alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 3 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 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  Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 8.6 8.8 8.5 7.8  Q3... 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4  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.
**Exhibit 34.2**

** **

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended November 3, 2019, except for servicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(vi)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

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

 

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

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended November 3, 2019, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

December 20, 2019

 

----
#### Joel Omar GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General; Charles Demore, Respondents.

No. 02-70965.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2003.

Decided March 14, 2003.

Before KOZINSKI, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Joel Omar Guzman challenges the legality of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s decision to reinstate a previously entered order of removal. Our decision in *Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft,*271 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2001), controls this case and precludes the review that Mr. Guzman seeks. The petition for review is therefore 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 of RDO Equipment Co. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), the undersigned 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 our 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.


June 12, 2003        /s/ Ronald D. Offutt              Chief Executive Officer
                     --------------------------
                     Ronald D. Offutt

June 12, 2003        /s/ Steven B. Dewald              Chief Financial Officer
                     --------------------------
                     Steven B. Dewald


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to RDO Equipment Co. and will be retained by RDO Equipment Co. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James Sloman

v. Civil No. 06-cv-377-JL

Presstek, Inc. Et al

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the Order on Preliminary Approval of Settlement dated May 1, 2009

and the Stipulated Final Judgment approved by District Judge Joseph N. Laplante on July 20,

2009, judgment is hereby entered.

By the Court,

James R. Starr

James R. Starr, Clerk

July 21, 2009

cc: All Counsel

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL Document 89 Filed 07/21/2009 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit      21**

**THE      DRESS BARN, INC.**

**SUBSIDIARIES      OF THE REGISTRANT**

|                                                     | **State                of Incorporation** |
|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                                     | **or                Formation**           |
| **Subsidiaries                of The Dress Barn, Inc.**  |                                      |
|                                                     |                                      |
| D.B.R.,                Inc.                              | Delaware                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| DBX                Inc.                                  | New                York                   |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Dunnigan                Realty, LLC                      | Delaware                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Dress                Barn Credit Management, LLC         | Virginia                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Maurices                Incorporated                     | Delaware                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| **Subsidiaries                of Maurices Incorporated** |                                      |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Maurices                Credit Management, Inc.          | Virginia                                  |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-22-PB

Linda D. Bevins

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for June 2, 2009 citing the need for additional

time to finalize a negotiated plea agreement and schedule a plea

hearing following her release from the hospital. 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 June 2, 2009 to August 18, 2009. 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 1:08-cr-00022-PB Document 24 Filed 05/28/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 27, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued to

July 20, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.

No further continuances absent good cause shown.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 28, 2009

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00022-PB Document 24 Filed 05/28/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-16-01-SM

Wayne Thompson

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 10) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than May 1, 2006. 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 the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:06-cr-00016-SM Document 12 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: May 22, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Jury Selection: June 6, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

April 26, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Harry Batchelder, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00016-SM Document 12 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 2
*Release Date: December 31, 2005*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 6.2     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.1     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.3     | 6.3                    | 5.8                                |
| 6.4     | 6.3                    | 6.0                                |
| 6.6     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.8     | 6.8                    | 6.4                                |
| 7.1     | 7.1                    | 6.7                                |
| 7.4     | 7.3                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.7     | 7.7                    | 7.2                                |
||
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 7.3     | 6.8                    | 6.4                                |
| 7.3     | 7.1                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.5     | 7.3                    | 6.8                                |
| 7.7     | 7.5                    | 7.0                                |
| 8.1     | 7.9                    | 7.3                                |
||
| 5.1     | 5.3                    | 5.6                                |
| 4.6     | 4.9                    | 5.7                                |
| 5.8     | 6.2                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.0     | 6.2                    | 6.6                                |
| 6.2     | 6.6                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.7     | 7.0                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.1     | 7.3                    | 7.3                                |
| 7.4     | 7.7                    | 7.5                                |
| 7.9     | 8.0                    | 7.8                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * 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.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADEDOTUN EDUN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72880

Agency No. A038-798-399

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Adedotun Edun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in

absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

FEB 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72880

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Edun’s motion to reopen

for failure to show “reasonable cause” for his absence from his scheduled hearing. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1988). 

The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen

where Edun failed to show prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.23(b)(3). 

Edun’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          963497
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         3077077
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   39625030
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         7816791
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           7843117
<LOANS>                                       52863293
<ALLOWANCE>                                     219850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               108405746
<DEPOSITS>                                    69576230
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1354803
<LONG-TERM>                                    4620033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25921
<OTHER-SE>                                    32828760
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               108405746
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2092927
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1490111
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                123074
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3706112
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1388831
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1518725
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2187387
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1568226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1068210
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1068210
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    650411
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.20
<LOANS-NON>                                      56000
<LOANS-PAST>                                     68000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                220000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      150
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               219850
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            219850
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Juan Acosta

v. Civil No. 07-cv-181-PB

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Juan Acosta has filed a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus and supporting documents

challenging the constitutionality of his state court conviction

and confinement (document no. 1). See Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

(“Habeas Rule”) (requiring initial review to determine whether

the petition is facially valid). For the reasons discussed in

the report and recommendation issued simultaneously herewith, I

order the petition served on the respondent as to Grounds Two and

Three. I have recommended dismissal of the remaining grounds. 

See Habeas Rule 4. 

Accordingly, the petition shall be served on the Warden of

the New Hampshire State Prison, who shall file an answer or other

pleading in response to the allegations made therein. See id.

(requiring reviewing judge to order a response to the petition). 

Case 1:07-cv-00181-JL Document 6 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire Office

of the Attorney General, as provided in the Agreement On

Acceptance Of Service, copies of this order, the accompanying

report and recommendation and the habeas corpus petition and

supporting documents (document no. 1). 

Respondent shall answer or otherwise plead within thirty

(30) days of the date of this order. The answer shall comply

with the requirements of Habeas Rule 5 (setting forth contents of

the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See Habeas Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 2, 2007

cc: Juan Acosta, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00181-JL Document 6 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2