alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CF-IA hLFi DAY \,Al o cF F

V.

NEW ~~~► M tJ N rn IF

'b El)AKT14(c-hj- o p

C C) nh~ crt MJ .

CAl~- N v h~ 'BGnu .S . otst~icT caur<<

~ E h Mr3 1

3

F,icjaF

,

.N . ~:.~~

26j1 ~~L ? I l

, .,. ~

o~-cu_ ~1(

0Tra u

2 t A TTA C Hq

JCr r

C q

~

~~ ~ ~~

' f\

`t ~Aycfl

r

J7~ ~y crg 1f1 -a°a 0 T

7'"

~ AG C vAn V H~cLD ~ ~~e h o- { y ~

F 3

u4o c?I v

~ST~~~~ ~~0~~ I~t~f~T~

r

~~~ ~EAA~x~

001 vt~~F~ ~''f°rr~ Nt A

CUv/~d- - Tff T~ Jp'g

A-#

~

~

~Xo o Sfi/~tC~ 01~ G

.,

J~tn~y 1~~,~t 7-v

A & C ~ n/c~~ ~► c~- ~y T ~

V= ~~~crT,~ C ~ ` AT © sTO

~r~

6

~~~ou~~ ~~~~~T,~~~~~~-

~a vna xP a~ 7

)9

f

'A

v A 1~ ~c~,

47efln

xaj A 0 1r' Jd~< <<

~1 7)

"J) fil1-v7-~7 c-

,~,4 ~~

o/ ( ~

~

~' ~ ~, /r 6~ O~,c~ a~ ~ ~T~~,~•~v vA* ,,4

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 55 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 4
T'~- ( J Ac ty 1-N 1 h (. s c ~ v , pF b3~ k,(~~~ ~

~ 1 P k At A1 3~ 0 P c ~ ti,y ~~~11~`/ A~d 1 J~ T

g 4 -

A-T 7 H ~

D 1 ~~'hl «- ~ <.J- o

~F c~ ~ ~ ~ nfl~/~a ,p 6/2

P

14

~~P ~ 6~e7~h► t~T ©n CavtiT

1 Ahlt j2 /1FI/~PJ

N

~ ' ~ ~J

c ,~ '~~ C 7141E~ tJ~ lri~t~ j

, ~o

~~

E~

lJ7Ai~o

~ c

~~2Cf ~~F G P- M \e~o u /~ Td 1'3 Z jZtS~It- T,~ ~a6

~`

mv c~~

~1~~ fnS✓ ~~~~~~ o-'S, ~~Q~° \~ ~ 7`1t C

ti~,~ ~ ~li '`~~ c a~~

G~i7Qn ~(i 7 C~,,.~-

14.4

L~c~~r~t 114y.t $,E_

AF Ca1 al TTa (Tic-c C~~` ti vfceT,, d ~

61

~► TN~ A' id C.7 .I ~~e~fJuy

c~_ o

tv

'

-) G,A

U ~J 0`~t co- 4~

~ r-r t~, D tl0'

4

t

(

o

~ 1 ~ " A

©J~

;r~7 ;z" jt~, Al /5~(/f c,)r-~,~~ 7 /1

/Vaj e

/L7

Cc f, 1414~

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 55 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 4
r~o"~/ 1) ~/ ~~t ~! Ic fa AT

7

'/1) TRF ~

p I'

"'

l-7

~'ca

~T

~ I T" c C v

,40 TI~~~ Aw pit O-(

`A)c l~ aAOr lv-,~O)ijtA y`(ja ~'~~ r~ uC"rl ~~t~ C a/►~r /~~h~J~~l

cc)

((" 0P- 1~o'c~ ~1o1W,rC

C oU A.,Cf G A 7146: p lJ~'"Arcl b ~ 1r ~t~

P-Q1\ T~~ W-/-~t~PITF

1~ 4 Ti U V n ~ 7C Ar- +,;"- A a 0 /7"'jru

`~-,~)

7 I-1 'F- z VT 01~ 0 ikkvCTI 0 w

0 F T/-1 F S fiXmr d I'- N F LXMe- A !'! A11t4y Tp~-- A (T/ 4 4 6 p M n X(C tl

~ I-Q c }- Tl 7) 1E 10- ~) JJ

1A lJ !-~ o ly a ~ ~ ~13Tn67t'

tJ WT1F p j7R"7-C' V j}alp D A NC-1 ~ t I~t U ! h t}ci~

~ 0 T~ FiF p ~~~

~ 4 le 1 uo7~ ~~ b CCD Cr.r ~ D

"'N V VF P ,e kl-/" F4~~ d~ C ti h~t 0), T

fto--rii7 aX Je-~= r,.r H p hprtJ-1 Atr vwC( nt ar T~lr

C.~-~~ ~ ~TAI~Y tile7 -i L )t-W W-~rCb J~~I-C--l

h (~~w t..a- ccrvA-r C4 ~ TY.Z7 Y 11 T1,

k-W !4ph6S1~1A,;e T4-1tql A

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 55 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 4
1~F (~~~.7thI&hr~ ~fi ~oA~t~ c1/~~r

l6 ~" )

~,-- a-~ C1 lt- ~~

PA~Q'JP /~~.

.LV C~h A4-~ C T~CIel G/2P/ ( a s h /'~ alv/

r D# ~ PIQ M

1 fpr(" «~1~~ d1/~tJ~~ ~tCc pu N dT~.l~~

v,u i 1\/~ic-7p®

~

~y~.Z~."' ~ ~/`'

r

C

~_--

~ h 7`l ~l C,A~1 a~ .

T ~-l G7~~

V

pA~ c7 .r C~ / l~TTTc~f -y

bI1F~.► k ~rl

k C",\ 'rr J~' ~} (} )4-k/ _ C

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 55 Filed 09/17/07 Page 4 of 4
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3013

___________

Henrice Taylor, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

National Marrow Donor Program, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: May 13, 1999

Filed: May 20, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Henrice Taylor appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment

on Taylor's race-based employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims.

Having reviewed the record and the materials submitted by the parties, we see no error

by the district court. We also conclude that an extended discussion is unnecessary in

this fact-intensive case. We believe the district court correctly granted summary

judgment, and we affirm on the basis of the district court's memorandum opinion and

order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<Page>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly
Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated.

                                  /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                  Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                  August 1, 2005
#### Roscoe W. HARMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Sept. 19, 1956.

PER 'CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-87,455-01

EX P ARTE JEFF ERY RYYA N HENIGAN , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 20130D04552-346-1 IN THE 346TH DIST RICT COURT

F ROM EL P ASO COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of intox icated manslaug hter a

nd sentenc ed to seve n y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary bec au s e t ri al counsel failed to prese nt evidenc e of Applicant’s mil itary history and post -traumatic stress di sorder diag nosis and failed to advocate on Applicant’ s behalf f or par ticipation in the Veter an Tre atment Court Prog ram. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I n these2

circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall o rder trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel and involuntary plea. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I f t he trial court elects t o hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall ap p o i nt an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make findings o f fact and conclusions of l aw in reg ard to Applicant’s cl ai m t h at his plea was involuntary

. The trial court shall make finding s as to whether t h e perf ormanc e of Applicant’s attorney was defic i ent and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A sup p l em en t al t ranscript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court. Filed: Oc tober 18, 2017 Do not publish
#### BARROW et al. v. WARE.

No. 5787.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 31, 1939.

*846Fred L. Jackson, of Homer, for appellant.

Meadors & Gensler, of Homer, for appel-lees.

DREW, Judge.

•The lower court arrived at the quantum of damages in this case in the following manner:

> “As to the quantum of damages in the case of Thomas E. Barrow et al. v. Samuel A. (Jinks) Ware, the testimony shows that Virginia Barrow received a fracture of the right radius and ulna, a wound to her lip which required some six or eight stitches to close, and some minor bruises. According to Dr. Wolff’s testimony, her wounds were painful but the recovery was had in about two or three weeks and it required about six visits and treatments. The doctor and hospital bills amounted to $75.00.

> “I consider that an .award of $750.00 in favor of the minor would be in keeping with the law and facts in this case, and that the plaintiff, Thomas E. Barrow, should recover the amount of doctor and hospital ■bills in the amount of $75.00, and there will be judgment in the case of Thomas E. Barrow et al. v. Samuel A. (Jinks) Ware in the amount of $750.00, in favor of the minor, and in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas E. Barrow, in the sum of $75.00.”

The award is in line with the jurisprudence of this state. Therefore, for the Reasons assigned in Asberry Bolin Greer et ux. v. Samuel A. (Jinks) Ware, 187 So. 842, decided by us this day, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with-costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1997
<CASH>                                           1,516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                      1,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,048
<PP&E>                                         137,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,996
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,746
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,401
<SALES>                                         27,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,267
<CGS>                                           17,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    225
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                225
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32(b)

TXU CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

The undersigned, David A. Campbell, Executive Vice President and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
TXU Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 5th day of May, 2006.



/s/ David A. CampbellName:

David A. CampbellTitle:

Executive Vice President and Acting Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Corp. and
will be retained by TXU Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment ofCompliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S.Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2020, except forservicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to theservicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the AmericanInstitute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of lessthan all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to ourtests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient andappropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and forthe year ended March 31, 2020, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

May 28, 2020 
**
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MANUEL ALEJANDRO PATINO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50616

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02715-JAH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Alejandro Patino appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 95-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

AUG 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Patino claims that the court erred by denying his request for a minor rule

reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because (1) Patino presented sufficient

evidence to justify the reduction, and (2) the court improperly relied upon hearsay

statements regarding his status as a recruiter to deny the reduction. We review for

clear error the district court’s factual determination that a defendant is not a minor

participant. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.

2011). In light of the record, including Patino’s transportation of a substantial

amount of currency and methamphetamine, the court did not clearly err by denying

the adjustment. See id. at 1193. Further, because Patino has not shown that the

challenged statements regarding his status as a recruiter were false or unreliable,

the district court did not err by considering them. See United States v.

Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Patino next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Patino’s sentence. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the nature of Patino’s offense. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50616
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1991...... 100.0 70.8 22.3 5.8 .7 .3 .1

1992...... 100.0 76.2 18.8 3.9 .8 .2 .0

1993...... 100.0 80.7 15.8 2.8 .6 .1 ...

1994...... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

1993: Q2... 100.0 74.4 20.4 4.4 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 76.6 19.1 3.6 .6 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 80.7 15.8 2.8 .6 .1 ...

1994: Q1... 100.0 79.3 16.7 3.3 .5 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.9 16.2 2.4 .4 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 83.5 13.7 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995: Q1... 100.0 81.6 15.3 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 82.0 15.0 2.6 .2 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.8 14.3 2.4 .3 .0 .1

 Q4... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996: Q1... 100.0 78.1 17.4 3.6 .6 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 78.0 17.2 4.0 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .5 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997: Q1... 100.0 79.1 16.7 3.7 .4 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.5 15.8 3.2 .3 ... .1

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26