alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, November 5-9Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,140,199 34,458 67,284 83,128 137,082 240,20Number of loans 17,859 6,429 4,482 2,473 2,063 1,5Weighted average maturity (months)1 15.48 9.31 10.65 11.86 11.60 12.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 4.10 3.00 3.85 3.75 4.45 2.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.29 3.12 3.12 3.11 3.09 3.0

Weighted average interest rate4 7.44 8.42 8.26 8.12 7.94 7. Standard error5 .16 .15 .10 .10 .16 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.25 9.04 8.87 8.84 8.78 8. 25th percentile 6.66 7.76 7.67 7.41 7.19 6.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.72 8.18 8.43 8.08 8.17 7. Other livestock 7.65 8.25 7.95 8.11 7.75 7.4 Other current operating expenses7 7.66 8.52 8.35 8.19 7.97 7.

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.99 8.37 8.67 7.94 8.23 8. Farm real estate 7.92 7.41 7.31 7.74 7.98 8. Other8 6.90 8.00 7.62 8.05 7.61 6.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 80.20 76.54 77.07 79.09 72.98 75.7 Under commitment 87.87 88.56 84.18 81.57 80.38 83. Callable 17.09 20.97 24.38 24.49 24.22 25.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.59 5.46 7.22 10.54 16.37 12. Other livestock 6.14 7.38 6.20 8.33 6.43 8. Other current operating expenses7 39.23 73.67 68.47 57.88 47.69 41. Farm machinery and equipment 7.52 4.69 6.10 6.09 6.12 5.7 Farm real estate 3.66 .74 .95 3.45 3.94 6. Other8 33.86 8.06 11.06 13.72 19.44 25.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 7.05 7.11 6.29 9.92 5.53 8. Other 89.66 88.35 91.14 87.09 91.28 88. Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         584,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,056,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    294,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,076,000
<PP&E>                                         743,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,203,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,185,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,422,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,699,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,203,000
<SALES>                                      1,702,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,702,000
<CGS>                                        1,055,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,112,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (481,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (481,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (481,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

 v. Case No. 08-mc-42-JD

Kevin M. Keefe

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

James R. Muirhead dated August 20, 2008, no objection having been filed.

The taxpayer, Kevin M. Keefe, is ordered to obey the summons and is

ordered to appear on October 6, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. at Suite 350, 410 Amherst

Street, Nashua, New Hampshire, before Diane M. Saylor, to give testimony and

produce all books and records in his possession or control required and called for

by the terms of the summons of January 8, 2008. 

It is further ordered that the government be awarded its costs. 

SO ORDERED.

 September 9, 2008 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

 cc: T. David Plourde, AUSA

Kevin M. Keefe, pro se

Case 1:08-mc-00042-JD Document 6 Filed 09/09/08 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2019 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 

 

 
| Date: January 24,   2020 | By:    | */s/   Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Rajesh Kalathur                               |
|                          |   | President of John Deere   Capital Corporation |
|                          |   | (as Servicer)                                 |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          65,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  469,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,101,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,696,307
<PP&E>                                       8,440,647
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,564,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,540,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,884,503
<BONDS>                                      3,760,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,367,554
<OTHER-SE>                                  (7,472,454)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,540,348
<SALES>                                      1,678,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,678,440
<CGS>                                        1,301,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,301,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (58,568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (58,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (58,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 25, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00459

- CR

George Harris, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICE S PEMBERTON AND BOUR LAND MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s judgment of conviction but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the

Court modifies the trial court’s j udgment of conviction to reflect that enhancement paragraphs 9

and 10 of the indictment were used to enhance the offense: “Plea to 9th Enhancement

Paragraph: True”; “Findings on 9th Enhancement Paragraph: True”; “Plea to 10th

Enhanc ement/Habitual Paragraph: True”; and “Findings on 10th Enhancement/Habitual

Paragraph: True.” As so modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Because appellant is

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Phillip S. Scherrer

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

United States of America

O R D E R

In light of Dr. Channell’s Forensic Mental Health Evaluation

Report, it would appear that relief under § 2255 in the nature of

vacating petitioner’s conviction and sentence should be granted. 

The government shall advise the clerk of its agreement, in which

case an order will issue, or its disagreement, in which case a

hearing on the petition will be scheduled.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

September 11, 2009

cc: Liam D. Scully, Esq.

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esq., AUSA

Case 1:08-cv-00002-SM Document 23 Filed 09/11/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TERRANCE ADRIAN LACEY,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MARK OVERMAN, in His Official Capacity 

as Sheriff of Scottsbluff Nebraska;

Defendant.

8:23CV194

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On January 18, 2024, the 

Clerk of the Court sent an order to Plaintiff at his last known address and it was returned 

to this Court as undeliverable. See Filing No. 14. Plaintiff has an obligation to keep the 

Court informed of his current address at all times. See NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g)

(requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform the Court of address 

changes within 30 days). This case cannot be prosecuted in this Court if Plaintiff’s 

whereabouts remain unknown. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff must update his address within 30 days. Failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management 

deadline in this case using the following text: March 27, 2024: check for address.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00194-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 02/26/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC

v. Case No. 08-cv-50-PB

Brian Moses Realty, Inc., et al.

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 35, Motion to Dismiss

Ruling: The counterclaims are weak and are unlikely to

survive a motion for summary judgment challenging their validity.

Nonetheless, given the liberal standard of review that I must use

at this stage of the proceedings, I cannot deny defendants the

opportunity to develop their claims through discovery. The motion

is denied without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to renew its

arguments in a properly supported motion for summary judgment. 

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

District Judge

December 1, 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00050-LM Document 40 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1 of 1
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                               
                                  Estimated volume                  Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                               (millions of dollars)                                (percent)
                      ________________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1       Q2       Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                               
1997......    |          93       6       19       19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4       15       24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18       37       35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11       17       34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67       53      140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40       50       58       73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |         175      34       35       48       58      .382      .074      .080     .108      .128
2004......    |         129      28       17       46       38      .284      .062      .039     .099      .081
2005......    |          59       8       16       12       24      .124      .017      .035     .026      .048
2006......    |          73       9        7       23       34      .146      .018      .015     .045      .064
2007......    |          90       8       13       23       47      .170      .014      .025     .042      .085
2008......    |        n.a.      12     n.a.     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .022      n.a.     n.a.      n.a.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
#### Rodney FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-15625.

D.C. No. CV-00-00022-LKK(JFM).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 21, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Frazier’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM**

Rodney Frazier, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in favor of the prison and prison physicians in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs under the Eighth Amendment and state tort claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the prison because Frazier’s complaint and deposition testimony show that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. *See Booth v. Churner,*532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). Although the district court used summary judgment language, it properly dismissed the action without prejudice. *Cf. Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the proper remedy for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a dismissal of the claim without prejudice).

Frazier’s contention that *Booth v. Churner*does not apply retroactively to his action lacks merit. *See Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation,*509 U.S. 86, 96, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, *682must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”).

Frazier’s motion to introduce new findings, filed on September 25, 2002, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Markem Corporation

v. Case No. 07-cv-6-PB

Zipher, Ltd.

ORDER

Re: Document No.93 , Motion for Reconsideration

Ruling: 

Markem's argument, which is based on a surprising

misinterpretation of the court's order, is without merit. I 

reserve the right to construe the claim term addressed in the

motion for reconsideration at a later point in the proceedings if

it becomes necessary to do so in ruling on a motion for summary

judgement or a trial-related motion. Motion denied.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: 10/7/2008

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00006-PB Document 98 Filed 10/07/08 Page 1 of 1
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1993...... 24 2 4 7 11 .121 .010 .018 .035 .054

1994...... 10 1 1 3 6 .048 .003 .003 .013 .026

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. .003 n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

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

1991...... 31.86 60.97 25.25 15.56 15.08 129.31 3.64 14.90 46.59 539.87 

1992...... 31.18 68.23 26.89 14.73 15.94 108.68 3.70 14.82 45.85 468.20 

1993...... 34.28 79.68 23.07 15.25 13.91 111.99 3.71 14.94 46.12 490.33 

1994...... 33.91 60.27 27.58 16.29 17.54 123.60 3.72 14.57 46.98 480.70 

1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 

1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 

1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 

1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 

1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 

2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 

2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 1999: Q2... 26.06 30.16 21.19 20.55 52.39 66.28 3.84 14.45 46.41 314.62 

 Q3... 21.40 30.07 25.08 17.02 26.64 43.96 3.71 14.56 45.94 261.26  Q4... 31.47 46.45 33.15 24.91 25.91 54.53 4.09 14.90 46.67 242.08 

2000: Q1... 31.07 38.53 29.88 27.57 47.97 43.51 3.82 15.15 47.72 256.28 

 Q2... 25.36 40.29 23.29 20.10 23.30 58.50 3.97 14.76 45.62 255.62  Q3... 22.88 56.90 23.79 18.06 25.56 36.16 3.50 14.83 43.59 273.03 

 Q4... 25.90 40.24 27.02 18.56 20.65 54.79 4.16 15.11 44.23 252.17 2001: Q1... 33.29 30.14 25.26 24.29 34.58 78.43 3.91 15.23 46.59 274.01 

 Q2... 26.91 31.36 29.51 19.30 41.18 47.15 3.89 14.50 44.07 263.70 

 Q3... 23.23 43.62 27.17 16.20 23.42 46.14 3.70 14.68 43.97 255.59  Q4... 35.30 51.03 37.52 21.12 22.89 83.12 4.01 14.69 47.12 280.16 

2002: Q1... 33.13 48.19 33.07 25.93 26.71 60.82 3.65 15.01 47.55 237.43 

 Q2... 23.72 41.55 32.41 18.55 19.26 48.30 3.69 15.06 45.28 216.61  Q3... 28.88 48.00 28.87 21.00 30.85 75.68 3.69 14.83 44.27 329.62 

 Q4... 31.46 52.06 38.39 22.16 17.78 67.64 3.85 15.19 46.02 333.67  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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1744 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1744

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 increase the amount paid to families of public safety officers killed 
                          in the line of duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2001

 Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 increase the amount paid to families of public safety officers killed 
                          in the line of duty.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT INCREASE.

    Section 1201(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796) is amended by striking ``$100,000'' and 
inserting ``$250,000''.
                                 <all>
```