alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William KING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John J. RODRIGUEZ; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-55701.

D.C. Nos. CV-01-04775-TJH (JTL), CV-01-09376-TJH (JTL).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 14, 2003.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

William King, a California state detainee, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his two consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions against the County of Los Angeles and Joseph Rodriguez, the Director of Long Term Care for the California Department of Mental Health. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. *Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing King’s action without prejudice because King failed to timely amend his complaint after being warned of the consequences of not filing an amended complaint. *See Ash v. Cvetkov,*739 F.2d 493, 496-97 (9th Cir.1984).

To the extent that King appeals the order consolidating his actions, we do not consider his appeal. -See *Al-Torki,*78 F.3d at 1386 (interlocutory orders cannot be appealed when a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute).

King’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The clerk shall file the brief received on November 18, 2002.

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

William Edmondson

v. No. 05-fp-445

NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner, et al. 

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $12.00 is due no later than

January 20, 2006. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $250.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

This case has been assigned civil number 05-cv-445-JD. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 20, 2005

cc: William Edmondson, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 5 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           6692231
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       31330
<MORTGAGE>                                      586034
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      628
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 7669950
<CASH>                                            6899
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                8222
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          326893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10427976
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                7193427
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                    8062
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            87881
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 141415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           216729
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         30436
<OTHER-SE>                                      811978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10427976
<PREMIUMS>                                       41021
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             130318
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                2604
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      109419
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      16985
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             21055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  24821
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              16957
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     16957
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DAVID J. ELLIS,

Defendant.

4:23CR3060

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 

16), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review 

the discovery. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set 

forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 16), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before October 25, 

2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on August 8, 

2023, is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held 

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 11:45 a.m. on October 

31, 2023 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a 

change of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for 

disclosing experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties 

shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the court to 

participate in the call.

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between today’s date and October 31, 2023 shall 

be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

4:23-cr-03060-JMG-CRZ Doc # 17 Filed: 07/31/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 46
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel 

have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately 

prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 

Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court’s 

local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03060-JMG-CRZ Doc # 17 Filed: 07/31/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 47
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-200-PB

Aja Vitti

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the December 5, 2006

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time for

defendant to complete the treatment program at Phoenix House in

which she is currently enrolled and to engage in plea

negotiations. 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 December 5, 2006 to February 6, 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-00200-PB Document 8 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 21, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 17, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 21, 2006

cc: Robert J. Moses, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00200-PB Document 8 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2
#### James R. COOPER and Edna L. Cooper, his wife, Appellants, v. John A. GAUTIER, Tax Assessor; I. D. MacVicar, Chairman, Jesse H. Yarborough, Preston B. Bird and Grant Stockdale, as and constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Jan. 25, 1955.

*616James R. Cooper, Miami, for appellants.

Weinkle & Kessler, Miami, for John A. Gautier, Dade County Tax Assessor.

Hudson & Cason, Miami, for Board of Dade County Com’rs of Dade County.

TERRELL, Justice.

This suit was brought by appellants to secure relief from tax assessments on certain business properties in Dade County. They challenge the equity and validity of the 1953 Dade County tax roll, relying on Section 196.01, F.S.A. They say the tax assessor and the Equalization Board intentionally, arbitrarily and designedly imposed on their property a “higher percent of its full, actual cash value than proportionately to other taxable property of the same class,” and that their property was assessed “without any due consideration as to cash value.” At final hearing the amended complaint was dismissed for want of proof of the allegations sufficient to make a prima facie case. Complainants have appealed from the final decree.

We have examined the record and have reached the conclusion that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. There is not the slightest showing of fraud, abuse of discretion or arbitrary discrimination in making the assessment. The plaintiff made no complaint to the Board of Equalization but relies on a Court of Equity to relieve him from the assessment. Appellants rely on a list of properties with values evidenced by state and federal excise stamps but these are of no evidentiary value because they are not shown to be of parallel or similar value to the lands of appellants, of the same type of appellants or in the same locality.

We think the case is controlled by and should be affirmed on authority of City of Tampa v. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. 115; German-American Lumber Co. v. Barbee, 59 Fla. 493, 52 So. 292; Wade v. Murrhee, 75 Fla. 494, 78 So. 536; City of Tampa v. Colgan, 121 Fla. 218, 163 So. 577; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Amos, 98 Fla. 350, 123 So. 745, and City of Bradenton v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 100 Fla. 606, 130 So. 21.

Affirmed.

MATHEWS, C. J., and SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
---

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41993
          54
          7
          16
          5
          26
          .155
          .020
          .049
          .014
          .0691994
          69
          10
          11
          15
          33
          .187
          .026
          .032
          .037
          .0821995
          51
          -2
          14
          13
          25
          .131
          -.004
          .039
          .032
          .0611996
          95
          16
          27
          24
          30
          .240
          .039
          .070
          .058
          .0711997
          93
          6
          19
          19
          50
          .230
          .014
          .049
          .045
          .1121998
          87
          4
          15
          24
          45
          .198
          .008
          .036
          .051
          .0951999
          126
          18
          37
          35
          36
          .280
          .040
          .086
          .078
          .0802000
          108
          11
          17
          34
          45
          .259
          .027
          .041
          .075
          .0982001
          308
          67
          53
          140
          48
          .656
          .142
          .118
          .294
          .1012002
          221
          40
          50
          58
          73
          .471
          .085
          .114
          .124
          .1572003
          175
          34
          35
          48
          58
          .382
          .074
          .080
          .108
          .1282004
          129
          28
          17
          46
          38
          .284
          .062
          .039
          .099
          .081 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: August 25, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1652 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1652

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the amount of the 
                         earned income credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2001

 Mr. Collins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the amount of the 
                         earned income credit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Earned Income Tax Credit Reform Act 
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

    (a) Repeal of Credit for Individuals Without Children.--
            (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 32(c)(1) of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining eligible 
        individual) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible individual' 
                means any individual who has a qualifying child for the 
                taxable year.''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--The table contained in paragraph 
        (2) of section 32(b) of such Code is amended by striking the 
        item relating to no qualifying children.
    (b) Reduction of Credit Percentages; Increase in Phaseout 
Percentages.--Paragraph (1) of section 32(b) of such Code (relating to 
percentages) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Percentages.--The credit percentage and the phaseout 
        percentage shall be determined as follows:

      

 
                     In the case of an
                         eligible            The credit percentage is:           The phaseout percentage is:
                     individual with:
 
                    1 qualifying child  18.5...............................                 16.98
                    2 or more           19.5...............................                22.06''.
                     qualifying
                     children.........
 

    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT11.1**

 

**EF JOHNSONTECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**COMPUTATIONOF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE**

**(in thousands, except share and per share data)**

 
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** | **Six Months Ended** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **June 30,**                | ** ** | **June 30,**              | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **2008**                         | ** ** | **2007**                       | ** ** | **2008** | ** ** | **2007** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                     |       | $                                | 1,011      |                           | $          | 3,854 |   | $ | (1,101 | ) | $ | 3,491 |   |
| Weighted average  common shares – Basic          |       | 26,082,124                       |       | 26,031,173                     |       | 26,072,017 |   | 26,030,472 |   |
| Net income  (loss) per share – Basic             |       | $                                | 0.04       |                           | $          | 0.15 |   | $ | (0.04 | ) | $ | 0.13 |   |
| **Net  income (loss) per share - Diluted:**           |       |                             |       |                           |       |   |   |   |   |
| Shares used in  computation:                          |       |                             |       |                           |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average  common shares – Basic          |       | 26,082,124                       |       | 26,031,173                     |       | 26,072,017 |   | 26,030,472 |   |
| Dilutive effect  of shares under employee stock plans |       | 10,725                           |       | 81,632                         |       | — |   | 82,772 |   |
| Weighted average  restricted stock grants and units   |       | 314,040                          |       | 296,194                        |       | — |   | 274,551 |   |
| Weighted average  common shares – Diluted        |       | 26,406,889                       |       | 26,408,999                     |       | 26,072,017 |   | 26,387,795 |   |
| Net income  (loss) per share – Diluted           |       | $                                | 0.04       |                           | $          | 0.15 |   | $ | (0.04 | ) | $ | 0.13 |   |

 

----
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2022


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: August 11, 2022
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9th Amendment of Taylor Capital Group Profit Sharing and Employment Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.76 
  
 NINTH AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC. 
 PROFIT SHARING AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 
  
 (Effective As Of October 1, 1998) 
  
 WHEREAS, Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Taylor Capital Group, Inc. Profit Sharing and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Effective as of October 1, 1998) (the “Plan”); and

  
 WHEREAS, it is now considered desirable to further amend the
Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the power reserved to the
Company by subsection 17.1 of the Plan, and in exercise of the authority delegated to the Committee established pursuant to Section 18 of the plan (the “Committee”) by subsection 17.1 of the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2004 the Plan
is hereby amended by adding the following phrase immediately before the period at the end of the first paragraph in subsection 3.1 of the Plan: 
  
 “or (iii) terminated employment with the Employers during such plan year on or after the date on which he attained at least age 62 years and
completed ten years of employment service” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned duly authorized member of the Committee has caused the foregoing amendment to be executed this 17th day of March 2004. 
  

	
	
	/s/    MELVIN E. PEARL        
	

	 On behalf of the Committee as Aforesaid
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
______________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1           Q2            Q3            Q4           Total
______________________________________________________________________________________

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          n.a.          n.a.          n.a.           n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29