alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2007...... 64.8 5.6 5.6 32.5 5.5 15.6 2.7 5.7 14.8 41.6 2004: Q3... 54.2 2.3 7.3 21.1 5.9 17.6 3.5 5.3 10.3 35.1  Q4... 71.0 12.6 9.2 28.6 7.4 13.2 2.6 4.8 14.7 48.9 2005: Q1... 55.2 5.3 5.3 34.4 2.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 13.7 34.8  Q2... 76.6 7.7 3.7 29.9 11.0 24.3 3.8 5.9 12.7 54.1  Q3... 59.1 3.4 6.1 24.4 10.1 15.2 3.2 4.7 12.6 38.7  Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Q3... 53.6 3.3 4.9 23.9 7.5 14.1 2.6 5.4 13.1 32.4  Q4... 74.4 9.3 8.3 31.2 5.5 20.1 2.7 5.7 16.3 49.7 2008: Q1... 83.7 6.6 5.9 47.7 3.2 20.3 2.3 5.6 14.0 61.9  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual 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.
GK INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary F. Kimmons, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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.



Dated: March 25, 2003                   /S/ Gary F. Kimmons
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        By: Gary F. Kimmons
                                        Its: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 3.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THESECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF EFJ, INC.**

 

EFJ, Inc., acorporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Stateof Delaware (the “Corporation”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.             Article Iof the Seconded Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of theCorporation is amended to read in full as follows:

 

“Article I:  The name of the Corporation is EF JohnsonTechnologies, Inc.”

 

2.             That saidamendment has been duly adopted in accordance with Sections 242 and 222 of theDelaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) by:

 

(a)  the adoption ofresolutions of the Board of Directors of the Corporation; and

 

(b)  the adoption ofresolutions by the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of capitalstock entitled to vote thereon.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, said EFJ, Inc. hascaused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed this 28th day of May, 2008.

 

 
|   | **EFJ, Inc.**     |
|--------|------------------------|
|   | a Delaware corporation |
|   |                   |
|   |                   |
|   | By:                    | /s/ Elaine Flud Rodriguez |
|   |                   | Elaine Flud Rodriguez |
|   |                   | Senior Vice President, Secretary  and General Counsel |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael DeAngelis

v. 06-cv-376-PB

NH State Prison, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated April 30, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

June 1, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Michael DeAngelis, Pro se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00376-JL Document 38 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Presstek, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-065-PB

Creo Inc. and Creo Americas, Inc.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to compel discovery (document no. 28) of

four categories of documents. They are considered in order. 

1. Compel a search for and production of non-privileged

electronic records. 

The request for electronic documents was included in each

Creo document request. The requests were made on April 27th and

responded to on May 27th. The responses included two e-mails. 

After the deposition of Langlais revealed the inadequacy of the

response, an additional 23 e-mails were produced. When pressed,

Presstek “discovered” another 2100 pages of e-mails. Langlais

admitted that there were also other responsive documents in

electronic format. 

Whether Presstek was trustworthy or not need not be decided.

It is enough that the history of production raises legitimate

concerns about the adequacy of the search for responsive

electronic documents. Plaintiff is ordered to do such additional

Case 1:05-cv-00065-PB Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 3
1If subsequent discoveries disclose more infringements they

will only be allowed if the fact of later discovery is shown.

2

searches and produce such responsive documents to enable it to

certify that it has done a thorough search for documents in each

and every category of request. Defendant may depose for up to

three (3) hours, at plaintiff’s cost, that employee in charge of

the searches as to what precisely was done to search for

electronic documents. 

2. Patent File Histories and PearlDry plate documents. 

The “histories” of the 705 patent family are public

documents, equally available to the parties. The motion as to

the histories is denied. 

As to PearlDry plate document production, plaintiff asserts

that it has produced additional documents and will complete

production by the end of this month. To assure it keeps that

promise it is ordered to do so. 

3. Identify the claims of the ‘705 patent allegedly

infringed by Creo. 

Presstek asserts that it has done so by letter of October 7,

2005. Presstek’s infringement claims are limited to those

disclosed on or before October 7, 2005.1 

Case 1:05-cv-00065-PB Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 3
3

4. Identify and describe Prior Act Printing Plates. 

Presstek asserts it has done so and will be held to the

response in ¶ 2, Section C, p.10 of its Brief in Response. 

Document no. 31. 

The motion (document no. 28) is granted in part and denied

in part and moot in part. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 21, 2005

cc: Brian G. Arnold, Esq.

 Marc H. Cohen, Esq.

 Kenneth P. George, Esq.

 Robert G. Krupka, Esq.

 Gordon J. MacDonald, Esq.

 James D. Rosenberg, Esq.

 Nick G. Saros, Esq.

 Arpiar G. Saunders, Jr., Esq.

 Michael V. Solomita, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00065-PB Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 3 of 3
IB

Union Calendar No. 192

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1925

[Report No. 107–317]

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility

of designating the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a

unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 21, 2001

Mr. EDWARDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 21, 2001]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability

and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site

Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park

System, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1925 RH

1 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING WACO MAM2 MOTH SITE AREA.

3 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior, in con4 sultation with the State of Texas, the city of Waco, and

5 other appropriate organizations, shall carry out a special

6 resource study regarding the national significance, suit7 ability, and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth

8 Site Area located in the city of Waco, Texas, as a unit of

9 the National Park System.

10 (b) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section 8(c)

11 of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall apply to

12 the conduct and completion of the study required by this

13 section.

14 (c) SUBMISSION OF STUDY RESULTS.—Not later than

15 3 years after funds are first made available for this section,

16 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources

17 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on En18 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report describ19 ing the results of the study.

Calendar No. 192

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1925

[Report No. 107–317]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the

suitability and feasibility of designating the WacoMammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a unitof the National Park System, and for other purposes.

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,

and ordered to be printed
EXHIBIT 99

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to and forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

| (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. |  |

Dated:  February 12, 2003

/s/ Michael W. Levin                            Michael W. LevinChief Executive Officer

Dated:  February 12, 2003

/s/ Duncan Huyler                            Duncan HuylerVice President of Operations

Dated:  February 12, 2003

/s/ Denise Hawkins                            Denise HawkinsController and Vice President
Case 1:08-cv-00248-JL Document 25 Filed 12/10/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-56-01-SM

Raymond Cole

O R D E R

Defendant Raymond Cole has filed a motion to continue the final pretrial

conference and trial (document no. 74). Trial has been rescheduled for the

August 18, 2009 trial period. Defendant Cole shall file a waiver of speedy trial

rights not later than July 31, 2009. On the filing of such waiver, the 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: August 3, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

Jury Selection: August 18, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00056-SM Document 75 Filed 07/20/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

July 20, 2009

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00056-SM Document 75 Filed 07/20/09 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-22-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         8,570
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,399
<PP&E>                                         179,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                 67,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,530
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,100,529
<OTHER-SE>                                     598,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,118
<SALES>                                        37,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37,430
<CGS>                                          15,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               685,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (664,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (664,275)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (664,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.26)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          58,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,386
<PP&E>                                          18,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          191,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,306
<OTHER-SE>                                   (130,827)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,695
<SALES>                                         70,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,833
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,671
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,671
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,671
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Petition of the KELLOGG STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, as Chartered Owner of the Steam Tank Vessel THE DORIS KELLOGG, Her Tackle, Apparel, Furniture, etc., for Exemption from or Limitation of Liability; Kellogg Steamship Corporation, Appellant.

No. 32.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 17, 1938.

Charles R. Hickox and James H. Herbert, both of New York City, for petitioner.

Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City (John W. Crandall and Frank J. Zito, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree, 18 F.Supp. 159, affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1883 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1883

  To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility 
  study on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River 
       basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2001

  Mr. Walden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility 
  study on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River 
       basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.

    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 ``Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee, and Powder 
River Basin Water Optimization Feasibility Study Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. STUDY.

    The Secretary of the Interior may conduct a feasibility study on 
water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River basin, 
Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Neville Mahadeo

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00053-JL

NH State Prison, Warden

 O R D E R

Although Judge Muirhead preliminarily ruled that the

petitioner, Neville Mahadeo, had exhausted his remedies with

respect to claim #4 (see Order, doc. no. 5, n.2), the Warden

correctly points out--albeit in the context of a procedural

default argument--that he has not. (Warden’s Summary Judgment

Memorandum, doc. no. 11-2, p. 16).

I will give the petitioner the opportunity to amend his

complaint to demonstrate exhaustion of the claim for which

exhaustion has not yet been demonstrated and the federal nature

of that claim. To that end, petitioner is directed that, within

21 days of the date of this Order, he must:

1. Amend his petition to demonstrate that the claim,

including the federal nature of the claim, has in fact been

exhausted; or, if the claim has not yet been exhausted,

2. Move to stay this action so that petitioner may return

to the state courts to exhaust the unexhausted claim. If

Case 1:08-cv-00053-JL Document 16 Filed 06/29/09 Page 1 of 3
If this petition were to be dismissed for failing to 1

demonstrate exhaustion, the dismissal would be without prejudice

as it would be procedural, and not based on the merits of

petitioner’s claim. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

2

petitioner elects to stay this action and return to the state

courts to complete exhaustion, he must file his state court

action within thirty days of the date of this Order. While this

matter is stayed, petitioner must notify this Court of the status

of his state court matter every 90 days. Once the New Hampshire

Supreme Court has issued a final decision, petitioner must so

notify this Court within 30 days of that decision, providing this

Court, at that time, with complete copies of documents filed in

the state courts demonstrating that the claim, including the

federal nature of the claim, has been raised and exhausted. 

Petitioner should also provide this Court with complete copies of

any orders or opinions issued by the state courts relative to the

claim. 

 Should petitioner fail to amend his petition as directed,

or otherwise fail to comply with this Order, the petition may be

dismissed for failure to demonstrate exhaustion. See 28 U.S.C. 1

§ 2254(b).

Case 1:08-cv-00053-JL Document 16 Filed 06/29/09 Page 2 of 3
3

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Date: June 29, 2009

cc: Neville Mahadeo, pro se

Stephen D. Fuller, Esq.

Susan P. McGinnis, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00053-JL Document 16 Filed 06/29/09 Page 3 of 3