alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                        
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......    |          18       1      5      2     10      .044      .003      .012     .005     .021
2005......    |          17       2     11      4      0      .039      .005      .024     .009     .000
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
#### In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant, v Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 570]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated April 16, 2004, entered upon its default, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), dated October 13, 2004, which denied the petition to vacate the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 7511 (b) sets forth the exclusive grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated *(see Boggin v Wilson,*14 AD3d 523 [2005]; *Kwasnik v Willo Packing Co.,*61 AD2d 791 [1978]; *see also Hackett v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy,*86 NY2d 146, 154 [1995]; *Matter of Lurie v Sobus,*289 AD2d 578 [2001]; *Materia v Josephthal & Co.,*133 AD2d 146 [1987]; *Matter of Torano [Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.],*19 AD2d 356, 358 [1963], *affd*15 NY2d 882 [1965]). The petitioner failed to establish any of those grounds *(see Matter of Domotor v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.,*9 AD3d 367 [2004]). In particular, because the petitioner was properly served with a notice of intention to arbitrate, but nonetheless failed to participate in the arbitration, there no basis upon which to vacate the arbitration award rendered against it upon its failure to participate *(see*CPLR 7511 [b] [2]; *Matter of Lurie v Sobus, supra*at 579; *Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Legros,*205 AD2d 537 [1994]; *cf. Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v Cannon Express Corp.,*1 AD3d 358, 359 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Manuel Pablo Zuniga-Pflucker, as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/ Manuel Pablo Zuniga-Pflucker*    | * * |   |
|---------------------------------------|----------|--------|
| Manuel Pablo Zuniga-Pflucker          |     |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |     |
| September 26, 2006                    |     |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-81-PB

Bruce Morine

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for December 2, 2008, citing the need for

additional time to recover from recent surgery and prepare for

trial. 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 December 2, 2008 to February 3, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00081-PB Document 13 Filed 11/12/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 18, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 21, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 8, 2008

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00081-PB Document 13 Filed 11/12/08 Page 2 of 2
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1994: Q2... 100 4.00 4.00 23.00 21.00 22.00 20.00 4.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * * 1995: Q2... 100 * * 3.00 14.00 11.00 35.00 24.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 * * .01 * 1996: Q2... 100 * 14.00 14.00 19.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 3.00 1.00 .01 .01 * .01 * 1997: Q2... 100 * .01 6.00 11.00 20.00 30.00 21.00 9.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 * 1998: Q2... 100 * .01 3.00 14.00 31.00 30.00 14.00 7.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1999: Q2... 100 .01 4.00 4.00 12.00 37.00 30.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 * * 2000: Q2... 100 .01 .01 .01 4.00 19.00 36.00 27.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * * 2002: Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2003: Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * * 2004: Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * * 2005: Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * * 2002: Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q1... 100 37.28 22.16 18.64 14.73 4.88 1.72 .47 .02 .02 * * * * *  Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * *  Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * *  Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q1... 100 43.84 22.35 17.33 11.30 3.56 1.16 .27 .05 .05 * .07 .02 * *  Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * *  Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * *  Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2005: Q1... 100 11.07 19.85 27.21 29.30 11.22 1.06 .17 .13 * * * * .00 .00  Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * *  Q3... 100 8.94 14.99 34.66 24.51 14.68 1.94 .21 .05 .02 .01 .01 * * *  Q4... 100 .68 6.95 26.62 32.48 25.80 6.63 .70 * * * * * * * 2006: Q1... 100 * 2.78 14.02 34.59 34.39 12.26 1.44 * * * * * * *  Q2... 100 * 1.04 14.21 34.09 30.67 15.91 3.24 .56 * * * * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
Case 1:05-cr-00060-PB   Document 34   Filed 12/05/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:05-cr-00060-PB   Document 34   Filed 12/05/05   Page 2 of 2
Lyondell Chemical Company Executive Severance Pay Plan


 Exhibit 10.1(a) 
  
 INSTRUMENT AMENDING 
  
 LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY 
  
 EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PAY PLAN 
  
 LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY hereby amends the Lyondell Chemical Company Executive Severance Pay Plan, effective March 26, 2004, to read as follows:

  
 SECTION 5, COMPANY BENEFIT PLANS, Subsection (a), Funding
of Supplemental Executive Benefit Plans Trust, is amended to read as follows: 
  
 5. Company Benefit Plans 
  
 (a)
Funding of Supplemental Executive Benefit Plans Trust. Immediately upon a Change in Control, the Company shall deposit with the trustee under the Company’s Supplemental Executive Benefit Plans Trust Agreement (the “Trust”)
an amount which, together with the value of the assets then held under the Trust, will be sufficient to fund, and to enable the trustee to timely pay, the benefits due under the Supplementary Executive Retirement Plan, the Executive Deferral Plan
and any other plans funded by the Trust, taking into consideration such factors as the person serving as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company immediately prior to the Change in Control or his designee deems relevant. This provision shall not
be operative if the terms of the Trust otherwise would not require immediate funding. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY, acting by and through its duly authorized officer, has caused this Instrument to be executed on this 22nd day of April, 2004. 
  

							
	ATTEST:	 	LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY
				
	By:	  	/s/ JoAnn L. Beck	 	By:	 	/s/ Dan F. Smith
	 	 	
	 	 	 	

	 	  	Assistant Secretary	 	 	 	 Dan F. Smith
 President and Chief Executive
Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of National Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Goldwasser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Mark Goldwasser


Mark Goldwasser


Chief Executive Officer


August 6, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Industrial Communications and

Electronics, Inc.

v. Civil No. 07-cv-00082-JL

Town of Alton, et al.

 O R D E R

The court has undertaken active consideration of the

intervenors’ standing issue, with the intention of issuing an

order during the month of April. If the intervenor and at least

one of the parties desires oral argument, counsel are asked to

confer on mutually available dates during the week of April 19,

and to so notify the Deputy Clerk as soon as practicable. 

Otherwise, the court will issue an order based on the filings. 

Further, if there is any reason that the court should not

actively consider the issue at this time (such as an imminent

global settlement), counsel are requested to immediately notify

the Deputy Clerk.

Further, the court will accept the intervenors’ reply no

later than April 6, and grants leave to file (but does not

require) surreplies, limited to issues and arguments advanced in

the reply, to be filed no later than April 9. 

Case 1:07-cv-00082-JL Document 72 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 26, 2010

cc: Steven E. Grill, Esq.

Anthony S. Augeri, Esq.

Katherine Blackall Miller, Esq.

Robert D. Ciandella, Esq.

Robert M. Derosier, Esq.

Paul T. Fitzgerald, Esq.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00082-JL Document 72 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



Board of Directors and Shareholders
The Dress Barn, Inc.
Suffern, New York



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-17488, 33-47415, 33-60196 and 333-18135 on Form S-8 of The Dress Barn, Inc.
of our report dated September 16, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of The Dress Barn, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended July 27, 2002.








Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York
October 14, 2002
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
____________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2           Q3            Q4           Total
____________________________________________________________________________________

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              0
2007......    |             0           0          n.a.          n.a.           n.a.
____________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1448 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1448

 To clarify the tax treatment of bonds and other obligations issued by 
                   the Government of American Samoa.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Faleomavaega introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
 the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on 
the Judiciary and Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify the tax treatment of bonds and other obligations issued by 
                   the Government of American Samoa.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF BONDS AND OTHER 
              OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

    (a) Authority To Issue Certain Private Activity Bonds.--The 
Government of American Samoa may cause to be issued qualified bonds 
(within the meaning of section 141(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986).
    (b) Exemption of All Bonds From Income Taxation by State and Local 
Governments.--
            (1) In general.--The interest on any bond or other 
        obligation issued by or on behalf of the Government of American 
        Samoa shall be exempt from taxation by the Government of 
        American Samoa and the governments of any of the several 
        States, the District of Columbia, any territory or possession 
        of the United States, and any subdivision thereof.
            (2) Exemption applicable only to income taxes.--The 
        exemption provided by paragraph (1) shall not apply to gift, 
        estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or other wealth 
        transfer taxes.
    (c) Conforming Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Section 202 of 
Public Law 98-454 (48 U.S.C. 1670) is repealed.
    (d) Effective Date.--This Act shall apply to obligations issued 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Writ of Mandamus Denied, Opinion issued September 21, 2012

in i’he

(!tmirt uf Appia1s

.Fift1! Iitrir1 nf LrxaL3 at Ia11ai

No, 05-12-01 1N3-CV

IN RE TREADSTONE/DRUM SPECIAL SITUATION

PARTNERS CO-INVESTMENT FUND, LLC, ET AL., Relators

Original Proceeding from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-I 2-00965-F

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Beibre Justices Bridges, Lang, and Fillmore

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Relators contend the trial judge erred in denying their motion to dismiss. The flicts and issues

are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us,

we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the reliefrequested. See Tux. R. App. P.

52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1 992) (orig. proccedmg). Accordingly,

we DENY relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and LIFT the stay imposed by our order of

August 29. 2012.

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE

121 183F.P05
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                                                     
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR
|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Ronald J. Buschur President and Chief Executive Officer Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Glenn L. Beane

v. Civil No. 08-cv-0236-JL

Alan F. Beane

 O R D E R

Defendant’s motion for leave to file third amended answer,

affirmative defenses, restated counterclaim to amended complaint

and reservation of rights (doc. no. 58) is GRANTED. Although

some of the claims in the amended complaint appear to be legally

improper or baseless, Glenn Beane has not bothered to object. 

Further, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on

counts 1 and 2 (doc. no. 17) and motion to substitute and dismiss

(doc. no. 42), and the defendant's motion for partial summary

judgment on count 1 (doc. no. 35) are all DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE and this matter is ordered STAYED pending this court's

receipt of a copy of the Grafton County Superior Court's decision

in the Beane vs. Mii Technologies case.

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 59 Filed 08/03/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 3, 2009

cc: W.E. Whittington, Esq.

William S. Gannon, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 59 Filed 08/03/09 Page 2 of 2