alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of Louisiana v. Eddie Robert LANE, Jr.

No. 2018-KH-1501

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Applicant's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Cotton* , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Crichton, J., recused.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Bradley Operating Limited Partnership ("Bradley OP") for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David G. Gaw, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the sole stockholder of the general partner
of Bradley OP, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (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 the results of operations of Bradley OP.

|November 14, 2005 |  |                                                                                          | 
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                  |  | /s/DAVID G. GAWDavid G. Gaw
Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

---



QuickLinks
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 1 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 1 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 1 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 1 Filed 05/27/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 1 Filed 05/27/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5
# C_2017424EN.01001701.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/17

---

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-519/17 P)

(2017/C 424/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16, EU:T:2017:447; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16, EU:T:2017:447;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

| — | reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).

1

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00452- CV
Andrea R. Biller, Appellant

v. NNN M et C enter15 5, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 6, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 7, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 8, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 10, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 11, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 16, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 18, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 19, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 21, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 22, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 23, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 25, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 26, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 27, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 28, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 29, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 30, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 31, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 32, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 33, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 35, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 36, LLC; NNN M et C enter15 38, LLC;

NNN M et C enter15 39, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 M et C enterTIC; and L exington Ins urance Com pany, Ap pellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 201 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 2-0 0127 1, H ONO RAB LE AMY CLARK MEACH UM, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

T he parties have filed a joint status repor t in this abate d appea l reque st i n g t h at we conti n u e the abate ment of this appea l pending continuing settlement neg otiations. We abate the appea l until J une 4, 2014. All appellate deadlines will be tolled during the period of abate ment. The parties shall submit either a motion to reinstate or a j o i n t status repor t conce rning the status of settlement neg otiations no later than June 4, 2014._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Abated Filed: May

9, 2014

2
Hon., Parker Ellze~ 

Cbunty Attorney - 

Jim'Wells County 

Alice, Texas 

September 10, 1951 

Oninion No. V-1274 

Re: Authority of the oommissioners' court to 

finance the construotion of a water works 

tower within the limits 

of an unincorporated 

Dear Sir: town. 

Your request for an opinion relates to the 

authority of the Commissioners' Court of Jim Wells 

County to finance the construction of a water works 

tower within the limits of an unincorporated-~town, 

for the use of people within its vicinity. We have 

been unable to find any statute authorizing a county 

commissioners' aourt to finance the construction of 

a water works.tower for the purpose of supplying 

water to private consumers. Article 2352, V.C.S., 

refers only to water works for *county purposes." 

The decisions of the Texas courts have repeatedly held that the oommissipners' court is a court 

of limited jurisdiction and has only such powers as 

are conferred upon it, either by eppress terms or by 

necessarf implication, by the statutes and. Constitution of this State. Childress County v. State, 127 

Tex. 343, 92 S.W. 2d"lOll (1936) Von Rosenberg v. 

Lovett 173 S.W. 508 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915, error ref.); 

Roper; Hall, 280 S.W. 289 (Tex. Civ. Abp. 1925); Art. 

2351, V.C.S.; 11 Tex. Jur. 632, Counties, Sec. 95. 

Therefore, we agree with you that in the absence of specific statutory power, the Commissioners' 

Court of Jim Wells Count is not authorized to construct a water works tower within an unincorporated 

tow for the purposes of supplying water to its residents. 

SUMMARY 

Since there is no specific statutory 

authority for such action, the Commissioners1 

Court of Jim Wells County has no pqwer to 

construct a water works tower within an un- 
Hon. Parker Ellzey, page 2 (V-1274) 

incorporated town for the purpose of 

supplying water to its residents. 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Divisiod 

Jesse P. Luton, Jr. 

Reviewing Assistant 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

Everett Hutchinson 

Executive Assistant 

BW:gs:awo 

.
Ronald FISHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4248

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0555

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHANDA LEANN KIRKLAND,

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 July 15, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2020

06/08/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0555
William Francis GORDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 4, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>




                            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 amended periodic report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December  31,  2006  (the  "Report")  of  XsunX,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  I, Tom
Djokovich,  Chief Executive  Officer and Acting Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18USC ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

          (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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: December 14, 2006

/s/ Tom Djokovich
---------------------------------
Tom Djokovich, Acting Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Case 3:05-cv-00081-M Document 1 Filed 01/12/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00081-M Document 1 Filed 01/12/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00081-M Document 1 Filed 01/12/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00081-M Document 1 Filed 01/12/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00081-M Document 1 Filed 01/12/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00081-M Document 1 Filed 01/12/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00081-M Document 1 Filed 01/12/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 7150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, TEP-5A: SBIR Review Meeting, 
March 3, 2025, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady 
Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W534, Rockville, Maryland, 
20850 which was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2024, 
FR Doc 2024-30711, 89 FR 105062.
    This notice is being amended to change the virtual meeting date 
from March 03, 2025, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. to March 4, 2025, 11 a.m. to 4 
p.m. The meeting times, format, and location will stay the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: January 14, 2025.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-01328 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
No. 29,867.

#### Mary Yasbec et al., *Appellees,*v. The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, *Appellant,*et al.

Opinion filed May 19, 1931.

(For original opinion of affirmance see 132 Kan. 827, 297 Pac. 422.)

*C. O. Pingry, P. E. Nulton*and *G. L. Stevenson,*all of Pittsburg, for the appellant.

*Douglass Hudson,*of Fort Scott, *Phil H. Cattery*and *James E. Cattery,*both of Pittsburg, for the appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

Counsel for appellees direct our attention to a matter presented by a cross appeal which was not considered with the main case.

The judgment of the district court was that Mary Yasbec should recover the sum of $1,019.12, and her three children, Josephine, John and Angelia, the sums of $276.92, $724.84 and $1,019.12, respectively. What the district court’s judgment did not make clear is that these sums should bear interest at the statutory rate of 6 per cent from the date of the arbitrator’s award, September 24,1926, until the rendition of the judgment in the district court, April 11,1930. Such allowances of interest should have been clearly specified in the judgment. The proper computations to that effect should yet be made *(Farmers State Bank v. Crow,*126 Kan. 395, 404, 267 Pac. 1100), and the district court is directed to modify its judgment accordingly.
Gregory HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellee.

No. 1D18-3138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
M.P.F. v. STATE

CR-16-1058

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD JOSEPH BELL,

Plaintiff,

VS.

C.L. WILLIAMS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-1933-G

)

) ECF

)

ORDER

After making the independent review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the

court finds that the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.

January 4, 2006.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01933-G Document 12 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 51
Ahmad SAIDI, Appellant, v. Hatem SAQR, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-359

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21




                                            SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    State of
                  Subsidiary                      Incorporation               Doing Business As
   ------------------------------------------    ----------------    ------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>                  <C>
   TA Operating Corporation                         Delaware              TravelCenters of America
   National Auto/Truckstops, Inc.                   Delaware                          -
   TA Franchise Systems, Inc.                       Delaware                          -
   TA Travel, L.L.C.  (a)                           Delaware                          -
   TA Licensing, Inc.                               Delaware                          -
</TABLE>


(a)  Wholly-owned by TA Operating Corporation
# C_2017309EN.01003002.xml

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents

(Case C-443/17)

(2017/C 309/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abraxis Bioscience LLC

Applicant:

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation (1) to be interpreted as permitting the grant of an SPC where the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) is the first authorisation within the scope of the basic patent to place the product on the market as a medicinal product and where the product is a new formulation of an old active ingredient?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ L 152, p. 1)

1

---
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 1 of 11 PageID 5904
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 2 of 11 PageID 5905
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 3 of 11 PageID 5906
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 4 of 11 PageID 5907
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 5 of 11 PageID 5908
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 6 of 11 PageID 5909
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 7 of 11 PageID 5910
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 8 of 11 PageID 5911
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 9 of 11 PageID 5912
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 10 of 11 PageID 5913
Case 3:05-cv-00829-M Document 157 Filed 07/02/09 Page 11 of 11 PageID 5914
Mestelle TELSAINT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0593

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Milton Leon HAMBRIGHT v. STATE

CR-16-0896

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
# Apps

The FBI’s mobile applications—which are free and work on Apple and Android devices—centralize important information in user-friendly interfaces that are fast and easy to use.

- Dashboard App iTunes Store
- Dashboard App Google Play Store Download the myFBI Dashboard app on the Google Play Store
- myFBI Dashboard App
- National Stolen Art File App Art enthusiasts, collectors, and law enforcement can now search the FBI's National Stolen Art File with our app.
- Physical Fitness Test App Google Play Store Download the FBI Physical Fitness Test App on the Google Play Store
- Physical Fitness Test App iTunes Store Get the FBI Physical Fitness Test App on the Apple iTunes Store
- FBI Physical Fitness Test App Learn what it's like to train like an agent.
- Child ID App Google Play Store Get the FBI Child ID App on the Google Play Store
- Child ID App iTunes Store Get the FBI Child ID App on the Apple iTunes Store
- Wanted App Google Play Store Download the FBI Wanted App on the Google Play Store
- Wanted App iTunes Store Download the FBI Wanted App on the iTunes Store
- Bank Robbers App Google Play Store FBI Bank Robbers App on the Google Play Store
- Bank Robbers App iTunes Store Get the FBI Bank Robbers App on the Apple iTunes Store
- FBI Bank Robbers App Help take dangerous criminals off the streets.
- FBI Child ID App Put your child’s safety in your own hands.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL LOUIS BRISCO, 1074236, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:04-CV-2687-P

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, ) 

TDCJ-CID, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed this 24 day of July 2007. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02687-P Document 36 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 197
Ricardo HILDAGO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1403

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 13, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Statement

Kenneth A. Spearman, Board Chairman

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

October 13, 2016

The theme, “Cooperatives Build,” is particularly appropriate for the 2016 National Cooperative 

Month. As our economy continues to strengthen following the Great Recession, the theme 

recognizes the important role that cooperatives play in creating jobs and strengthening 

communities. 

Not only do cooperatives provide opportunities for economic growth, they do so in a way that is 

consistent with the democratic principles on which our country was founded. 

Cooperatives empower people. By definition, they are user-owned, user-controlled businesses 

that are governed democratically for the benefit of users. Also, the profits generated by a 

cooperative are either returned to its members or reinvested in the cooperative, keeping more of 

the profits local and incentivizing members to work hard and be engaged in the governance of 

the business. 

Cooperatives play an important role in the U.S. economy. The United States has approximately 

29,000 cooperatives with 350 million memberships, generating $650 billion in annual revenue 

and 2.1 million jobs. 

I discovered the unique value of the cooperative business model in the early 1980s when I 

joined a large agricultural supply and marketing cooperative in Florida. I later moved on to a 

federated agricultural cooperative. Then, in 2006, I had the chance to broaden my knowledge of 

the world of cooperatives still further. 

I joined the board of AgFirst Farm Credit Bank, one of the banks of the Farm Credit System, the 

network of cooperative lenders serving our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and farm cooperatives. A 

few years later I joined the board of the Farm Credit Administration, the regulator of the System.

The cooperative Farm Credit System was established by Congress exactly 100 years ago this 

year to provide a dependable, affordable source of financing for U.S. agriculture. Congress 

chose the cooperative business model after carefully considering agricultural credit systems in 

other nations. Now, 100 years later, the Farm Credit System is part of the reason the United 

States has such a strong agriculture economy. 

As the regulator of the System, FCA strongly supports cooperative principles, and we 

periodically issue guidance to promote member-borrower participation in the governance of their 

institutions. 

In observance of 2016 National Cooperative Month, I would like to recognize the many 

cooperatives in our nation and the contributions they make to our economy and our 

communities.