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

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 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

1993: 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 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

 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
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131243 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131243 

 COA: 258438 

Macomb CC: 2002-002884-FC 

KENYON CLINTON,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0936. IN RE: ESTATE OF WILLIAM NASH.

Laysha Kemp and Treneice Nash filed a caveat to the will of William Nash.

The trial court upheld the validity of the will, and the caveators filed this direct

appeal. Our constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over appeals in “[a]ll

cases involving wills.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (3). As the

Supreme Court has explained, “‘all casesinvolving wills’meansthose casesin which

the will’s validity or meaning is in question.” In re Estate of Lott, 251 Ga. 461 (306

SE2d 920) (1983). Because it appears this case involves the validity of William

Nash’s will, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

disposition.

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.

02/16/2016

February 16, 2016
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 32(b)



                                    TXU CORP.
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CFO


     The  undersigned, H. Dan Farell, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial  Officer of TXU Corp. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

  1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
     2003 (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 13th day of August, 2003.




                                            /s/     H. Dan Farell
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Name:    H. Dan Farell
                                           Title:   Executive Vice President
                                                    and 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.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jason Winig, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1423 C.D. 2021

:

The Office of the District Attorney :

of Philadelphia, Lawrence S. Krasner, :

Esquire, Branwen McNabb, Esquire, :

Michelle Michelson, Esquire, :

William Burrows, Esquire and :

Helen Park, Esquire :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, April 20 , 2023

, having considered A ppellant ’ s application for

reargument, the application is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                          26,118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    233,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               283,699
<PP&E>                                         208,610
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 465,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          154,933
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           388
<OTHER-SE>                                     284,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   465,468
<SALES>                                        218,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,037
<CGS>                                          134,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (203)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                       925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,475
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v.

FNU Swartout

No. 07-fp-117

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-117-PB.

SO ORDERED.

_____________________________

ames R. Muirhead

Date: May 7, 2007

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00117-PB Document 5 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 1

Hall v. Swartout Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
Honorary Consultant Cooperation Agreement


 




EXHIBIT 10.6

Honorary Consultant Cooperation Agreement




Party A: Bao Feng Biotech (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

Party B: Jiang Nan

ID number: 372426198001060310

Party A invites Party B to be Party A's honorary consultant for its development needs. After consultation between the two parties, the following agreements are concluded:

I. Scope of Agreement

Party A and Party B jointly carry out project application, project cooperation, product development and technology landing and other cooperation projects. The ownership of the results shall be discussed according to the specific study of the project.

Party A provides technical guidance for project design and data analysis.

Party B provides suggestions and opinions on brain neuromedicine.

Other things depend on specific project negotiation.

II. Term of contract

This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of signature (seal) by both parties and shall be valid for 2 years.

III. Dispute Settlement

Any disputes arising from or relating to this contract shall be settled through consultation between the two parties.

IV. Unfinished Matters






 




For matters not covered in this Agreement, a supplementary agreement shall be made after consultation between the two parties. The Supplementary Agreement shall be an annex to this Agreement and shall have the same effect as this Agreement.




Supplementary articles

1. This Agreement is in duplicate and each party holds one copy. Each text of the agreement has the same legal effect.

2. This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature by all parties.




Signature date: 2019/01/05




Party A (seal):

Legal representative or authorized representative (signature):




Party B (seal):

Legal representative or authorized representative (signature):



















姜楠Jiang Nan主治医师Associate chief physician




Associate chief physician of the first affiliated hospital of Tsinghua University






 




Jiang Nan is now deputy chief physician of general surgery department of Beijing Huaxin hospital (the first affiliated hospital of Tsinghua university). He is a young member of the breast and thyroid tumor branch of the rehabilitation association of China anti-cancer association. He is good at using lipid (fatty acid) markers for early screening of cancer.



















荣誉顾问合作协议




甲方:宝枫生物科技(北京)有限公司

乙方:  姜楠

身份证号:372426198001060310

甲方因发展需要,邀请乙方为甲方荣誉顾问,经双方协商,订立如下协议:

一、协议范围

甲方与乙方联合进行课题申请,项目合作,产品研发和技术落地等合作项目。成果所属权,根据项目具体研究讨论。

甲方提供项目设计以及数据分析的技术指导;

乙方提供脑神经医学问题的建议及意见;

其他事物以具体项目协商而定。

二、期限

本协议自双方签字(盖章)之日起生效,有效期为 2  年。






 




三、争端解决

因本合同引起的或与本合同有关的任何争议,双方协商解决。

四、未尽事宜

本协议未尽事宜,由双方协商后另立补充协议约定。补充协议应作为本协议的附件,与本协议具有相同效力。

 

附则

1、本协议一式二份,协议各方各执一份。各份协议文本具有同等法律效力。

2、本协议经各方签署后生效。

 

签署时间:2019年01月05日

 

甲方(盖章):

法定代表人或授权代表(签字):



乙方(盖章):

法定代表人或授权代表(签字):
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-108-01-JD

Edwin Dorr

O R D E R

On August 17, 2012, defendant appeared for a preliminary 

hearing/probable cause hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on 

three alleged violations of conditions of supervision, as 

charged in the government's petition dated March 30, 2011

1 (doc. 

no. 103). Defendant is on release from his convictions in 2007

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams 

or more of crack cocaine.

At the beginning of the hearing, and before the court 

addressed the defendant regarding his fifth and sixth amendment 

rights, defense counsel raised a question concerning defendant’s 

competency. According to defense counsel, defendant has 

undergone a competency evaluation relative to a pending state 

charge; a report is either completed or nearing completion. 

Defense counsel anticipates that the state evaluation will allow 

him to determine what, if anything, to file in this court on the 

question of defendant’s competency. 

 

1 The petition contains a typographical error with respect 

to the year of issuance. The correct date is March 30, 2012. 

Case 1:06-cr-00108-JD Document 105 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 3
2

The court granted defense counsel’s oral request for the 

appointment of counsel. The court explained to defendant his 

right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Defense

counsel confirmed that defendant had received the charging 

document and that counsel would attempt to confirm defendant’s

understanding of it.

The court continued the probable cause hearing. With 

respect to release pending the probable cause hearing, the court 

determined based on the government’s proffer that defendant’s 

release pending his probable cause hearing, even on strict 

conditions, would represent too high a danger to the community.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained 

pending a probable cause hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

Case 1:06-cr-00108-JD Document 105 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 3
3

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 20, 2012

 

cc: Philip H. Utter, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00108-JD Document 105 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

Johnell Bennett

Case No . 06-cr-77-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant Bennett's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 23) . Trial has been rescheduled for the November

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

not later than September 7, 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 30, 2007 at 10 :30 a.m.

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

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 24 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

August 23, 2007

cc : Kevin E. Sharkey, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 24 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1527-000]


New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2008, New York Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (NYISO), tendered for filing proposed revisions to it 
Open Access Transmission Tariff that would modify the deadlines that 
the NYISO adopted in compliance with Order No. 890.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#72343720313d1c1e1b1c17210702021d000632141700115c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="185e5d4a5b57767471767d4b6d6868776a6c587e7d6a7b367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22277 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


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


     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive 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 March 31, 2006 (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/ E. James Ferland
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    E. James Ferland
                                    Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    May 1, 2006
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

H & F Aviation, Inc., and

Joseph L. Frisolone,

v.

Keyson Enterprises, Inc.,

Keyson Airways Corporation,

and Holly Frenzel, Individually,

Civil No. 06-cv-135-SM

Keyson Enterprises, Inc.,

Keyson Airways Corporation,

and Holly Frenzel, Individually,

v.

H & F Aviation, Inc., and

Joseph L. Frisolone,

O R D E R

Having reviewed the in camera submissions by defense

counsel, it is apparent that withdrawal is appropriate, as

counsel have suggested. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw

(document no. 71) is granted. Defendants are hereby notified

that substitute counsel shall appear or, in the case of the

individual defendant, an alternative pro se appearance shall be

filed, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. 

Following the appearance of new counsel a pretrial status

conference will be held to reset scheduling and a trial date. 

Wiggin & Nourie, P.A. shall ensure that each defendant is aware

of the obligation to obtain substitute counsel (in the case of

corporate defendants) or appear pro se within the time allowed." 

Case 1:06-cv-00135-SM Document 77 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 11, 2007

cc: Donald C. Mark, Jr., Esq.

Edward E. Beckmann, Esq.

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

Marie M. McPartlin, Esq.

Paul R. Kfoury, Sr., Esq.

Stephanie A. Bray, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00135-SM Document 77 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 250-2 Filed 07/28/11 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 250-2 Filed 07/28/11 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 250-2 Filed 07/28/11 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-55-01-SM

Richard Ouellette

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 22). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2008

trial period. Defendant Ouellette shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than December 31, 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: February 22, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 4, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00055-SM Document 23 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 18, 2007

cc: Jaye Rancourt, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00055-SM Document 23 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2