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

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 30, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SALOME JUAREZ-CASTRO,

Defendant.

8:23MJ313

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED:

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the Federal 

Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith 

file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public Defender should 

decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of the Criminal Justice Act 

Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide the court with a draft 

appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and other identifying information of 

the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for 

this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00313-MDN Doc # 9 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 13
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND  IS  QUALIFIED
IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             879,037
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,457,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                       802,557
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,946,057
<PP&E>                                           4,413,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,369,865)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,511,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,337,896
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            75,950
<OTHER-SE>                                       (370,932)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,511,001
<SALES>                                          1,879,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,621,374
<CGS>                                              370,921
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,671,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,934,346
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (133,597)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,117,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,117,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,117,839)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.28)
        

</TABLE>
#### RIDGDELL v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 2619.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 5, 1944.

For former opinion, see 17 So.2d 55.

*387Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Amite, and Jos A. Sims, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Hammond, for appellant.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amitei, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Due notice of judgment was given by registered mail to the assistant district attorney representing the defendant and who had submitted the case before this Court. Receipt of notice was acknowledged on March 8th, 1944, the registry receipt card being signed by Enid L. Sims, addressee’s agent.

Application for rehearing was made by the District Attorney and was not filed with the Clerk of this Court until March 27th, 1944.

The notice given to the Assistant District Attorney was proper and sufficient notice and obviously the application for rehearing filed by the District Attorney, although his name appeared as counsel of record, came too late to be considered. Acknowledgment by the addressee’s agent was also sufficient. See McCaskey Register Co. v. Lumpkin, La.App., 197 So. 640.

For these reasons the application is not considered.
#### Charles H. ROBINSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-6923.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Charles H. Robinson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom Franklin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Charles H. Robinson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2010


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: January 12, 2011
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-121-PB

Christopher Aldrich

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

competency/plea hearing scheduled for March 31, 2008 and the

April 1, 2008 trial in the above case. Defense counsel is

presently involved in a complex multi-defendant trial in this

court and requires additional time to address the issue of 

defendant’s competency and finalize plea negotiations in advance

of trial in this matter. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 1, 2008 to May 6, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 53 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

The March 31, 2008 competency hearing/change of plea hearing 

and final pretrial conference is continued to May 1, 2008 at 2:00

p.m. No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 28, 2008

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 53 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Steven J. Keohane

Criminal No. 07-cr-06-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

8) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: March 19, 2007

cc: James Dennehy, Esq.

Karin Eckel, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00006-JD Document 9 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Alan F. Beane

MII Technologies, LLC

v. Civil No. 06-cv-446-SM

Glenn L. Beane

O R D E R

The plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Reconsideration

(Document no. 61) regarding the Court’s order of October 18, 2007

in which defendant’s petition to attach was granted in part and

denied in part. The Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The

documents at issue were not authenticated, were not admissible

and appear to be self-serving and unreliable. This court had the

right to apply the rules of evidence, to deny proffers and did

so. The motion is also tardy.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 26, 2007

cc: Michael J. Persson, Esq.

William S. Gannon, Esq.

W.E. Whittington

Case 1:06-cv-00446-SM Document 70 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 1
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | .  | .     |
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1691 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1691

     To amend the Service Contract Act of 1965 to provide for the 
 responsibility in certain cases of a parent corporation of a Federal 
contractor to provide health care benefits to retired employees of the 
      contractor if the contractor fails to provide such benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2001

Mr. Weldon of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Service Contract Act of 1965 to provide for the 
 responsibility in certain cases of a parent corporation of a Federal 
contractor to provide health care benefits to retired employees of the 
      contractor if the contractor fails to provide such benefits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Service Contract Health Security 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENT CORPORATION TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE 
              COVERAGE TO RETIREES OF SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 2(a) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 
(Public Law 89-286; 41 U.S.C. 351(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) A provision specifying that if the contract is 
        terminated, if the contract or a collective bargaining 
        agreement required that the contractor provide health care to 
        contractor employees who performed work to carry out the 
        contract and who retired before the contract was terminated, a 
        parent corporation of the contractor shall be responsible for 
        the provision of such health care coverage to such retired 
        employees if the contractor fails to provide such coverage.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to contracts for which bids are solicited after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1587 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1587

     To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the 30-year 
   manifestation period for a presumption of service-connection for 
respiratory cancers occurring in veterans who served in the Republic of 
 Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on 
                              May 7, 1975.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2001

   Ms. McKinney (for herself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Reyes, and Ms. Brown of 
   Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the 30-year 
   manifestation period for a presumption of service-connection for 
respiratory cancers occurring in veterans who served in the Republic of 
 Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on 
                              May 7, 1975.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Agent Orange Respiratory Cancer Act 
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 30-YEAR MANIFESTATION PERIOD FOR PRESUMPTION OF 
              SERVICE-CONNECTION FOR RESPIRATORY CANCERS OCCURRING IN 
              VETERANS WHO SERVED IN THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM DURING THE 
              PERIOD BEGINNING ON JANUARY 9, 1962, AND ENDING ON MAY 7, 
              1975.

    Section 1116(a)(2)(F) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``within 30 years'' and all that follows through ``May 7, 
1975''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1757 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1757

To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make certain products 
                         eligible for drawback.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make certain products 
                         eligible for drawback.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REFUNDS, WAIVERS, OR REDUCTIONS UNDER THE NORTH AMERICAN 
              FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 313(n)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1313(n)(2)) is amended by striking ``(p),''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any 
drawback claim filed on or after that date.
                                 <all>
```
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No . 1 8 -3 0 32

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Un i t ed St at es o f Am eri ca

l ll l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Pl a i n t i

f f - Ap pel l ee

v

.

Ro y W ay n e Gu i er

l ll l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Def

en da n t - Ap pel l an t

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri ct o f M i s s o u ri - Kan s as Ci t y

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Su b m i t t ed : M ay

2 0 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : M ay

2 3 , 2 01 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re ERICKSON, W OLLM A N, an d GRASZ, Ci rcu i t J u d g es

.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

PER CURIAM

.

Ro y Gu i er, p ro ceed i n g p ro s e u po n h is req u es t , d i rect l y ap p eal s aft er h e
p l ead ed g u i l ty t o t ax ev as i o n , an d t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt 1 s en t en ced h im t o a y ear an d a d ay

1 Th e H o n o rab l e St ep h e n R

. Bo u g h
, Un i t ed St at es Di s tri ct J u d g e fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri ct o f M is s o u ri

.i n p ri s o n

. On ap p eal
, h e arg ues t h at t h e d i st ri ct co u rt l ack ed ju ri s d ict i o n to ad ju d i cat e h i s cri m i nal p ro s ecu ti o n

.

W e co n cl u d e t hat th e d i s tri ct co u rt h ad ju ri sd i ct i o n un d er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 2 3 1 (t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt s of th e Un i t ed St at es s h al l h av e o ri g i n al ju ri s d ict i o n , ex cl us i v e o f t h e

s t at e co u rt s, o f al l o ffen s es ag ai n s t t h e l aws o f t h e U n i t ed St at es ). See Un i t ed St at es

v

. T ro t t er, 4 7 8 F.3 d 9 1 8
, 9 2 0 n .2 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 07 ) (p er cu ri am ) (wh ere d efen dan t was ch arg ed wi t h an o ffen s e ag ai n s t t h e l aws of th e U n i t ed St at es , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt cl earl y h ad j u r i s d i c t i o n an d h is m o t i o n to d i s m i s s was pro p erl y d en i ed ); Un i t ed St at es v. Pem b ert o n , 4 0 5 F.3 d 6 5 6
, 6 5 9 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) (s u b ject -m at t er ju r i s d i c t i o n i n ev ery fed eral cri m i n al pro secu t i o n co m es fro m § 3 23 1
, wh i ch is “ th e b eg i n n i n g an d t h e en d

o f t h e ‘ j u ri s d i ct i o n al ’ i n q u iry ”). W e al s o reject as m eri t l es s Gu i er’ s as sert i o n t h at
p ay i n g fed eral i n co m e t ax i s vo l u n t ary

. See Un i ted St at es v

. Gerad s , 9 9 9 F.2 d 1 2 5 5,
1 2 5 6 -5 7 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 3 ) (p er cu ri am ) (cl ai m t h at p a y m en t o f fed eral i n co m e t ax i s

v o l u n t ar y c learl y l ack s s u bs t an ce; as s es si n g s an ct i o n s ag ai ns t ap p el l an t s fo r ad v a n c i n g arg u m en t s t h at were cl earl y l ack in g i n m eri t an d fri v o l o u s). W e t hu s affi rm th e ju dg m en t o f t h e d i s tri ct co u rt

.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

-2

-