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
SAMUEL JOHNSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5744

_________ ____________________/

Opinion filed April 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

.

Samuel Johnson, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIA M.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 67363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31502]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32836]


Akron Barberton Cluster Railway Company; Trackage Rights 
Exemption; Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company

    Akron Barberton Cluster Railway Company (ABCR) has filed a verified 
notice under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) to acquire overhead trackage rights 
from Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company (W&LE) over 15.4 miles of 
rail line, as follows: (1) That segment of W&LE's Cleveland Main Line 
extending from the junction with ABCR's Kent Line at milepost 
33.0<plus-minus>, in Kent, OH, thence to W&LE's Mogadore Junction at 
milepost 40.1 (milepost 169.3 on W&LE's Akron, Canton & Youngstown Main 
Line); and (2) that segment of W&LE's Akron, Canton & Youngstown Main 
Line extending from milepost 169.3 through Brittain Yard to milepost 
161.0, near the Rock Cut interchange. The transaction was to have been 
consummated on or about December 15, 1995.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees adversely affected 
by the trackage rights will be protected under Norfolk and Western Ry. 
Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in 
Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to reopen will not stay the exemption's 
effectiveness. An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to 
Finance Docket No. 32836, must be filed with the Office of the 
Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission, 
Washington, DC 20423.<SUP>1 In addition, a copy of each pleading must 
be served on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley & Austin, 1722 Eye Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20006.

    \1\  Legislation to sunset the Commission on December 31, 1995, 
and transfer remaining functions is now under consideration in 
Congress. Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings should 
continue to use the current name and address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Decided: December 22, 1995.

    By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31502 Filed 12-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000881791
<NAME>                             USFreightays Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1000


<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                             6,862
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      293,989
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   362,928
<PP&E>                             660,510
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,212,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              370,344
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                         558,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,212,167
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   2,222,442
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      2,033,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 14,003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    175,580
<INCOME-TAX>                       71,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                104,240
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       104,240
<EPS-BASIC>                        3.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                      3.79



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02897]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Third Review)]


Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and 
Taiwan; Revised Schedule for the Subject Reviews

AGENCY:  United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

DATES:  Effective Date: 5/8/2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Fred Ruggles (202-205-3187), Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these 
reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at 
http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Effective January 6, 2016, the Commission 
established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the 
subject reviews (81 FR 1642, January 13, 2016). The Commission is 
revising its schedule.
    The Commission's new schedule for the reviews are is as follows: 
The prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on 
May 2, 2016; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is May 10, 2016; 
requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to 
the Commission not later than May 11, 2016; the prehearing conference 
will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building on May 
16, 2016, if deemed necessary; the hearing will be held at the U.S. 
International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on May 18, 2016; 
the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is May 27, 2016; the 
Commission will make its final release of information on June 27, 2016; 
and final party comments are due on June 29, 2016.
    For further information concerning these reviews see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority:  These reviews are being conducted under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 9, 2016.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-02897 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P