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

-3.61 -4.35 0.62 0.80 17% 18%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

August 1, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Cost-of-Living Adjustment

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: A3. Starting December 2024, compute the COLA using a chained version of the 

consumer price index for wage and salary workers (CPI-W). We estimate this new computation will reduce 

the annual COLA by about 0.3 percentage point, on average.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                FRONTIER NATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings
per common share for the three-month periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998.
Average shares outstanding have been retroactively adjusted on an equivalent
share basis for the effects of the business combination, the stock dividend and
the stock split as discussed in the notes to the consolidated financial
statements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                             Three Months
                                            Ended March 31
                                       -------------------------
                                           1999          1998
                                       ------------   ----------
<S>                                    <C>            <C>
Basic net income.....................   $  578,436    $  214,443
                                        ===========   ==========
Basic earnings on common shares......   $  578,436    $  214,443
                                        ===========   ==========
Weighted average common shares
 outstanding - basic.................    3,473,525     2,104,092
                                        ===========   ==========
Basic earnings per common share......   $      .17    $      .10
                                        ===========   ==========
Basic net income per common share....   $      .17    $      .10
                                        ===========   ==========
Diluted net income...................   $  578,436    $  214,443
                                        ===========   ==========
Diluted earnings on common shares....   $  578,436    $  214,443
                                        ===========   ==========
Weighted average common shares
 outstanding - diluted...............    3,518,658     2,104,092
                                        ===========   ==========
 
Diluted earnings per common share....   $      .16    $      .10
                                        ===========   ==========
 
Diluted net income per common share..   $      .16    $      .10
                                        ===========   ==========
</TABLE>
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% 0.67% 0.00% -1.34% -4.34%

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

August 26, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Trust Fund Investment in Equities

Proposed Provision: Invest 40 percent of the Trust Funds in equities (phased in 2010-2024), assuming an 

ultimate 6.4 percent real rate of return on equities

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
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

-3.61 -4.35 -0.10 -0.10 -3% -2%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Family Members

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: D4. Establish an alternative benefit for a surviving spouse. For the surviving spouse, 

the alternative benefit would equal 75 percent of the sum of the survivor's own worker benefit and the 

deceased worker's PIA (including any actuarial reductions or delayed retirement credits). If the deceased 

worker died before becoming entitled, use the age 62 actuarial reduction if deceased before age 62, or 

the applicable actuarial reduction/DRC for entitlement at the age of death if deceased after 62. The 

alternative benefit would not exceed the PIA of a hypothetical earner who earns the SSA average wage 

index (AWI) every year, and who becomes eligible for retired-worker benefits in the same year in which 

the deceased worker became entitled to worker benefits or died (if before entitlement). The alternative 

benefit would be paid only if more than the current-law benefit. This benefit would be available to surviving 

spouses on the rolls at the beginning of 2025 and those becoming eligible after 2024.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
# 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. 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.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on December 27 , 20 12 , 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 made04

- 12

- 00805

- CR

- 2

- part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 17 4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order); T EX
. R. A PP
. 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1684

X-Rite, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0278 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIEL HUNTER FLANSBURG,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 7 2022

10/07/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0278
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6798
PABLO VEGA MEDINA, Petitioner - Appellant, versusEDWARD W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-193-R) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: May 24, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pablo Vega Medina, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Medina v. Murray , No. CA-94-193-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 20, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense withoral 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
#### FARMERS BANK OF CLAYTON v. NELLIE HORNE McCULLERS and Husband, DR. E. H. McCULLERS, and MELBA McCULLERS MISENHEIMER, Executrix.

(Filed 8 April, 1931.)

Trial D b — Directed verdict in favor of party upon whom is burden of proof is error.

The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff in his action to set aside as void against creditors a deed made by the wife to the husband or a judgment confessed by her in his favor, and a judgment in plaintiff’s favor upon the pleadings is erroneous.

*592Civil ACTION, before *Lyon, Emergency Judge,*at November Special Term, 1930, of JohNStoN.

The plaintiff instituted a suit upon certain promissory notes executed and delivered to it by Nellie Horne McCullers, wife of' Dr. E. H. McCullers, and secured judgment thereon at the April Term, 1929, of the Superior Court of Johnston County. On 27 June, 1929, the present action was instituted and it was alleged in the complaint that after the rendition of said judgment the defendant had conveyed to her husband certain land described in the complaint with intent to hinder, delay and defraud the plaintiff in the collection of said judgment. It was also alleged that after the rendition of said judgment the defendant, Nellie Horne McCullers, had confessed judgment in favor of her husband in the sum of $2,600. The plaintiff asked that the deeds and the confession judgment be set aside. The defendants filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint. The defendant, Nellie Horne McCullers, died pending suit and her executrix, Melba McCullers Misenheimer, was made a party to the action, who also filed an answer alleging that said conveyance and confession of judgment were made in good faith and for full consideration. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended the complaint alleging that the deeds from Nellie Horne McCullers to her husband, Dr. E. H. McCullers, were void for failure to comply with O. S., 2515. The cause came on for trial and the records show the following entry: “That at the November Term, 1930, Special Term of the Superior Court of Johnston County, said cause came on regularly for trial. The jury was selected, and upon the reading of the pleadings, the plaintiff moved for judgment, and the court being of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff,” etc.

From judgment so rendered the defendants appealed.

*Parker & Lee and Ed F. Ward for plaintiff.*

*F. H. Brooks and Winfield H. Lyon for defendants.*

BkogdeN, J.

The burden of proof upon the allegations in the co)m-plaint and amended complaint was upon the plaintiff, and in such cases the correct principles of practice forbid a directed instruction upon the pleadings in favor of the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. *House v. R. R.,*131 N. C., 103; *Yarn Mills v. Armstrong,*191 N. C., 125. The record shows that in a counter-statement of case on appeal by the plaintiff it appears that the deeds from Nellie Horne McCullers to her husband were offered in evidence, and that said deeds show a failure to comply with C. S., 2515. However, it is obvious that the judgment was rendered upon the pleadings.

Error.
#### STATE v. WILLIAM JACKSON.

(Filed 27 January, 1937.)

1. Witness § 4—

The competency of a nine-year-old girl to testify is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court.

3. Criminal Law § 67—

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court upon appeal in criminal cases is limited to matters of law or legal inference. N. C. Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 8.

Appeal by defendant from *Armstrong, J.,*at September Term, 1936, of Foestth.

Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with rape, in violation of C. S., 4204.

Verdict: Guilty.

Judgment: Death by asphyxiation.

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

*Williams & Bright for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The prosecuting witness is a negro girl nine years of age; the defendant, a negro preacher. The testimony of the prosecutrix in support of the offense charged is positive and direct; that of the defendant in denial, equally positive and direct. The trial of the cause *203resolved itself into a controverted issue of fact, determinable alone by tbe jury. It is a sordid story, and no useful purpose would be served by soiling tbe pages of our reports witb a detailed recitation of tbe facts.

The competency of the prosecutrix to testify as a witness in the case was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. *S. v. Satterfield,*207 N. C., 118, 176 S. E., 466; *S. v. Merrick,*172 N. C., 870, 90 S. E., 257. “There being now no arbitrary rule as to age, and it being a question of capacity and of moral and religious sensibility in any given case whether the witness is competent, it must of necessity be left mainly, if not entirely, to the discretion of the presiding judge. *S. v. Manuel,*64 N. C., 601. It may be stated, however, that a child of tender years ought to be admitted with great caution; and where there is doubt, it ought to be excluded.” *Reade, J.,*in *S. v. Edwards,*79 N. C., 648.

The testimony of Dr. H. M. Hankins, a medical expert, offered by the State, “She bad been penetrated. . . . Won’t swear male did it. . . . I don’t believe an adult of normal development could have intercourse with the prosecutrix,” taken in connection with the child’s apparent immaturity of judgment, or slight appreciation of the effect of her testimony, makes the case quite an unusual one. It will doubtless be reviewed by the commuting authority. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing, on appeal, decisions upon matters of law or legal inference. Const., Art. IV, sec. *8; S. v. Whiteside,*204 N. C., 710, 169 S. E., 711; *S. v. Anderson,*208 N. C., 771, 182 S. E., 643.

A searching investigation of tbe record leaves us witb tbe impression that no reversible error has been made to appear.

Rio error.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration

# AGENCY:

Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Health Resources and Services Administration published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        ,  80 FR 55861 (September 17, 2015) announcing the Bridging the Word Gap Competition Challenge. This correction notice extends the deadline for Phase 1 submissions by approximately 4 weeks to allow for additional submissions. Accordingly, the remaining timelines for all subsequent phases and judging periods will also be extended by approximately 4 weeks.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jessie Buerlein, Public Health Analyst, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20852,                         *jbuerlein@hrsa.gov,*                         301-443-8931.                    

## Correction

*In the**Federal Register**80 FR 55861 (September 17, 2015), please make the following corrections:*

*In the Summary section, correct dates of each phase to read:*

Dates for each phase are as follows:

Phase 1 Effective: November 6, 2015

Phase 1 Submission Deadline: January 29, 2016, 11:59 p.m. ET

Phase 1 Judging Period: January 30-February 28, 2016

Phase 1 Winners Announced: March 8, 2016

Phase 2 Begins: March 11, 2016

Phase 2 Submission Deadline: August 11, 2016

Phase 2 Judging Period: August 12-September 16, 2016

Phase 2 Winners Announced: Week of September 19, 2016

Phase 3 Begins: September 26, 2016

Phase 3 Submission Deadline: March 26, 2017

Phase 3 Winner Announced: May 2017

Dated: January 29, 2016.

James Macrae,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2016-03106 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
SCPW-20-0000391
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

CHRISTOPHER LEE SLAVICK, Petitioner,

vs.
STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1PC041001534)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Christopher Lee Slavick’s motion for reconsideration, filed on June 18, 2020, and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 22, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000391 22-JUN-2020 02:10 PM