alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELSA TINEO SALCEDO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-72879

Agency No. A071-949-040

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 10, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Elsa Tineo Salcedo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of a

final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed

the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum,

FILED

MAY 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 Salcedo does not contest the IJ’s determination that she is ineligible for 1

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

-2-

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.1

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for

review.

Because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s order without opinion, see 8

C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s order as the final agency decision, Khup

v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2004). We review the IJ’s adverse

credibility finding “for substantial evidence and must uphold the [IJ’s] finding

unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d

915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of asylum based on an adverse

credibility finding. Salcedo testified that a terrorist group called the Shining Path

was the only source of graffiti on Salcedo’s house in Peru and threats that she

received. According to Salcedo’s asylum application and its supporting

documents, however, the MRTA – a different terrorist group – was the source of

the graffiti and threats in question. Salcedo fails adequately to account for the

inconsistencies between her testimony, supporting documentation, and written

application. Because these “discrepancies relate to the basis for [Salcedo’s]
-3-

alleged fear of persecution,” they go to the heart of her claim and support the IJ’s

adverse credibility finding. de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393-94 (9th Cir.

1997).

Because Salcedo cannot establish eligibility for asylum, “the IJ properly

concluded that she was not eligible for withholding of removal, which imposes a

heavier burden of proof.” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.

2006).

PETITION DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERARDO SOTO-SIGALA and 

DAISY FRANCO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR113

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendant, Daisy Franco’s unopposed 

Motion to Continue Trial [50]. Counsel needs additional time to review additional 

discovery and to negotiate a resolution short of trial. Counsel for the co-defendant, 

Gerardo Soto-Sigala does not object to the requested continuance. For good cause 

shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [50] is granted, as follows:

1. The jury trial, for both defendants, now set for October 16, 2023, is continued 

to November 27, 2023.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date 

and November 27, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation 

of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(6), (7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: October 4, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00113-RFR-MDN Doc # 51 Filed: 10/04/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 77
| 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  | .  | .  | .  | .     |
Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 1 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 2 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 3 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 4 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 5 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 6 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 7 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 8 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 9 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 10 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 11 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 12 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 13 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 14 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 15 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 16 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 17 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 18 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 19 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 20 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 21 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 22 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 23 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 24 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 25 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 26 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 27 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 28 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 29 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 30 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 31 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 32 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 33 of 34

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB   Document 5-1   Filed 03/31/08   Page 34 of 34
**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. FeldmanChairman,                Chief Executive Officer                          |
|   | /s/                Jerome                I. Feldman                                                        |
|   | Jerome                I. FeldmanVice                Chairman, Chief Financial Officer,                Treasurer |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v . Case No. 06-cr-181-01-SM

John Teves

ORDER

Defendant Teves's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and tria l

is granted (document 43) . Trial has been rescheduled for the December 2007

trial period. Defendant Teves has filed a waiver of speedy trial .

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 : November 20, 2007 at 3 :00 p .m.

Jury Selection : December 4, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00181-SM Document 49 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

September 19, 2007

cc : Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Joseph Laplante, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:06-cr-00181-SM Document 49 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

ex rel VEN-A-CARE OF THE )

FLORIDA KEYS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 06-CV-231-PB

)

)

ASTRAZENECA )

PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, et At., )

} FILED UNDER SEAL

Defendants. )

ORDER

Having considered the Unopposed Application of the United States for Authorization to

Disclose Information Related to Matter Under Seal, the Court grants the motion and finds that :

The Kentucky Attorney General's Office and private counsel working with that

office may make use of information related to the state and federal settlement

agreements with AstraZeneca in the trial of Commonwealth of Kentucky ex ret.

Jack Conway, Attorney General v. Astrazeneca LP and Astrazeneca

Pharmaceuticals LP, Franklin County Circuit Court, Civil Action No . 04-CI1487.

2 . It would not violate the Court's seal for counsel representing the Commonwealth

of Kentucky in the above-referenced matter to make reference to the investigation

of AstraZeneca or the settlement that AstraZeneca entered to resolve the instant

case. However, counsel for the Commonwealth of Kentucky must not reveal the

existence of this qui tam, the identity of the relators, the docket number of this

matter, or any other information that would specifically identify this sealed matter .

Counsel for the Commonwealth must redact any references to this case from any

documents used in the state proceeding .

Case 1:06-cv-00231-PB Document 57 Filed 10/05/09 Page 1 of 2
This day of , 2009.

PAULBARBADORO

United States District Judge

2

Case 1:06-cv-00231-PB Document 57 Filed 10/05/09 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,667
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                       601
<INVENTORY>                                     60,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,833
<PP&E>                                          37,877
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,003
<BONDS>                                        139,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,346
<SALES>                                        181,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,781
<CGS>                                          145,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,055
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,768
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24


</TABLE>
#### Larry D. BITTICK, Appellant, v. Ireene MOONEY; Kathy Grossman; Sharon Kay Bittick; Beverle Scott, Appellees.

No. 02-2887.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 2002.

Decided Jan. 9, 2003.

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Larry D. Bittick appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Mr. Bittick alleged defendants conspired to wrongfully collect child support from his military pension in excess of what was provided for in his divorce decree. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that dismissal of Mr. Bittick’s complaint was proper because post-deprivation remedies are available to remedy defendants’ alleged collection of more monies than authorized by Mr. Bittick’s divorce decree, and Mr. Bittick has not demonstrated that state-law remedies are inadequate. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (unauthorized intentional deprivations of property by state employee does not constitute violation of procedural due process if meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); *Doherty v. City of Chicago,*75 F.3d 318, 323 (7th Cir.1996) (holding in licensing and zoning case that where state law remedies exist, plaintiffs must either avail themselves of remedy guaranteed by state law or demonstrate that available remedies are inadequate); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 454.505(3) (2000) (party may contest child-support withholding by requesting hearing within 30 days after notice of withholding was mailed); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 454.475 (2000) (administrative hearing procedures for child-support enforcement). We also agree with the district court that Mr. Bit-tick did not sufficiently allege a conspiracy *665between defendant Sharon Bittick (Mr. Bittick’s ex-wife) and a state actor.

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,610,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,816,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                   312,244
<INVENTORY>                                 19,617,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,770,743
<PP&E>                                       7,743,023
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,063,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,964,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,348,851
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  75,680,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,964,512
<SALES>                                     67,109,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,109,494
<CGS>                                       53,085,011
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,087,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               776,257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             818,195
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,246,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,011,796
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,234,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,234,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
March 6, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TERRY LEE BAGLEY, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00264-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED to reflect 

appellant entered a plea of true to the enhancement allegation.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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

July 10, 2007 trial in the above case to allow additional time

for defendant’s psychiatric evaluation to be completed and a

hearing held prior to the trial date. 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 July 10, 2007 to September 5, 2007. 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

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

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 25, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to

August 28, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 26, 2007

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2
U.S. P1 T R!CT COUF T

2001RR-1I PI2:23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven A. Swan

V.

Paul J. Barbadoro, et al

Civil No. 07-cv- I -GZS

ORDER

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Margaret J. Kravchuk dated February 8, 2007, no objection having been filed. The

complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

March 1, 2007

Chief Judge, Sitting by Designation

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00001-GZS Document 10 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.36





 Exhibit 10.36 

CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) WOULD
LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. 
  
 



 
 David A. Vallo 
 Senior Protect
Manager 
 MedImmune, LLC 
 One MedImmune Way 

Gaithersburg, MD 20878 
 USA 

Bellinzona, April 19, 2013 
 Re: Sub-License and Collaboration Agreement dated as of March 20, 2012 (“Agreement”) between MedImmune LLC (“MedImmune”) and Humabs BioMed SA (“Humabs”) 

Dear Mr. Vallo, 
 We hereby notify MedImmune of
Humabs’ agreement to extend the scope of the Research Project to work on Klebsiella, which has been elected as the Extra Target in accordance with Section 5.19.2 of the Agreement. 

In consideration of the generally increased research costs per FTE at Humabs, we submits to MedImmune the request to increase the amount of Research Funding
payments (Section 5.23.1.1. of the Agreement) from [***] of the Research Term. 
 Thank you for your time and cooperation. We also continue to look forward
to a successful collaboration with MedImmune. 
 Yours sincerely, 

/s/ Alcide Barberis 
 Alcide Barberis, PhD 

President and CEO 
 Humabs BioMed SA 

Via Mirasole 1 
 CH-6500
Bellinzona, Switzerland 
 [***]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 07-cr-09-01-JD

Gary Sydavong

O R D E R

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

15) 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 12, 2007

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00009-JD Document 16 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 1
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

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

2002: Q2... 7.2 7.2 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 6.7 6.4

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.3

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.4 6.1

 Q2... 6.3 6.2 5.9

 Q3... 6.2 6.1 5.7

 Q4... 6.1 6.1 5.7

2004: Q1... 6.3 6.3 5.8

 Q2... 6.4 6.3 6.0

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

2002: Q2... 7.7 7.6 7.1

 Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 Q4... 7.2 7.0 6.6

2003: Q1... 7.0 6.9 6.4

 Q2... 6.9 6.8 6.3

 Q3... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.2

2004: Q1... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q2... 34.6 6.6 6.1

 Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2002: Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2003: Q1... 5.8 6.0 6.2

 Q2... 5.2 5.3 5.2

 Q3... 5.1 5.3 5.6

 Q4... 4.6 4.9 5.7

2004: Q1... 5.8 6.2 6.3

 Q2... 6.0 6.2 6.7

 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.