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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 200 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 200

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
 for host families of foreign exchange and other students from $50 per 
                        month to $200 per month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. Andrews 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 increase the deduction 
 for host families of foreign exchange and other students from $50 per 
                        month to $200 per month.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR AMOUNTS PAID TO 
              MAINTAIN CERTAIN STUDENTS AS MEMBERS OF TAXPAYER'S 
              HOUSEHOLD.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 170(g)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts paid to maintain 
certain students as members of taxpayer's household) is amended by 
striking ``$50'' and inserting ``$200''.
    (b) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 170(g) of such Code is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Adjustment for inflation.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
                beginning in a calendar year after 2001, the $200 
                amount contained in paragraph (2)(A) shall be increased 
                by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) $200, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
                        calendar year in which the taxable year begins 
                        by substituting `calendar year 2000' for 
                        `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) 
                        thereof.
                    ``(B) Rounding.--If any increase determined under 
                paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $10, such increase 
                shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of 
                $10.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
#### BUCKLIEW v. PATTISON et al. (MAGNOLIA PIPE LINE CO., Intervener).

No. 5813.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 9, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1939.

Writ of Certiorari and Review Denied March 6, 1939.

Harry V. Booth, of Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cook, Cook & Egan, of Shreveport, and Parsons & Hunter, of Mansfield, for defendants-appellants.

Pugh, Grimmet & Boatner, and Fred' Simon, all of Shreveport, for intervener-appellant.

HAMITER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Mrs. Evelyn Phillips Maddox v. W. C. Pattison et al., 186 So. 894, this day decided by us, the judgment of the district court in this case is amended and recast so as to read:

It is .ordered, adjudged and decreed that W. C. Pattison and Hardware Mutual Casualty Company be and they are hereby condemned, in solido, to pay unto Ben F. Buckliew, plaintiff, and the Magnolia Pipe Line Company, intervener, the sum of $10,000 together with interest at the rate of five per cent per annum from judicial damand until paid, and all costs of suit; that out of such sum the said Magnolia Pipe Line Company shall be paid and receive the sum of $250 and, in addition thereto, all sums paid by it as compensation to plaintiff. Ben F. Buckliew prior to the date of the collection of this judgment, all with legal interest from judicial demand until paid, and, additionally, twenty per cent attorney’s fees upon said sums, and the costs of its intervention; and the balance of the amount of this judgment against defendants shall be paid to and received by plaintiff Ben F. Buckliew.

It is further ordere.d, adjudged and decreed that the expert witness fees of Dr. O. O. Jones, Dr. C. H. Potts, Dr. D. R. McIntyre, Dr. D. H. Alverson, and Dr. G. H. Cassity be and they are hereby fixed in the sum of $25 each and assessed as costs in this suit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1999, AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,985,040
<SECURITIES>                                34,665,515
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,361,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            61,748,125
<PP&E>                                         930,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,313,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,765
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,313,730
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,433,824
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,755,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             249,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                356,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                   171,859
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            356,843
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   184,984
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Donald Beatty

v. Civil No. 07-cv-395-JM

NH State Prison, Warden

ORDER

Re: Document No. 12, Motion for Certificate of

Appealability

Ruling: Denied. It is clear that neither the US

Constitution, nor NH statutes create any liberty interest in, nor

a right to, parole. The NH Adult Parole Board’s conditional

approval of petitioner’s parole did not create such a right

where: (a) the conditions of approval were not met, and (b) the

parole board’s ongoing right to review petitioner’s eligibility

for parole prior to release resulted in a finding that he was not

suitable for release. See Casper v. Quarterman, 2007 WL 1455383,

*3 (N.D. Tex.). There is no legal basis for petitioner’s claims.

James R. Muirhead

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: June 18, 2008

cc: James W. Dennehy, Esq. 

Case 1:07-cv-00395-JM Document 13 Filed 06/18/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:08-cv-00364-JL Document 20 Filed 11/02/2009 Page 9 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

O R D E R

The parties have filed a joint motion for a court-appointed

mediator. Under the local rules of this district, “any eligible

civil action may be referred to mediation according to the

Guidelines for Mediation Program.” LR 53.1(c)(2). Pursuant to

the Guidelines, the Mediator Panel List provides approximately

fifty mediators with an indication of their areas of expertise. 

Whether the parties choose mediation or the court refers a case

to mediation, the mediator is compensated by the parties at the

published hourly rate. The Guidelines and the Mediator Panel

List are available on the court’s website, www.nhd.uscourts.gov,

under Case Processing, Mediation.

The parties may select a mediator themselves and proceed to

mediation, or in the alternative, they may submit an agreed list

of five mediators in descending order of preference. See LR

53.1(c)(2); Guideline 4. The court will then refer the parties

to mediation with a mediator from the submitted list.

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 157 Filed 10/20/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ joint motion for

mediation (document no. 156) is granted to the extent provided in

this order. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 20, 2009

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 157 Filed 10/20/09 Page 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID CLERVEAUX

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 767

[ July 1, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mariya Weekes

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16

- 000915CF10A

.

David Clerveaux, Pompano Beach, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, F ORST and K LINGE NSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Melvin Graham

v. Civil No. 08-cv-315-PB

New Hampshire Supreme Court, et al

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

A complaint was filed on August 5, 2008. The Court has not received the initial filing

fee of $7.23.

Therefore, this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

October 16, 2008 /s/Paul J. Barbadoro 

United States District Judge

cc: Melvin Graham, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00315-PB Document 5 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

The MacMillin Company, Inc.

v. Civil No. 07-cv-177-JM

New England Surface Preparation, Inc.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

May 27, 2009 /s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Naomi L. Mooney, Esq.

Frank P. Spinella , Jr., Esq.

Leslie M. Leonard, Esq.

Ralph R. Woodman, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00177-JM Document 29 Filed 05/27/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-248-PB

Stephanie Nagy

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for October 7, 2008, citing the need for

additional time to finalize 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 October 7, 2008 to December 2, 2008. 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 1:07-cr-00248-PB Document 17 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The court September 24, 2008 final pretrial conference is

continued to November 19, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. No further

continuances. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 30, 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00248-PB Document 17 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1752

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the at-risk rules

for publicly traded nonrecourse debt.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. FOLEY 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 modify

the at-risk rules for publicly traded nonrecourse debt.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT UNDER AT-RISK RULES OF PUB4 LICLY TRADED NONRECOURSE DEBT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section

6 465(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to qualified nonrecourse financing treated as amount at

8 risk) is amended by striking ‘‘share of’’ and all that fol9 lows and inserting ‘‘share of—
2

•HR 1752 IH

1 ‘‘(i) any qualified nonrecourse financ2 ing which is secured by real property used

3 in such activity, and

4 ‘‘(ii) any other financing which—

5 ‘‘(I) would (but for subparagraph

6 (B)(ii)) be qualified nonrecourse fi7 nancing,

8 ‘‘(II) is qualified publicly traded

9 debt, and

10 ‘‘(III) is not borrowed by the tax11 payer from a person described in sub12 clause (I), (II), or (III) of section

13 49(a)(1)(D)(iv).’’.

14 (b) QUALIFIED PUBLICLY TRADED DEBT.—Para15 graph (6) of section 465(b) of such Code is amended by

16 adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

17 ‘‘(F) QUALIFIED PUBLICLY TRADED

18 DEBT.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the

19 term ‘qualified publicly traded debt’ means any

20 debt instrument which is readily tradable on an

21 established securities market. Such term shall

22 not include any debt instrument which has a

23 yield to maturity which equals or exceeds the

24 limitation in section 163(i)(1)(B).’’.
3

•HR 1752 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to debt instruments issued after

3 December 31, 2001.

Æ
#### HOLLAND v. GROSS et al.

No. 5884.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 28, 1939.

On the Merits Jan. 5, 1940.

Edward L. Gladney, Jr., of Bastrop, Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Snellings, of Monroe, for appellant.

Robert P. Kennedy, of Lake Providence, and Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellees.

DREW, Justice.

This is a companion suit to No. 5882, 195 So. 837, decided by us this day. They were consolidated for trial below. The pleadings, for all purposes of a decision, are the same as No. 5882, and the identical motion to transfer was filed herein.

For the reasons assigned in No. 5882, the motion is denied and the case is returned to our docket to be refixed for argument.

On the Merits.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This is also a companion suit to Nos. 5885, 195 So. 839, and 5886, 195 So. 828 on the docket of this court, decided today.

W. O. Holland, as natural tutor to his daughter, Mary, sues to recover $5,500 for the physical pain and suffering experienced by her as a result of the accident discussed in said companion cases. In all.other respects the pleadings, the issues, motions and exceptions filed below and here are identical with those in companion suit No. 5885, decided here today. There was judgment for plaintiff for $800 and he appealed, praying for increase.

After being administered first aid, this daughter, with her mother and brother, was removed to the hospital at Vicksburg Mississippi. She was found to be suffering from’cerebral hemorrhage and in mild shock. There were a few lacerations on her scalp and some contusions about her body. She improved steadily and was discharged six days later. Her recovery has been complete. The award in her case seems to be adequate.

For the reasons herein assigned and for those assigned in said suit No. 5886, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs.

And for the reasons assigned in our opinion in suit No. 5885, this appeal, so far as it involves and concerns the re-vocatory action, in keeping with the provisions of Act 19 of 1912, is hereby transferred to the Supreme Court of the State ; and plaintiff is given ninety days from the finality' of the money judgment herein, in which to perfect the transfer by filing in the Supreme Court proper transcript; and in default of plaintiff’s compliance with this order within said time, the appeal to this court as regards the revocatory action, will be deemed to have been abandoned.
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 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  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
<PAGE>   1







                     EXHIBIT 11 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         For The Three Months Ended            For The Nine Months Ended
                                                                  September 30,                      September 30,
                                                        ------------------------------         -------------------------
                                                           1997               1996               1997             1996
<S>                                                     <C>               <C>                 <C>           <C>        
Net Income                                              $15,339,833       $16,548,708         $40,843,966   $46,276,085

Net Income per Share                                    $      0.51       $      0.53         $      1.36   $      1.48

Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding            30,145,926        30,974,994          30,060,895    31,262,294

</TABLE>
















See condensed notes to consolidated financial statements.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1753 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1753

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
419 Rutherford Avenue, N.E., in Roanoke, Virginia, as the ``M. Caldwell 
                     Butler Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 419 
Rutherford Avenue, N.E., in Roanoke, Virginia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``M. Caldwell Butler Post 
Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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

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

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

1997: 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

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

 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