alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01






CERTIFICATION
  PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
  I, John Hummel, the President and principal executive and principal financial officer of AIS Futures Management LLC, the General Partner of AIS Futures Fund IV L.P. (the “Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
  Date: August 16, 2010
  By:  /s/ John Hummel
 John Hummel
 President (principal executive and principal financial officer)
 AIS Futures Management LLC
 General Partner of AIS Futures Fund IV L.P.
| 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  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | .  | .     |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Walter Bryska, et al.

v.

Daniels Transportation Co., Inc., et al.

Civil No. 06-cv-455-JD

O R D E R

On December 5, 2006, an Order re Visiting Attorney was issued indicating that a motion for

pro hac vice admission of Gerald J. Noonan, Esq. be filed within 30 days. To date, no such filing

has been received.

It is, therefore, ordered that a proper Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Gerald J.

Noonan be filed on or before Friday, February 9, 2007, or Attorney Noonan will be terminated from

this case.

SO ORDERED.

February 2, 2007 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Gerald J. Noonan, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00455-JD Document 7 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6991

KEITH MAYDAK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KEITH OLSEN, in his official capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at

Beckley, West Virginia; KATHLEEN HAWK, in her

capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of

Prisons,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CA-97-306-5)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 23, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Maydak, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition as frivolous. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maydak v.

Olsen, No. CA-97-306-5 (S.D.W. Va. July 9, 1997). 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
8

A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMonths

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1991...... 7.3 6.7 8.5 7.2 24.6 5.3 7.7 8.3 10.6 5.8 1992...... 8.9 6.1 9.5 8.6 20.1 9.4 8.3 9.7 11.1 7.2 1993...... 9.2 7.3 9.6 8.3 30.4 9.4 8.5 10.0 11.1 7.4 1994...... 10.3 7.6 9.8 8.6 36.6 9.4 8.6 11.6 13.5 7.2 1995...... 9.9 8.7 9.9 8.5 26.5 10.0 9.0 10.8 12.1 8.2 1996...... 8.5 7.8 11.3 7.6 29.4 9.2 8.6 10.5 12.1 7.3 1997...... 9.9 9.1 11.0 10.7 30.6 7.4 8.8 11.6 12.4 8.8 1998...... 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.9 27.5 6.8 8.8 11.3 12.5 8.7 1999...... 11.5 8.0 11.0 11.3 20.1 10.5 9.8 11.2 12.4 11.4 2000...... 11.2 8.0 10.8 9.5 22.4 13.2 9.7 11.5 11.1 11.4 2001...... 13.2 8.5 14.0 10.3 24.3 15.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 14.1 2002...... 11.2 8.6 11.5 10.2 23.3 11.7 9.4 10.9 12.5 10.8 1999: Q4... 11.5 7.7 10.9 8.7 24.1 16.9 9.7 11.1 12.9 11.1 2000: Q1... 11.2 9.0 10.4 10.0 17.4 14.1 9.8 12.0 10.9 11.4  Q2... 11.6 9.7 9.3 10.1 22.3 13.4 10.8 11.9 11.7 11.6  Q3... 11.1 6.7 14.8 9.1 30.7 10.2 9.0 11.2 10.2 11.9  Q4... 10.6 7.2 9.7 7.9 25.8 14.5 8.9 10.5 11.5 10.5 2001: Q1... 18.7 8.7 18.6 12.4 30.6 25.9 9.9 13.3 13.5 23.0  Q2... 11.8 8.1 16.9 10.2 14.0 12.8 11.1 11.9 12.5 11.6  Q3... 11.0 6.8 10.7 8.6 32.3 11.3 9.1 11.2 11.8 10.9  Q4... 10.6 9.5 9.8 9.6 31.4 9.9 7.6 11.1 12.1 10.3 2002: Q1... 11.7 9.3 9.7 10.9 29.8 10.8 10.0 12.4 14.6 10.3  Q2... 13.4 11.3 19.6 10.6 27.7 16.8 10.2 12.6 14.2 13.8  Q3... 9.9 6.3 8.0 9.8 12.7 10.6 9.4 9.4 10.6 9.7  Q4... 9.5 7.3 8.8 9.1 32.8 9.3 7.7 8.3 9.7 9.8 2003: Q1... 14.1 8.8 11.3 11.8 35.2 14.2 10.4 11.7 15.5 14.3  Q2... 13.5 6.9 9.0 13.7 21.1 15.0 10.3 12.4 13.3 14.5  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark Mariano

v. Case No. 05-cv-25-PB

Warden, NH State Prison

ORDER

Petitioner has failed to show cause as to why summary judgment

should not be granted for the reasons stated in my September 5,

2005 Order. Accordingly, summary judgment is entered for the

respondent with respect to all of petitioner’s claims except his

ineffective of assistance of counsel claim, that claim is dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: October 13, 2005

cc: Mark Mariano,Pro se

Susan McGinnis, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00025-PB Document 19 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1


 


Memo


 


	Date:	August 20, 2019	 
	To:	 	 
	From:	Adam Pascale, CFO
	Re:	Salary Adjustment and Grant of
    Restricted Stock Award 








 


 


You
are receiving this memo because you are an employee of Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) and your annual
salary is in excess of $150,000.


 


As
you are aware, the Board of Directors determined that all employees earning in excess of $150,000 per year are required to forego
25% of their salary. 


 


This
salary reduction takes effect for the payroll period commencing
October 1, 2019 and will remain in effect until discontinued by the Board. The Board believes that this will be a temporary
measure.




 


To
incentivize the effected employees, each effected employee will be granted restricted stock awards (each,
an “Award”) pursuant to the Company’s 2018 Equity Incentive Plan. The Awards will be issued at the end of
each semi-monthly pay period commencing with the pay period ending October 15, 2019. The number of shares of common stock to
be issued pursuant to each Award shall be computed as follows: 25% of one twenty-fourth (1/24) of the employee’s annual
salary divided by the per share closing price of the Company’s Common stock on the NYSE American on the trading day
prior to the end of each semi-monthly pay period. The Awards will vest six months after issuance at which time the effected employees will receive the share of common stock pursuant to the Award. The employee must remain
in the employ of the Company during the vesting period and the Awards are not
transferable until after they have vested. A copy of the Form of Restricted Stock Award is attached hereto.


 


Before
making a decision, please review the Form of Restricted Stock Award as well as the Company’s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 and all documents subsequently filed by it with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to Sections 13(a), 13(c), 14 and 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1933.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-51-01-SM

Toan K. Nguyen

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 13). Trial has been rescheduled for the November 

2007 trial period. Defendant Nguyen shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than September 14, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective. 

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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: October 29, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: November 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00051-SM Document 16 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 ____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 5, 2007

cc: Richard Monteith, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00051-SM Document 16 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Maria SANTISTEBAN, Appellant, v. William SANTISTEBAN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Sept. 21, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-OXLEY**

**ACT      OF 2002 **

| 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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Michael                D. Feldman                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael                D. Feldman                                               |
| Chairman,                Chief Executive Officer                                |
|                                                                            |
| /s/                Jerome                I. Feldman                        |
| Jerome                I. Feldman                                                |
| Vice                Chairman, Chief Financial Officer,                Treasurer |

----
**Certification        Pursuant to**

**18        U.S.C. Section 1350**

|   | 1. | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, Inc. for the                  three-month                  period ended May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange                  Commission on the date hereof (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                  Eagle                  Broadband, Inc. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 1:06-mj-00081-JM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 6Case 1:06-mj-00081-JM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 6Case 1:06-mj-00081-JM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 6Case 1:06-mj-00081-JM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 Page 4 of 6Case 1:06-mj-00081-JM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 Page 5 of 6Case 1:06-mj-00081-JM Document 11 Filed 08/22/06 Page 6 of 6
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 20-2492

_______________

THE CLAUDE WORTHINGTON BENEDUM FOUNDATION,

 Appellant

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION,

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

 

________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2:19-cv-00132

District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan

______________________

Argued: May 13, 2021

_______________

Before: McKEE, JORDAN, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion filed: June 3, 2021)
2

Jason A. Archinaco [Argued]

Michael A. O’Leary

The Archinaco Firm

1100 Liberty Avenue

Suite C-6

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Counsel for Appellant

Jayme L. Butcher [Argued]

Shawna J. Henry

Richard M. Weibley

Blank Rome

501 Grant Street

Suite 850

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Counsel for Appellees

______________

OPINION*

______________

McKee, Circuit Judge.

The Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation appeals the District Court’s 

decisions to grant The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Bank of New York 

Mellon’s motions to dismiss. Benedum contends the District Court erred in dismissing

all three claims: fraud, breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged false representations, 

and breach of fiduciary duty based on an alleged duty to reveal “best pricing.” 

In exceptionally well-reasoned and thorough opinions, the District Court explained 

why it granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss against Benedum. We can add little to 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and under I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
3

the Court’s explanations. Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set 

forth by the District Court in its thoughtful and thorough opinions dated November 26, 

2019 and June 18, 2020.

1

We add only that, in addition to the reasons relied upon by the District Court, the 

“Release of BNY Mellon,” in paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement, precludes 

Benedum from filing this suit because Benedum explicitly waived the underlying claims. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of Mellon’s motions to 

dismiss.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). We have appellate 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review and apply the same 

standard as does the District Court. Edinboro Coll. Park Apartments v. Edinboro Univ. 

Found., 850 F.3d 567, 572 (3d Cir. 2017).
EXHIBIT
32.01







CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO




SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




I, John
Hummel, the President and principal executive and principal financial officer of
AIS Futures Management LLC, the General Partner of AIS Futures Fund IV LP (the
“Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form
10-Q for the period ending Semptember 30, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.




Date:
November 14, 2008




By:  /s/ John
Hummel


John
Hummel


President
(principal executive and principal financial officer)


AIS
Futures Management LLC


General
Partner of AIS Futures Fund IV L.P.











S-3
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

January 22, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00551

- CV

James Brent MANSFIELD

, Appellant

v.

Stormie Rae MANSFIELD

, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20 17

- CI

- 17710 Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s attorney has filed a motion seeking access to a portion of the record that is sealed. Specifically, appellant’s attorney seeks access to Petitioner’s exhibit 1, which is included in the reporter’s record from the hearing that took place in this case on April 10, 2018. The motion is GRANTED. The clerk of the court is instructed to provide a copy of the requested portion of the seal ed record , Petitioner’s exhibit 1, to ap pellant’s attorney and appellee’s attorney on CD

- ROM. All parties and their attorneys are ORDERED not to share the contents of th is sealed record with any person except to the extent necessary to prepare their respective briefs.

In the event appellant or appellee reference the sealed record in their respective briefs, they are ORDERED to (1) file their respective briefs in paper form only, and (2) with a cover letter informing the clerk of this court that the brief references the sealed record. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 9.2(c)(3) (exception to electronic filing for documents under seal).

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ha ve hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of January, 20 19

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 12.1

ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
(Unaudited)

|                                   |                      | Six Months Ended
June 30, |         | Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|---------------------------------- | -------------------- | ------------------------- | ------- | --------------------------------
|
|Earnings from operations           |                      | $                         | 69,173  |                                 
|Add:                               |                      |                           |         |                                 
|                                   | Interest expense     |                           |         | 138,135                         
|                                   |                      |                           |         |                                 
|Earnings as adjusted               |                      | $                         | 207,308 |                                 
|                                   |                      |                           |         |                                 
|Fixed charges:                     |                      |                           |         |                                 
|                                   | Interest expense     |                           |         | 138,135                         
|                                   | Capitalized interest |                           |         | 25,372                          
|                                   |                      |                           |         |                                 
|                                   |                      | Total fixed charges       |         | $                               
|                                   |                      |                           |         |                                 
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |                      |                           | 1.3     |                                 
|                                   |                      |                           |         |                                 

---

---



QuickLinks
8

A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMonths

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1991...... 7.3 6.7 8.5 7.2 24.6 5.3 7.7 8.3 10.6 5.8 

1992...... 8.9 6.1 9.5 8.6 20.1 9.4 8.3 9.7 11.1 7.2 

1993...... 9.2 7.3 9.6 8.3 30.4 9.4 8.5 10.0 11.1 7.4 1994...... 10.3 7.6 9.8 8.6 36.6 9.4 8.6 11.6 13.5 7.2 1995...... 9.9 8.7 9.9 8.5 26.5 10.0 9.0 10.8 12.1 8.2 1996...... 8.5 7.8 11.3 7.6 29.4 9.2 8.6 10.5 12.1 7.3 1997...... 9.9 9.1 11.0 10.7 30.6 7.4 8.8 11.6 12.4 8.8 1998...... 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.9 27.5 6.8 8.8 11.3 12.5 8.7 1999...... 11.5 8.0 11.0 11.3 20.1 10.5 9.8 11.2 12.4 11.4 2000...... 11.2 8.0 10.8 9.5 22.4 13.2 9.7 11.5 11.1 11.4 

2001...... 13.2 8.5 14.0 10.3 24.3 15.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 14.1 

2002...... 11.2 8.6 11.5 10.2 23.3 11.7 9.4 10.9 12.5 10.8 1999: Q3... 12.0 6.9 7.3 9.3 22.3 17.1 9.4 10.4 11.1 13.8 

 Q4... 11.5 7.7 10.9 8.7 24.1 16.9 9.7 11.1 12.9 11.1 

2000: Q1... 11.2 9.0 10.4 10.0 17.4 14.1 9.8 12.0 10.9 11.4  Q2... 11.6 9.7 9.3 10.1 22.3 13.4 10.8 11.9 11.7 11.6 

 Q3... 11.1 6.7 14.8 9.1 30.7 10.2 9.0 11.2 10.2 11.9 

 Q4... 10.6 7.2 9.7 7.9 25.8 14.5 8.9 10.5 11.5 10.5 

2001: Q1... 18.7 8.7 18.6 12.4 30.6 25.9 9.9 13.3 13.5 23.0 

 Q2... 11.8 8.1 16.9 10.2 14.0 12.8 11.1 11.9 12.5 11.6  Q3... 11.0 6.8 10.7 8.6 32.3 11.3 9.1 11.2 11.8 10.9  Q4... 10.6 9.5 9.8 9.6 31.4 9.9 7.6 11.1 12.1 10.3 2002: Q1... 11.7 9.3 9.7 10.9 29.8 10.8 10.0 12.4 14.6 10.3  Q2... 13.4 11.3 19.6 10.6 27.7 16.8 10.2 12.6 14.2 13.8  Q3... 9.9 6.3 8.0 9.8 12.7 10.6 9.4 9.4 10.6 9.7  Q4... 9.5 7.3 8.8 9.1 32.8 9.3 7.7 8.3 9.7 9.8 2003: Q1... 14.1 8.8 11.3 11.8 35.2 14.2 10.4 11.7 15.5 14.3 

 Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.