alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-226-PB

Beth Handy, et al.

O R D E R

During the October 15, 2008 telephone conference, I ruled on

pending motions as follows: 

Defendant Benmoshe’s motion to dismiss for improper venue

(Doc. No. 121) is denied without prejudice. 

Defendant Lupovitz’s motion in limine (Doc. No. 131) is

denied without prejudice to the right to renew at the time of

trial. 

Defendant Robert Hatch’s motion for travel (Doc. No. 154) is

granted. 

Defendant McFadden’s ex parte motion for subpoenas (Doc. No.

155) is denied without prejudice to the right to renew at the

time of trial. 

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 180 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The government’s oral request for extension of time to

respond to defendant Benmoshe’s motion to dismiss Counts 28 and

33 is granted. The response shall be filed by 5:00 p.m. on

October 17, 2008. 

All other dispositive motions shall be filed on or before

October 29, 2008. The government shall have 10 days to respond. 

 SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 15, 2008

cc: Dana Cole, Esq.

Michael Iacopino, Esq.

David Bownes, Esq.

Richard Johnston, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Seth Aframe, Esq.

Mark Irish, Esq.

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 180 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/                Mark Goldwasser     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark                Goldwasser         |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer |   |
| August                13, 2008         |   |

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randall D. Keys, as ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for thepurpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Randall D. Keys*   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Randall D. Keys         |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 15, 2005         |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Eduardo K . Fernandez-Avalos

Maria C . Rosario

Criminal No . 07-cr-252-01-02-JD

O R D E R

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

33) filed by the government is granted . Trial is to be rescheduled

for August 5, 2008 .

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), for

the reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : July 14, 200 8

cc : Mark Irish, Esq .

Steven Gordon, Esq .

Paul Twomey, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00252-JD Document 34 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HORACE L. JACKSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 218 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2001: Q2... 76.1 77.5 56.8 73.8 79.0 85.1 57.3 57.4 69.0 86.2  Q3... 76.5 72.5 72.6 75.5 54.9 86.9 58.0 63.5 70.7 86.6  Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5  Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3  Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8  Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8  Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9  Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1  Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Q2... 80.5 79.6 52.8 77.7 72.5 94.5 68.5 66.1 67.6 88.9  Q3... 74.5 67.5 48.7 71.0 68.8 92.1 60.5 60.1 60.9 82.0  Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6749** 

THOMAS JOSEPH ISBELL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:06

- cr - 00022

- RLV

- 18 ; 5:12

- cv - 00042

- RLV )

Submitted : January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Joseph Isbell , Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tho mas Joseph Isbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denie s relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the de nial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Isbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Isbell’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1994...... 7.8 8.3 8.0 8.4 8.6 7.0 9.1 8.8 8.6 7.3 1995...... 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.3 8.8 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.0 1996...... 8.4 8.8 9.5 8.6 9.7 8.0 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.8 1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2002: Q3... 5.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.3 4.7 7.3 7.0 6.5 4.9  Q4... 5.5 5.6 5.4 6.2 7.2 4.2 7.1 6.7 6.2 4.8 2003: Q1... 5.6 5.3 5.2 6.0 6.2 4.8 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.2  Q2... 5.9 5.6 5.7 6.4 6.2 4.9 6.8 6.6 6.3 5.4  Q3... 5.2 4.8 5.6 5.4 6.0 4.4 6.5 6.2 5.6 4.6  Q4... 5.0 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.6 4.4 6.4 6.2 5.7 4.2 2004: Q1... 5.3 5.1 5.9 5.6 5.5 4.6 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.0  Q2... 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.4 4.7 6.5 6.2 5.5 4.7  Q3... 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.0 6.6 6.5 5.9 5.1  Q4... 5.5 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.5 4.9 6.9 6.5 6.3 5.1 2005: Q1... 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.9 6.9 5.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.4  Q2... 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q3... 6.7 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.9 5.8 7.7 7.6 7.1 6.3  Q4... 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.1 2006: Q1... 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 7.8  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
**Exhibit3.1**

 

**CERTIFICATEOF AMENDMENT OF**

**SECONDAMENDED AND RESTATED**

**CERTIFICATEOF INCORPORATION OF**

**EFJ,INC.**

 

a Delaware Corporation

 

EFJ, Inc., a corporation organized and existing underand by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), herebycertifies as follows:

 

1.             Section 4.1 of the Second Amended and RestatedCertificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is amended in full to read asfollows:

 

“The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes ofshares designated, respectively, “Common Stock” and “Preferred Stock.”  The number of shares of Common Stock whichthe Corporation is authorized to issue is fifty million (50,000,000) shares,par value $0.01 per share. The number of shares of Preferred Stock which theCorporation is authorized to issue is three million (3,000,000) shares, parvalue $0.01 per share.”

 

2.             Thatsaid amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with Sections 242 and 222 ofthe Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) by:

 

(a)           theadoption of resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Corporation; and

 

(b)           theadoption of resolutions by the holders of a majority of the outstanding sharesof capital stock entitled to vote thereon.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said EFJ, Inc. has caused thisCertificate of Amendment to be signed by Michael E. Jalbert and R. AndrewMassey, its President and Corporate Secretary, respectively.

 

 
|   | /s/ Michael E. Jalbert                          |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael E. Jalbert, Chairman, CEO and President |
|   |                                            |
|   |                                            |
|   | /s/ R. Andrew Massey                            |   |
|   | R. Andrew Massey, Corporate Secretary           |
|        |                                                 |        |  |

 

----
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








Pursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Natural Blue Solutions, Inc.
(formerly known as Datameg Corporation) (the "Company") does hereby certify, to
the best of such officer's knowledge, that:





1.      The
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





2.      The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  December
      24, 2009/s/  Walter CruikshankWalter
      CruikshankChief
      Financial Officer





The
certifications set forth above are being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, nor shall they be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Natural Blue Solutions, Inc. and will be
retained by Natural Blue Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
U .S. DISTRICT CO

DISTRICT OF NEW HA1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

omcast of New Hampshire, Inc.,

Plaintiff

vs.

3ennie Rivera,

Defendant

Case No.: 1 :07-cv-195-JM

NOV 26 2007

FILED

ORDER OF

DF,FAULT JUDGbIE NT

RT

PSHIRE

The Court, having considered the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and th

accompanying documentation filed with said motion, finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to

Default Judgment as follows:

I $ (~ ~ti(M 7 <' in statutory and exemplary damages pursuant to 'Iitle !

U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii) andlor Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)( 13 ); for the violation ot'47

U .S.C. § 553(a);

2. $ Z, J

B6P. ©O in exemplary damages pursuant to Title 47 U.S .C . §

553(c)(3)(B) for the Defendant's willful private financial gain ;

3 . Costs $ 7, tV pursuant to 47 U .S .C . 553(c)(2)(C);

4. The issuance of a permanent injunction pursuant to 47 U .S .C. § 553 (c)(2)(A), as

follows:

"The Court hereby enjoins the Defendant, the Defendant's respective agents,

servants, employees, and any person or entity controlled directly or indirectly by

the Defendant or acting on the Defendant's behalf from the further modilication

andlor use of electronic equipment designed for the unauthorized interception ol

signal in accordance with Title 47 ; and

4. Post-Judgment interest running on thejudgment pursuant to 26 U .S .C. § 1961 ;

Page

Case 1:07-cv-00195-JM Document 10 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 2
Attorney's fees of $ fet9fJ +i pursuant to Title 47 U.S .C. 553(c)(2)(C) .

Dated:

SO ORDERED .

Page

Case 1:07-cv-00195-JM Document 10 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  April 10, 1939

Eononbh Ih*l@it:flitrso12 ASSiStnnt County **Attorney**

c near art

be that both prerlow or pxwont woupawy,ls a pre-reguirlta to the alam ot the homestead exomgti&n front iozwd sala or examsthxl.Hon. Dwi&t i'ibltwell, April 10, 1939, Page 2

Actual occupancy is not an aI:solute essential In every instance to the ripht to clalu tha homeataad cxenptlcn. Vacar.t property may be impressed with the homestead character when the head of a family, having no other homestead, has a definite intention, in eood faith, to occupy the came 88 such and is EfUIlreSting such intention with actual preparatory acts in connection with the property nuch as to clearly show such intention, the eood fail3 and the reality thereof. **Brown v.**  **Lotgu~, 7**  **S. fi.**  **(2) 189;**  Broodland f. Bank, 15 S. i.. (2) 112; Jolesch i$Chaska Co. v. Hampton, **297 S.**  **C. 271;**  .:splnoza v. Cocke. **276** 5. b. 1095; Crimea v. Cl:f.ne,

300 **8. Yj.**  **236; Chitham**  **v. Kemp,**  **60 S.**  **W. (2)**  **462.** Whether the homestoad 

### 'aremptLon haa been 

### establiabkd in w & VW ~W~~UIO * IS 0r W~Z S~ l q~8ti081 0i hot. Xt To p l c lb 0 ë. 

### Smpoaalble

for a fork or aNldarit~t6be pxypmwd b~.tho~&aptrol.la whlohwould ba applicable In all.qarre8. It uctim+.bo 

# jtiot

.
., -w lmpoaslble for w, or anyone elm, **to W+dou#**  a;&ilg.i from" uhlob **lt** oould be d¨ned jumt rbm'the homwtoad .rightiax%st8., 

### ~&alndioated

**abwo** 

### 'howwar, premlw8 .mey **beoow:.a** 

### rwldewe .honm-. **ibad** bafore 

### a&d phyoioal oooupaxly~~under

EOIW**alrouwtgxaoe.u+~~:** 

### 1: :'Iai awh 3.natanoe#,

upon proper‘proof,..the **tu** 

### ?x~tidn:~::be~-;".':~ axteed vilthmt 'the.- of'aiildavlts on the. **identios&c$orms** farnlshed by tlieCimptroller.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Moise P. William

v. Civil No. 08-cv-06-JL

Auburn, NH, Town of et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated July 14, 2008, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

August 12, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Moise P. William, Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00006-JL Document 6 Filed 08/12/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 07-cv-427-SM

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants.

O R D E R

Re: (Document No. 39)

Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss

Ruling: Granted. For the reasons thoroughly and

persuasively set forth in defendants' motion and supporting

memorandum, the RICO counts described in the complaint (Counts

III, IV, and VI) and the intentional infliction of emotional

distress count (Count XI) are dismissed. Plaintiff's complaint

fails to state a cause of action under RICO. See, e.g., Bessette

v. Avco Financial Services, Inc., 230 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2000);

Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 645, 650 (1st Cir. 1990);

White v. Union Leader Corporation, et al., 2001 DNH 126 (2001)

(corporate employees engaged solely in carrying out the regular

affairs of the corporation fail to meet the "distinctiveness"

[from the "enterprise"] test). The intentional infliction of

emotional distress claim arising under state common law is

preempted by ERISA, and, as well, the conduct alleged does not

rise to the requisite level of extreme and outrageous conduct

necessary to support an intentional infliction of emotional

distress claim even if the cause of action was not preempted. 

See Jarvis v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 122 N.H. 648

(1982). The remaining claim (Count II) asserts a cause of action

under ERISA for denial of plan benefits. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

October 11, 2007

cc: Sharon Few, pro se

Guy P. Tully, Esq.

Jeffrey S. Brody, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 50 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 1
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

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

2005: Q1... 7.1 7.1 6.7

 Q2... 7.4 7.3 6.9

 Q3... 7.7 7.7 7.2

 Q4... 8.1 8.0 7.6

2006: Q1... 8.3 8.3 7.8

 Q2... 8.7 8.7 8.2

 Q3... 8.9 8.8 8.3

 Q4... 9.0 8.8 8.3

2007: Q1... 8.9 8.8 8.2

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

2005: Q1... 7.5 7.3 6.8

 Q2... 7.7 7.5 7.0

 Q3... 8.1 7.9 7.3

 Q4... 8.4 8.2 7.6

2006: Q1... 8.6 8.4 7.9

 Q2... 9.0 8.8 8.2

 Q3... 9.1 8.9 8.4

 Q4... 9.2 8.9 8.3

2007: Q1... 9.1 8.8 8.3

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

2005: Q1... 7.1 7.3 7.3

 Q2... 7.4 7.7 7.5

 Q3... 7.9 8.0 7.8

 Q4... 8.8 8.8 8.5

2006: Q1... 8.9 9.0 8.6

 Q2... 9.1 9.1 8.7

 Q3... 9.3 9.3 8.8

 Q4... 9.4 9.4 8.8

2007: Q1... 9.2 9.3 8.6

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Phillip Scott Scherrer

v. Case No. 08-cv-2-SM

United States

ORDER

Re: Document No. 24, Response to Court’s Order 

Ruling: The government’s response to the court’s inquiry

suggests its agreement that federal habeas relief is appropriate in

this case. The government, in essence, seeks a brief stay before

that relief is granted, however, to allow it to complete ongoing

plea negotiations in anticipation of relief being granted. While

the court cannot discern why relief cannot be granted promptly and

the case proceed as it might, without adversely affecting any

interest of the government or the defendant, a brief stay will be

entered. Absent the government’s showing cause within thirty (30)

days of the date of this order, habeas relief in the form of

vacation of the conviction and sentence will be afforded petitioner

on grounds that he was not fully competent due to the effect of

prescribed medications at the time he pleaded guilty to charges in

the indictment. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: October 7, 2009

cc: Liam D. Scully, Esq. 

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, AUSA 

Case 1:08-cv-00002-SM Document 25 Filed 10/07/09 Page 1 of 1