alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. 07-cr-81-01-SM

Rafael Delacruz,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Delacruz’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document no. 7). Defendant Delacruz has filed a Waiver of

Speedy Trial. Trial has been rescheduled for the month of October 2007. 

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. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:07-cr-00081-SM Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for September 28, 2007 at 

2:00 p.m. in Room 421. 

Jury selection will take place on October 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 17, 2007

cc: Jorel Booker, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00081-SM Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 2
37

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 estate loans estate loans

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2001: Q1... 9.2 9.2 n.a. 8.2

 Q2... 8.6 8.6 n.a. 7.9

 Q3... 8.1 8.0 n.a. 7.5

 Q4... 7.5 7.4 n.a. 7.2

2002: Q1... 7.5 7.3 n.a. 7.2

 Q2... 7.3 7.3 n.a. 7.1

 Q3... 7.2 7.2 n.a. 6.8

 Q4... 6.8 6.7 n.a. 6.5

2003: Q1... 6.7 6.6 n.a. 6.4

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2001: Q1... 9.6 9.8 9.5 8.9

 Q2... 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.5

 Q3... 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.0

 Q4... 7.8 8.1 8.2 7.6

2002: Q1... 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.5

 Q2... n.a. 8.1 8.0 7.7

 Q3... n.a. 7.9 7.9 7.5

 Q4... n.a. 7.6 7.6 7.2

2003: Q1... n.a. 7.4 7.5 7.0

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2001: Q1... n.a. 9.8 9.8 9.1

 Q2... n.a. 9.3 9.3 8.6

 Q3... n.a. 8.9 8.9 8.5

 Q4... n.a. 8.2 8.1 7.6

2002: Q1... n.a. 7.5 7.7 7.3

 Q2... n.a. 7.6 7.7 7.4

 Q3... n.a. 7.4 7.5 7.2

 Q4... n.a. 7.2 7.2 6.9

2003: Q1... n.a. 6.9 7.0 6.6

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2001: Q1... 10.3 10.4 10.1 9.5

 Q2... 9.7 9.7 9.5 9.0

 Q3... 9.2 9.2 9.2 8.5

 Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.0

2002: Q1... 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.0

 Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.2 7.8

 Q3... 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.8

 Q4... 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5

2003: Q1... 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.5
38

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans (continued)

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 -estate loans estate loans

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 

2001: Q1... 9.4 9.4 9.2 8.9

 Q2... 8.6 11.0 8.5 8.3

 Q3... 8.2 7.9 8.0 7.6

 Q4... 9.9 7.2 7.2 7.0

2002: Q1... 7.0 7.1 9.4 7.3

 Q2... 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.2

 Q3... 7.3 6.9 7.3 7.2

 Q4... 6.8 6.7 7.0 6.7

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.6

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of

livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
Exhibit 4

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 338-5 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 338-5 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 338-5 Filed 11/19/12 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 338-5 Filed 11/19/12 Page 4 of 4
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, November 4-Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,000 $24,000 $49,000 $99,000 $249,000 

Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 689,089 30,428 53,241 55,362 87,536 137,41

Number of loans 15,682 7,777 3,579 1,627 1,306 93

Weighted average maturity (months)1 10.73 6.35 8.71 11.44 8.92 12.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 1.76 .94 2.39 3.54 2.17 2.3

Weighted average risk rating3 3.30 3.37 3.37 3.32 3.38 3.4Weighted average interest rate4 4.74 6.27 6.05 5.76 5.19 4.9 Standard error5 .26 .28 .25 .16 .20 .1

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 5.39 7.25 7.25 6.92 6.11 5.6

 25th percentile 3.30 5.12 4.85 4.60 4.33 4.0

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.53 5.87 5.99 5.79 5.57 4.7

 Other livestock 4.44 6.07 5.53 5.64 4.45 4.8

 Other current operating expenses7 5.36 6.43 6.25 5.90 5.41 5.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.28 7.24 6.86 6.05 6.08 4.8

 Farm real estate 5.12 6.14 7.43 5.53 5.92 6.6

 Other8 4.17 5.64 5.40 5.41 4.66 4.6

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 90.75 87.72 81.34 82.46 83.55 91.9

 Under commitment 93.30 96.21 93.12 93.00 91.70 93.5

 Callable 12.71 19.97 24.20 20.19 20.08 13.6

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.82 4.59 6.07 9.97 9.75 10.0

 Other livestock 10.67 5.21 7.33 11.06 12.08 8.9

 Other current operating expenses7 37.50 69.89 58.95 51.33 53.64 48.3

 Farm machinery and equipment 1.41 2.48 5.02 4.35 2.54 .1

 Farm real estate 3.09 .86 1.53 1.57 1.84 2.4

 Other8 37.51 16.97 21.11 21.72 20.15 30.0

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 5.40 3.29 4.88 5.66 5.41 5.8

 Other 84.12 90.60 89.20 85.98 87.97 86.2

 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1665 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1665

To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental 
             ballistic missile silos in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2001

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental 
             ballistic missile silos in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF USE OF FUNDS DURING 
              FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR DESTRUCTION OF INTERCONTINENTAL 
              BALLISTIC MISSILE SILOS IN THE UNITED STATES.

    During fiscal year 2002, no funds appropriated or otherwise 
available to the Department of Defense may be used to carry out the 
destruction of any intercontinental ballistic missile silo in the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### BRASHER v. ST. TAMMANY HOLDING CO., Inc.,

No. 5258.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 25, 1936.

Leo Gold, of Alexandria, for petitioner.

Isaac Wahlder, of Alexandria, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Courts of Appeal are granted supervisory jurisdiction over and control of inferior courts only to the extent of aiding or enforcing their appellate jurisdiction. Putnam & Norman v. Levee, 179 La. 180, 153 So. 685; State ex rel. Griffin v. Morgan, 19 La.App. 709, 130 So. 868; Const. 1921, art. 7, §§ 2, 29.

Writ refused.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Senior Executive Service; Legal Division Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of members of the Legal Division Performance Review 
Board (PRB).

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the 
appointment of members of the Legal Division PRB. The purpose of this 
Board is to review and make recommendations concerning proposed 
performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, and other appropriate 
personnel actions for incumbents of SES positions in the Legal 
Division.

DATES: Effective Date: September 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen M. Albrecht, Counselor to the 
General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Room 3000, Washington, DC 20220, Telephone: (202) 622-1143 (this 
is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Composition of Legal Division PRB

    The Board shall consist of at least three members. In the case of 
an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half the members shall 
consist of career appointees. Composition of the specific PRBs will be 
determined on an ad hoc basis from among the individuals listed in this 
notice.
    The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:

Stephen M. Albrecht, Counselor to the General Counsel;
Rupa Bhattacharyya, Deputy Assistant General Counsel (International 
Affairs);
Peter A. Bieger, Deputy Assistant General Counsel (Banking and 
Finance);
Himamauli Das, Assistant General Counsel (International Affairs);
John Harrington, International Tax Counsel;
H. Stephen Kesselman, Deputy Chief Counsel (Operations), Internal 
Revenue Service;
John G. Knepper, Deputy General Counsel, Chairperson;
Bernard J. Knight, Jr., Assistant General Counsel (General Law, Ethics 
and Regulation);
Donald L. Korb, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service;
Richard G. Lepley, Deputy Assistant General Counsel (General Law and 
Regulation);
M.J.K. Maher, Jr., Deputy Assistant General Counsel (Enforcement & 
Intelligence);
Margaret V. Marquette, Chief Counsel, Financial Management Service;
Mark Monborne, Assistant General Counsel (Enforcement & Intelligence);
Clarissa C. Potter, Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical), Internal Revenue 
Service;
Kevin Rice, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Engraving and Printing;
Laurie Schaffer, Assistant General Counsel (Banking and Finance);
Daniel P. Shaver, Chief Counsel, United States Mint;
Sean M. Thornton, Chief Counsel, Office of Foreign Assets Control;
Robert M. Tobiassen, Chief Counsel, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau, and
Paul Wolfteich, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Public Debt.

    Dated: September 16, 2008.
John G. Knepper,
Deputy General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E8-22323 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6639

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-97-299-3)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to compel the Government to show cause as to why it

failed to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Thomas, No.

CR-97-299-3 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1676

___________ George Poole, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Chris Cassaday; Michael Bolin; City of * Cool Valley; Gregory Bolin, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 2, 2007 Filed: November 14, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. George Poole appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights action. Upon careful review of the record, see Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs , 361 F.3d 1099, 1103 (8th Cir. 2004) (s tandard of review), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned opinion, see8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### Nicholas LOMBARDO and Rose Lombardo, his wife, Appellants, v. Ann BARRETT, doing business as Coast Line Realty, as Trustee, and Charles Provo and Lillian Provo, his wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 5, 1954.

Appeal from Circuit Court; .Palm. .Beach County; Joseph S. White, Judge... , . .

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2253. IN THE INTEREST OF J. G. W., A CHILD.

This case was docketed by this Court on June 13, 2019, and appellant's

brief and enumerations of error were due on July 3, 2019. As of the date of this

order, appellant still has not filed a brief and enumerations of error and has not

properly requested an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, this appeal

is hereby DISMISSED as abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rules 13 and 23.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

July 11, 2019

07/11/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

BILLY TYLER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED HEALTH,

Defendant.

8:23CV220

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on what the Court construes as Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Appeal, Filing No. 11 at 2,

1 and a memorandum from the Clerk of the Court requesting a 

ruling as to Plaintiff’s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Filing No. 12. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), 

Plaintiff may not take this appeal in forma pauperis.

A litigant seeking to appeal a judgment must either pay the required filing fees, see

Fed. R. App. P. 3(e), or proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(a). Section 

1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court 

certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appellant demonstrates good faith 

by seeking appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 

369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674 (1958). 

An appeal is frivolous when none of the legal points are arguable on their merit. 

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Misischia v. St. John’s Mercy Health 

Sys., 457 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2006). And while such a finding should be made only 

1 Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal contains an appeal for the present case, as well as Plaintiff’s other pending 

case, 4:23CV3099. See Filing No. 11 at 1.; see also Filing No. 9, Case No. 4:23CV3099.

8:23-cv-00220-JFB-PRSE Doc # 13 Filed: 07/14/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 27
2

in extreme cases, it is proper when a party attempts to appeal from an order that is clearly 

not appealable. See Cohen v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 333 F.2d 974, 978 79 (8th Cir. 1964).

Here, Plaintiff seeks to “appeal all of stalling in [his] case,” Filing No. 11 at 2, but

he does not identify any specific order that he wishes to appeal. Assuming Plaintiff is 

attempting to appeal from the Court’s previous order entered on June 12, 2023, directing 

Plaintiff to update his address after mail sent to him was returned to the Court as 

undeliverable,

2

that order is clearly not appealable. The order does not qualify as a “final 

decision[]” capable of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In addition, the order does not fall 

within the narrow class of appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). 

Because Plaintiff is attempting to appeal from an order that is not appealable, the 

Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis.

Dated this 14th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

2 The envelope in which Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal was mailed contains the same address which the Court 

has on file so the Court assumes that is Plaintiff’s correct address.

8:23-cv-00220-JFB-PRSE Doc # 13 Filed: 07/14/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 28
Exhibit 31

       Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                                       By
                    Principal Executive and Financial Officer
       Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings

I, Cary Brokaw, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Avenue Entertainment
Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
         disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to
         the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


Date:  May 20, 2004



                                        Cary Brokaw
                                        President and Chief Executive
                                        and Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSCRYPT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     16,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,058
<PP&E>                                          12,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,435
<BONDS>                                          2,587
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,389
<SALES>                                         50,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,190
<CGS>                                           34,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,194<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (567)<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,539)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,916)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,623)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)
<FN>
<F1>Other-expenses include a $1.2 million restructuring charge.
<F2>Interest expense is net of $1,050 of Interest Income less $483 of Interest
expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>