alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elvia Leonor RAMOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70206.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Elvia Leonor Ramos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of *772the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum, and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *See Castro-Espinosa v. Ashcroft,*257 F.3d 1130, 1131 n. 1 (9th Cir.2001) (order). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that an applicant has not established eligibility for asylum, and must uphold the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ramos failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Ramos’ testimony that her brother-in-law was killed by guerrillas in 1993, and that she fears returning because of threats to her family does not compel a contrary finding. *See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS,*937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991) (allegations of isolated violence against family members is not enough to establish a well-founded fear of persecution).

As Ramos failed to satisfy the standard for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

Ramos’ contention that the BIA erred in taking administrative notice of changed country conditions is without merit because the country conditions report was entered into evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2006


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Cite as State ex rel. Lynch v. Toledo Area Regional Transit Auth., 122 Ohio St.3d 81, 2009-

Ohio-2609.] 

THE STATE EX REL. LYNCH, APPELLANT, v. TOLEDO AREA 

REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Lynch v. Toledo Area Regional Transit Auth., 

122 Ohio St.3d 81, 2009-Ohio-2609.] 

Workers’ compensation — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2008-1484 — Submitted May 19, 2009 — Decided June 10, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 07AP-872, 2008-Ohio-3297. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with 

the opinion of the court of appeals. 

 MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and 

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

 LANZINGER, J., not participating. 

__________________ 

 Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaffer Co., L.P.A., and Theodore A. 

Bowman, for appellant. 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Douglas R. Unver, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 

______________________
.



### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 10 - 00035 - CR IN RE LORENZA LEON B LAYLOCK, JR.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Lorenza Leon Blaylock, Jr. a Texas inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the judge 1 of the 87th District Court of Freestone County, to vacate his judgment of conviction on grounds that the District Attorney had neith er taken nor filed his oaths of office; thus, Blaylock maintains that the judgment is void. See T EX . C ONST . A RT . V, § 21; see also T EX . C ONST . A RT . XV I, § 1. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. 2

1 Blaylock names the Honorable Horace Dickson Black, Jr. as judge of the 87 th Judicial District Court of Freestone County . Judge Black pres ided over Blaylock’s trial, but retired from the 77th Judicial District Court of Freestone and Limestone Counties. The Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans is the current elected judge of the 87th Judicial District Court. 2 Blaylock ’s appendix does not comply with Rule s of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7

. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 52.3 (k)(1 ); see also T EX . R. A PP . P

. 52.7

. Nevertheless, we will apply Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and disregard th is deficiency

. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 2.In re Blaylock Page 2

A writ of habeas corpus is the “exclusive post

- conviction remedy in final felony convictions

. ” Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ; Ex parte Mendenhall , 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, orig. proceeding) ; T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.0 7 (Vernon Supp. 2009 ) . Appellate courts lack jurisdiction over such writs. See Mendenhall , 209 S.W.3d at 261 ; see also T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 11.0 7(3)(a), (b); T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.05 (Vernon 2005 ). Although such an application must be filed with the trial court, the writ, whi ch issues by operation of law,

“ must be made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals.” Mendenhal l , 209 S.W.3d at 261 (quoting T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (3) ). Blaylock’s petition for writ of mandamus essentially seeks habeas corpus relief. See Mendenhall , 209 S.W.3d at 261; see also In re Bruno , No. 10

- 07

- 00397

- CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 506, at *1

- 2 (Tex. App.

— Waco Jan. 23, 2008, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). Because we lack jurisdiction to grant such relief, we dismiss Blaylock’s petition for writ of mandamus and all pending motions in this proceeding for want of jurisdiction. See Mendenhall , 209 S.W.3d at 261; see also Bruno , 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 506, at *1

- 2.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chi ef Justice Gray Justice Reyna , and Justice Davis Writ dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 3 , 2010 [OT 06]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linens 'n Things, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended July 5, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
T. Giles, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ William T. Giles
--------------------
Name:  William T. Giles
Title: Executive Vice President,
       Chief Financial Officer
Date:  August 19, 2003









                                       25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Walter E. Myrick

v. Civil No. 05-cv-450-JD

State of New Hampshire

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff Walter E. Myrick brings this civil rights

action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendant has

violated his Eighth Amendment rights by incarcerating him under

conditions that posed a substantial risk of serious harm and

causing him to be exposed to and contract Hepatitis B (document

no. 1). Construed liberally, the complaint names as the

defendant Bruce Cattell in his representative capacity as Warden

of the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”).

The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; U.S.

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons stated in the Report and

Recommendation issued simultaneously herewith, I find that Myrick

Case 1:05-cv-00450-JD Document 6 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 3
2

has alleged an Eighth Amendment claim against Cattell, arising

from Myrick’s unsafe conditions of confinement and exposure to

Hepatitis B.

As I find that plaintiff has stated a claim upon which

relief may be granted, I order the complaint served on the

defendant. The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New

Hampshire Office of the Attorney General (AG), as provided in the

Agreement On Acceptance Of Service, copies of the complaint, this

order and report and recommendation (document no. 1). See LR

4.3(d)(2)(C). Within thirty days from receipt of these

materials, the AG will submit to the court an Acceptance of

Service notice specifying those defendants who have authorized

the AG’s office to receive service on their behalf. When the

Acceptance of Service is filed, service will be deemed made on

the last day of the thirty-day period. 

If defendant does not authorize the AG’s office to receive

service on his behalf or if the AG declines to represent him, the

AG shall, within thirty days from receipt of the aforementioned

materials, provide a separate list of the last known address of

the defendant. The Clerk’s office is instructed to complete

service on this individual by sending to him, by certified mail,

return receipt requested, copies of these same documents. 

Case 1:05-cv-00450-JD Document 6 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 3
3

The defendant is instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within thirty days of acceptance of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendant by delivering or mailing the materials to him or

his attorney, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 27, 2006

cc: Walter E. Myrick, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00450-JD Document 6 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99(b)



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




     The  undersigned,  Erle Nye,  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive of
TXU Corp. (the  "Company"),  DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
     31, 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 15th day of May, 2003.





                                 /s/ Erle Nye
                           ----------------------------------------
                           Name:    Erle Nye
                           Title:   Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                    Executive











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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rexielito J. GLORY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10032.

D.C. No. CR-01-00061-JSU.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 17, 2003.

*678Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Rexielito J. Glory appeals his 262-month sentence following a conviction by guilty plea for one count of distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Glory contends that the district court committed plain error by determining that he was a leader or organizer pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c). This contention lacks merit because Glory admitted that he supervised and exercised authority over at least one other participant in the criminal activity. *See United States v. Maldonado,*215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.2000) (concluding that a supervising defendant need only exercise authority over one individual to warrant two-level upward adjustment).

Glory also contends that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. We decline to reach this issue on direct appeal. *See United States v. Robinson,*967 F.2d 287, 290 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that ineffective assistance of counsel is more properly raised on collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless the record is sufficient or there is an obvious denial of adequate representation).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Elizabeth Hotham, et al.

v. Case No. 05-cv-464-JM

Quest Diagnostics, Inc.

ORDER

I recuse myself from presiding over this case as Attorney 

Hall is on my recusal list.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 17, 2006

cc: Michael P. Hall, Esq.

Eleanor H. MacLellan, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00464-JAW Document 7 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 1

Hotham et al v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. Doc. 7

Dockets.Justia.com
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21938]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Cadema Corp. and Caredata.com, Inc.; Order of 
Suspension of Trading

September 16, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Cadema Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Caredata.com, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended September 30, 2000.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of 
Cadema Corp. and Caredata.com, Inc. is suspended for the period from 
9:30 a.m. EDT on September 16, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on 
September 29, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21938 Filed 9-16-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 8, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2046

Lower Tribunal No. 07-4899

________________

Arnold Maya,

Appellant,

vs.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for MiamiDade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

 Arnold Maya, in proper person.

Lapin & Leichtling, LLP and Jan Timothy Williams (Jacksonville) and 

Adam B. Leichtling, for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Louis Hebert

v. Civil No. 06-cv-429-JD

US Social Security Administration, Commissioner

ORDER

On March 9, 2007, the court granted a motion for withdrawal of your attorneys. In

addition, the court issued an order that an appearance by counsel or pro se was to be filed by

March 29, 2007. To date, the court has not received an appearance. In accordance with the

provisions of Local Rule 41.1, this case will be dismissed without prejudice if the court does

not receive an appearance by April 25, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

April 10, 2007 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Louis Hebert, pro se

David Broderick, AUSA

Case 1:06-cv-00429-JD Document 11 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Antoinette SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUSH-PRESBYTERIAN-ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1962.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 23, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

*590Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Antoinette Smith, a medical transcriptionist, worked in the neonatology department of Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center from 1991 to 1998. On February 20, 1998, Ms. Smith and a fellow employee, Dorothy Malecki, had a disagreement over the proper setting of the office thermostat. In the course of their argument, Ms. Smith (who is black) referred to Ms. Malecki (who is white) as a “racist bitch.” Ms. Malecki reported the incident to hospital security; one week later, Ms. Smith was found to have violated sections E.1.03b and E.1.03j of Rush’s Employee Code of Conduct, which prohibit the use of “profane, obscene, abusive, discourteous or threatening language” and the making of “false, vicious or malicious statements” against fellow employees. Her employment was terminated on February 27,1998.

Ms. Smith filed a grievance with Rush, which was denied, and a charge with the EEOC, which was dismissed. She then sued Rush in the district court, alleging that the hospital violated the disparate-treatment and the hostile-environment provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.*She also alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits impairment of contract on the basis of race, and breach of an oral promise of lifetime employment, allegedly made to her in 1996. The district court found that the breach-of-promise claim was barred by Illinois’ statute of frauds, and that the § 1981 claim was barred by Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations. The Title VII claims were defeated at summary judgment, because Ms. Smith failed to show either that her employer’s reason for firing her was pretextual or that her work environment was pervasively hostile.

On appeal, Ms. Smith presents no developed argument as to why the district court erred. Her unsupported assertions that “it is clearly reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff-Appellant was terminated because of her race” are insufficient to overcome summary judgment. *See Clay v. Holy Cross Hosp.,*253 F.3d 1000, 1002 n. 1 (7th Cir.2001) (perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived). She also argues that the statute of limitations should not bar her § 1981 claim and that her alleged reliance on the promise of lifetime employment should overcome the statute of frauds, but these arguments are similarly undeveloped and unsupported by relevant authority. The district court’s dismissal and its order of summary judgment are

AFFIRMED.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 2004


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1992...... 1.0 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.8 1.0 1.8 .3 1.5

1993...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.2 .8 1.4 .2 1.2

1994...... .8 .3 .4 .1 .3 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1995...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 2.1 .9 1.1 .3 .9

1996...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.4 1.2 1.3 .3 1.0

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

1995: Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.9 .7 1.2 .3 .9

 Q4... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 2.1 .9 1.1 .3 .9

1996: Q1... 1.3 .7 .6 .2 .4 3.4 1.8 1.6 .5 1.1

 Q2... 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5 2.8 1.2 1.6 .5 1.1

 Q3... 1.0 .3 .6 .2 .4 2.3 .8 1.5 .4 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.4 1.2 1.3 .3 1.0

1997: Q1... 1.3 .7 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.7 1.5 .5 1.0

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.0 .7 1.3 .3 .9

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998: Q1... 1.3 .8 .6 .2 .4 3.2 1.8 1.3 .4 .9

 Q2... 1.1 .5 .6 .2 .4 2.4 1.1 1.3 .5 .8

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.1 .8 1.3 .4 .9

 Q4... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999: Q1... 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .4 3.7 2.1 1.5 .5 1.0

 Q2... 1.3 .5 .7 .2 .5 2.8 1.2 1.6 .5 1.1

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .5 2.2 .8 1.4 .4 1.0

 Q4... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000: Q1... 1.3 .6 .6 .2 .5 3.0 1.5 1.5 .4 1.1

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.2 .9 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 1.9 .7 1.2 .2 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22