alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ELMWOOD
FUNDING WRITER'S UNAUDITED F/S AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 05-14-01020-CR 

### OFFENSE: 31.07 Jose Ramiro Delarosa v. The State 

## STYLE: 0fTexas COUNTY: Dallas 

# mok-m

COA DISPOSITION: DISMISSED TRIAL COURT: 283rd Judicial District Court 

### DATE: 10/2/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1452888-T



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Jose Ramiro Delarosa v. The State of STYLE: Texas 

# S-tef^.s Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCAIS: DATE: 

# ^fAtJiMfy JUDGE: fii^ fMsU*^- ^^ H 

## CCA#: _ 

# CCADisposition: p/fA 

# DATE: Yt?*?-^ 

# JUDGE: /tfC/*#AJ>S»^ SIGNED: PC: _ PUBLISH: DNP: 

# on: frM'ff ^a,/Ao^

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: MOTION FOR


### ELECTRONIC RECORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-28-01-SM

Tut Agistino Wegn 

NOTICE OF RULING / ORDER

Re: Document No. 40, Motion to Reconsider

Ruling: While it is true that "120 months" is not a 

"range" in the normal understanding of the term, still, 

for Sentencing Guidelines purposes it is indeed a "range" 

consisting of one point. And, while a motion brought under 

18 U.S.C. ss 3553(e) permits the court to impose a sentence 

(for limited reasons) below the minimum period dictated by 

statute, the mandated minimum is not thereby changed, 

relief from the mandate is merely allowed for the purposes 

specified - that is, the minimum remains the "guideline 

range." Accordingly, the applicable range was not 
altered or lowered by the referenced retroactive guideline 

amendment, and relief under that amendment is not available 

to the petitioner. The motion for reconsideration is 

necessarily denied. 

So ordered. /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Court

Date: March 12, 2012

cc: Tut Agistino Wegn 

Bjorn R. Lange, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

Don Feith, Esq.
Exhibit 35.4  LOGO225 Franklin Street
18th Floor
Boston, MA 02110 T 877.526.3562
ngkf.com Officers Certificate Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, for which Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, as Servicer, the undersigned, Ronald Steffenino, a Senior Managing Director of Servicing and Asset Management of Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark
Knight Frank, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:  1.
A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year (or in the case of the first such
certification, during the period from the Closing Date to December 31, 2018) (the Reporting Period) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Dated: January 31, 2019  Berkeley
Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank  LOGO Senior Managing Director Servicing and Asset Management BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer
for Wells Fargo




---

LOGO Schedule I Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank as Primary Servicer  COMM 2014-CCRE20

COMM 2015-CCRE24COMM 2015-CCRE26

GSMS 2015-GC28GSMS 2015-GC34

COMM 2015-LC23CGCMT 2016-C1

CFCRE 2016-C3CFCRE 2016-C4

SGCMS 2016-C5CFCRE 2016-C6

CFCRE 2017-C8UBS 2017-C4

UBS 2017-C6UBS 2018-C10

BBCMS 2018 C2CGCMT 2018-C6 BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer for Wells Fargo
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 11-1105

ROBERT ROCKWOOD; ROXANA MARCHOSKY

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

SKF USA INC.

Defendant - Appellee

MANDATE

Entered: July 20, 2012

In accordance with the judgment of June 28, 2012, and pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 41(a), this constitutes the formal mandate of this Court. 

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: 

Peter G Callaghan

Christopher Richard Pudelski

David Richman

Alexander J. Walker

Matthew R. Williams

Case: 11-1105 Document: 00116407083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Entry ID: 5658537 Case 1:08-cv-00168-JL Document 219 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

'~ .

:~'STRICT COURT FOR THE DiSTR1CT OF NEW HAMPSHiRH J Ii i31C7 OF U .H .

"IN ADMIRALTY" I` i L E J

CASE NUMBER : 08-C1V-00032-JM iooo HAY z 9 A IC: 1 11

PROVIDENT BANK,

Plaintiff,

vs .

HEIDI A. STANVICK in personam and MARK J.

STANVICK in personam,

Defendants .

FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND FOR REPLEVIN OF

THE S/V VERVE

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion For Final Default

Judgment and Judgment and Order of Replevin against Defendants, HEIDI A. STANVICK and

MARK J. STANVICK. A hearing was held on May 29, 2008 and the Cou rt, having received

evidence and reviewed the pleadings and the affidavits before the Cou rt, and reviewed and

considered the circumstances set fo rth in Plaintiffs Motion, the legal authorities set fo rth in the

accompanying Memorandum of Law and being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Final Default Judgment is

GRANTED. Final Judgment is entered against Defendants, HEIDI A . STANVICK and MARK J.

STANVICK jointly and severally in the amount of $415,008 .85 For which let execution

immediately issue.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Judgment and

Order of Replevin is GRANTED . Judgement is hereby Granted in favor of Plaintiff Provident Bank

for Replevin of the S/V VERVE and granting full legal title to the SV VERVE to Provident Bank.

Provident Bank may sell the vessel at a non judicial sale and if sold shall apply the net proceeds of

Case 1:08-cv-00032-JM Document 13 Filed 05/29/08 Page 1 of 2
CASE NUMBER: 08-CIV-00032-JM

sale to the outstanding judgment principle and post judgment interest . "Nct proceeds" to mean all

residual funds from the sale after deduction of all costs associated with the sale, including storage

costs, recovery and delivery costs, advertising, sales and listing commissions, repair costs, and any

other cost normally associated with a vessel relocation and sale .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants are directed to return

the S/V VERVE to Provident Bank within 30-days of entry of this Judgment and Order of Replevin

and to immediately disclose the location of the vessel.

The Final Judgment and Judgment of Replevin is to bear interest at the legal rate until satisfied in

full for which let execution immediately issue .

DONE and ORDERED in Concord New Hampshire, this ~ day of May 2008 .

BLE JAMES R. MUIRHEAD

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Matthew J. Valcourt, Esquire

FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P .A.

1395 Brickell Avenue 1 0 Floor

Miami, Florida 3 3 1 3 1-330 2

and

John H. Brady, Esquire

NH Bar No: 13995

BRADY AND CALLAHAN P .A.

56 Main Street Suitc 303

Springfield VT 05156

Attorneys for Provident Bank

Heidi Stanvick and Mark Stanvick

65 Little Harbor Road

New Castle NH 03854

and

C/O Vervacious LLC

1500 Lafayette Rd #I 392

Portsmouth, N H, 03801

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00032-JM Document 13 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3358WA

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Bedah Donald Frey, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: September 8, 1998

Filed: September 17, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Bedah Donald Frey appeals the sentence imposed on him after the district court

revoked Frey's supervised release. Because Frey's appeal lacks merit, we conclude that

an extended discussion is not warranted. First, the district court lacked authority to

grant Frey the credit he sought for time spent in detention. See United States v.

Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-34 (1992) (sentence credit is not awarded by sentencing

court, but by Bureau of Prisons). Second, the district court correctly sentenced Frey.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (h) (1994); United States v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir.

1996). We affirm the district court's judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Philip Ricciardi

v. Civil No. 06-cv-092-JD

Chubrich & Harrigan, P.A.

O R D E R

Plaintiff, at the preliminary pretrial, moved orally to

voluntarily nonsuit the action without prejudice since he has

found counsel who wants to draft his own complaint. Defendant

does not object. I granted the motion from the bench. The clerk

is directed to enter an order of dismissal without prejudice upon

the request for voluntary nonsuit. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 14, 2006

cc: Philip Ricciardi, pro se

 Peter V. Doyle, Esq.

 Patrick F. Harrigan, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00092-JD Document 15 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Gabriel Medina et al., Respondents, v New York Presbyterian Hospital, Defendant. Jonah Grossman, Esq., et al., Nonparty Appellants.

[809 NYS2d 12]

Infant’s compromise order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2005, in an action for obstetrical and neonatology medical malpractice, insofar as appealed from, awarding appellants, plaintiffs’ attorneys, $50,000 as and for their costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 8, 2005, which, upon reargument, adhered to such award, unanimously modified, on the facts, to increase such award to $90,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of July 8, 2005, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

While appellants’ preparation may have been somewhat excessive, resulting in some unnecessary costs and disbursements included in the $119,775 claimed, they provided reasonable explanations for all of the work performed and documented all of the expenses incurred. The court’s award was inadequate to *439the extent indicated, and we modify accordingly. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Arthur D’Amario, III

 v. Civil No. 07-cv-324-SM

US District Court-NH Clerk

O R D E R

I recuse myself from presiding over this case. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 31, 2007

cc: Arthur D’Amario, III, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00324-JAW Document 5 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randal C. Fritz

v. Case No. 06-cv-469-PB

Kenneth C. Brown and

Katherine A. Daly

O R D E R

Plaintiff Randal Fritz issued subpoenas to various state

agencies. The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office filed

timely motions to quash the subpoenas but incorrectly filed the

motions on behalf of the individual defendants, Kenneth Brown and

Katherine Daly, rather than the agencies that were named in the

subpoenas. The Magistrate Judge denied the motions to quash

because he concluded that the defendants did not have standing to

challenge the subpoenas. The Attorney General’s office, acting

on behalf of both the defendants and the State of New Hampshire,

has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order. 

Although the Magistrate Judge correctly notes that a party

ordinarily lacks standing to quash a non-party subpoena, I 

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 40 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 3
-2-

disagree with his conclusion that the motions should be denied on

this basis. This is an unusual case. The plaintiff has sued

both defendants in their individual capacities for actions that

they allegedly took while acting under color of state law. The

Attorney General’s Office represents both the defendants and the

subpoenaed agencies. Moreover, the Attorney General has the

power to assert privileges that belong to the state, and it is

clear from the motions that her representative was intending to

assert such privileges in this case. Under these circumstances,

it was clearly erroneous to deny the motions simply because they

were nominally filed only on behalf of the individual defendants. 

The Magistrate Judge’s order denying the motions to quash is

vacated and the motions to quash are granted to the extent that

they are consistent with this order. Within 30 days of the

issuance of this order, the state shall produce all responsive

documents that are relevant to any claim or defense and that are

not subject to a valid privilege claim. At the same time, it

shall produce a document-specific privilege log of any withheld

documents. The parties shall meet, confer, and attempt to

resolve any disputes that remain concerning the documents listed

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 40 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 3
-3-

on the privilege log. Any remaining disputes can be presented to

the court in a motion to compel. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 14, 2008

cc: Pierre C. Rumpf, Esq.

Paula J. Werne, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq. 

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 40 Filed 02/14/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary Gilroy 

v. Case No. 07-cv-74-JD 

Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al.

SCHEDULING ORDER

COUNSEL PRESENT/REPRESENTING: Rosemary A. Gilroy, pro se

 William J. Amann, Esq.

CASE SUMMARY

DEMAND: Made

OFFER: March 28, 2008

TYPE OF TRIAL: Bench

DISCOVERY

TRACK ASSIGNMENT: Standard

DISCOVERY NEEDED: Usual plus a Rule 35 exam

MANDATORY DISCLOSURES (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)): May 2, 2008

COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY: October 3, 2008

INTERROGATORIES: Per Rule 33

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION: Per Rule 36

DEPOSITIONS: Per Rule 31

DATES OF DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS AND EXPERTS’ WRITTEN REPORTS AND

SUPPLEMENTATIONS:

 Plaintiff: December 5, 2008 Defendant: January 19, 2009

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 37 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 2
-2-

CHALLENGES TO EXPERT TESTIMONY: February 29, 2009

OTHER ITEMS

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES:

 Plaintiff: December 5, 2008 Defendant: December 5, 2008

THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS: December 5, 2008

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS: December 5, 2008

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: 

To Dismiss: June 6, 2008

For Summary Judgment: October 17, 2008

SETTLEMENT POSSIBILITIES: Being explored

JOINT STATEMENT RE MEDIATION:

Defendant has requested mediation and plaintiff has

acknowledged an interest in mediation. The court will

appoint one of its most experienced mediators with

extensive commercial law experience provided that

defendant agrees to pay the mediator’s cost of $175.00

per hour (plaintiff is unable to pay one-half of the

costs).

TRIAL DATE: February 18, 2009

SO ORDERED.

/s/James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead 

United States Magistrate Judge

February 28, 2008

cc: Rosemary A. Gilroy, pro se

William J. Amann, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 37 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2
#### ESTEIN v. WOLFF.

No. 6636.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 28, 1943.

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1943.

*790Wilson & Abramson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Love & Bailey, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

HARDY, Judge.

In this suit plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant the cost of a roof applied to plaintiff’s dwelling house by the defendant in 1939. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of damages allegedly suffered by the interior of his home as the result of faulty application and defects in the roof.

Plaintiff’s petition sets up as the basis for the action a guarantee which was furnished by defendant at the time of the application of the roof to plaintiff’s dwelling house. The guarantee is dated October 6, 1939, and stipulates the obligations of defendant to maintain the roof and flashings in a water-tight condition, or to stop, at defendant’s expense, any leaks that may develop in the roof due to defective materials or labor within the period of ten years from October 6, 1939, during which period the guarantee remains in effect.

After trial in the lower Court judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $76.14, which amount represented the cost of the installation of the roof. Plaintiff’s claims for other damages were rejected.

Defendant has filed in this Court a plea of prescription and an exception of no cause or right of action.

The exception of no cause or right of action is predicated upon the contention that the guarantee which is the basis of plaintiff’s suit limits defendant’s obligations to the maintenance of the roof in a watertight condition, and to the repair of leaks, due to defective materials or labor, which might develop during the period of the guarantee.

It is argued that the guarantee which is the basis of plaintiff’s suit does not support the claims for the return of the cost of the roof and damages allegedly caused by the defective condition of the roof.

After consideration of the pleadings and evidence, we are of the opinion that defendant’s argument in support of the exception is sound, and that the exception, should be sustained.

Where a guarantee by its express terms-obligates a seller to correct defects resulting from inferior quality of roofing materials, or from improper application thereof, such a guarantee will not support an action for the recovery of cost and for resultant damages. An exception of no cause of action filed in the Appellate Court is sufficient to reach the defects disclosed by the record.

Accordingly, there is judgment sustaining defendant’s exception of no cause of action filed in this Court and dismissing plaintiff’s suit with all costs of both courts.
B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks

Loan volume Percent change from Percent change from

(billions of dollars) previous quarter previous year

Real Non-real- Real Non-real- Real Non-realTotal estate estate Total estate estate Total estate estate

Quarter loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans

1994: Q4... 61.3 22.6 38.7 -2.7 .7 -4.6 6.2 8.2 5.2

1995: Q1... 59.9 22.9 36.9 -2.3 1.6 -4.6 5.4 8.0 3.9

 Q2... 63.5 23.6 40.0 6.1 2.7 8.2 4.0 7.5 2.0

 Q3... 65.3 23.8 41.5 2.9 1.1 3.9 3.7 6.3 2.3

 Q4... 63.7 23.9 39.8 -2.5 .4 -4.1 3.9 5.9 2.8

1996: Q1... 61.7 24.0 37.7 -3.1 .5 -5.3 3.1 4.8 2.0

 Q2... 65.7 24.7 41.0 6.5 2.7 8.9 3.4 4.7 2.7

 Q3... 66.6 24.9 41.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.9 4.7 .3

 Q4... 65.5 25.0 40.5 -1.6 .3 -2.8 2.8 4.6 1.8

1997: Q1... 63.8 25.4 38.4 -2.6 1.4 -5.1 3.4 5.5 2.0

 Q2... 69.0 26.2 42.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 5.1 6.2 4.4

 Q3... 71.1 27.0 44.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 6.8 8.1 6.0

 Q4... 71.3 27.1 44.2 .3 .7 .0 8.9 8.5 9.1

1998: Q1... 70.1 27.6 42.4 -1.7 1.8 -3.9 9.8 9.0 10.4

 Q2... 75.0 28.5 46.5 7.1 3.2 9.6 8.6 8.8 8.5

 Q3... 76.3 28.9 47.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 7.2 7.2 7.3

 Q4... 74.7 29.3 45.5 -2.0 1.3 -4.0 4.8 7.8 3.0

1999: Q1... 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5.6 3.7 7.6 1.1

 Q2... 75.8 30.8 45.1 4.4 3.5 5.0 1.1 8.0 -3.1

 Q3... 76.8 31.4 45.5 1.3 1.9 .9 .7 8.6 -4.1

 Q4... 76.0 31.8 44.2 -1.0 1.5 -2.8 1.7 8.8 -2.8

2000: Q1... 71.5 31.4 40.1 -5.9 -1.4 -9.2 -1.6 5.5 -6.5

 Q2... 79.7 33.7 45.9 11.4 7.5 14.4 5.0 9.6 1.9

 Q3... 80.1 33.9 46.2 .6 .5 .6 4.3 8.1 1.6

 Q4... 80.9 34.0 46.9 1.0 .3 1.5 6.4 6.8 6.1

2001: Q1... 79.4 34.3 45.1 -1.9 .8 -3.9 11.0 9.2 12.4

 Q2... 82.9 35.1 47.7 4.4 2.5 5.8 4.0 4.2 3.9

 Q3... 82.5 35.4 47.1 -.4 .8 -1.3 3.0 4.5 2.0

 Q4... 82.2 35.6 46.7 -.3 .4 -.9 1.6 4.6 -.5

2002: Q1... 80.1 36.0 44.1 -2.6 1.2 -5.5 .9 4.9 -2.2

 Q2... 83.7 37.0 46.7 4.4 2.7 5.9 1.0 5.1 -2.1

 Q3... 84.4 37.7 46.7 .9 2.1 -.1 2.3 6.5 -.9

 Q4... 83.9 38.0 45.9 -.6 .6 -1.6 2.0 6.8 -1.7

2003: Q1... 82.0 38.7 43.3 -2.3 1.9 -5.7 2.4 7.5 -1.9

 Q2... 84.5 39.6 44.9 3.1 2.5 3.7 1.1 7.3 -3.9

 Q3... 85.5 40.2 45.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 6.5 -2.8

 Q4... 86.1 40.6 45.5 .6 1.1 .2 2.7 7.0 -.9

2004: Q1... 84.3 41.4 42.9 -2.1 1.9 -5.7 2.8 7.0 -.9

 Q2... 88.9 42.9 46.0 5.4 3.6 7.2 5.2 8.3 2.4

 Q3... 91.5 43.9 47.6 2.9 2.3 3.5 6.9 9.2 4.9

 Q4... 92.3 44.5 47.7 .8 1.5 .2 7.1 9.6 4.9

2005: Q1... 89.3 45.0 44.3 -3.2 1.1 -7.2 5.9 8.7 3.3

 Q2... 93.5 46.2 47.3 4.7 2.7 6.6 5.1 7.7 2.7

 Q3... 96.7 47.1 49.5 3.4 2.0 4.8 5.7 7.4 4.0

 Q4... 97.5 47.6 49.9 .9 1.0 .8 5.7 6.9 4.6

2006: Q1... 96.2 48.4 47.7 -1.4 1.8 -4.4 7.7 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 101.0 49.8 51.2 5.1 2.9 7.2 8.1 7.8 8.3

 Q3... 104.2 51.1 53.0 3.1 2.5 3.6 7.8 8.4 7.1

 Q4... 105.4 52.2 53.2 1.2 2.1 .3 8.1 9.7 6.5

2007: Q1... 105.0 53.4 51.6 -.4 2.3 -3.0 9.2 10.2 8.1

 Note. Data are as of end of quarter.

21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Banko, et al.

v. Civil No. 08-00095-JL

Town of Alton, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

May 7, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document #10) is approved as submitted.

By agreement of the parties, the following are stricken:

• Hackett’s affirmative defense #6 (comparative

negligence);

• Barnstead/McDowell’s affirmative defense #6 (late notice

of state law claims);

• Alton’s affirmative defense C (statute of limitations/

laches), D (waiver/release), E (res judicata/collateral

estoppel), and F (late notice of state law claims).

Case 1:08-cv-00095-JL Document 11 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 7, 2008

cc: Richard J. Lehmann, Esq.

Andrew B. Livernois, Esq.

Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

William G. Scott, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00095-JL Document 11 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2