alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2007 Q2 survey,

region share of national

total 2.9 9.0 26.4 22.5 7.7 5.1 4.6 8.6 5.3 8.1

Sample coverage, 2007 Q2

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 9.9 4.5 17.9 34.0 21.2 11.4 8.8 6.0 8.4 29.7

Avg. loan size, 2007 Q2 survey

(thousands of dollars) 71.7 41.4 52.2 56.1 78.5 36.2 105.2 32.4 32.8 66.4

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2002: Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1

Q3 6.4 7.5 5.8 6.5 4.6 6.0 7.5 7.3 6.5 5.3

Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5

Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2

Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3

Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8

Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1

Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9

Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

(0.18) (0.23) (0.28) (0.70) (0.20) (0.57) (0.43) (0.30) (0.09) (0.07)

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

(0.80) (0.19) (0.35) (0.45) (0.23) (0.58) (0.49) (0.10) (0.07) (0.16)

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

(0.29) (0.15) (0.21) (0.37) (0.13) (0.37) (0.29) (0.12) (0.26) (0.25)

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

(0.47) (0.18) (0.40) (0.54) (0.15) (0.53) (0.13) (0.26) (0.26) (0.17)

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

(0.58) (0.16) (0.12) (0.38) (0.30) (0.28) (0.29) (0.17) (0.21) (0.21)

Q4 9.2 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.9

(0.26) (0.24) (0.53) (0.38) (0.32) (0.63) (0.17) (0.18) (0.31) (0.14)

2007: Q1 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.9 9.3 8.9

(0.38) (0.27) (0.17) (0.41) (0.28) (0.41) (0.16) (0.28) (0.18) (0.07)

Q2 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.4 8.6

(0.16) (0.19) (0.41) (0.41) (0.31) (0.50) (0.11) (0.13) (0.12) (0.32)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19
##### 



Exhibit 11.1

THOUSAND TRAILS, INC.
STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(Dollars and common shares in thousands)

|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |   |       | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------ | ----- |  | ------------------ | - | ----- | 
|                                                             |  | Three Months Ended |       |  | Three Months Ended |  
|                                                             |  | September 30, 2001 |       |  | September 30, 2000 |  
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |  
|BASIC:                                                       |  |                    |       |  |                    |   |       | 
|Weighted average number of common shares outstanding         |  |                    | 8,171 |  |                    |   | 8,010 | 
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |  
|Net income allocable to common shareholders                  |  | $                  | 2,153 |  |                    | $ | 1,470 | 
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |  
|Net income per common share  basic                          |  | $                  | 0.26  |  |                    | $ | 0.18  | 
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |  
|DILUTED:                                                     |  |                    |       |  |                    |   |       | 
|Weighted average number of common shares outstanding         |  |                    | 8,171 |  |                    |   | 8,010 | 
|Weighted
average common stock equivalents 
Dilutive options |  |                    | 448   |  |                    |   | 560   | 
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |  
|Weighted average number of common shares outstanding         |  |                    | 8,619 |  |                    |   | 8,570 | 
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |  
|Net income allocable to common shareholders                  |  | $                  | 2,153 |  |                    | $ | 1,470 | 
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |  
|Net income per common share  diluted                        |  | $                  | 0.25  |  |                    | $ | 0.17  | 
|                                                             |  |                    |       |  |                    |
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21


                         MERIDIAN NATIONAL CORPORATION
                      LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



                                                    State of Incorporation
          Subsidiary                                   or Organization
          ----------                                ----------------------

     Ottawa River Steel Company                              Ohio

     National Metal Processing, Inc.                         Michigan

     Meridian Environmental Services, Inc.                   Michigan

     EPI Technologies, Inc.                                  Delaware

         Subsidiaries of EPI Technologies, Inc.
         --------------------------------------

            National Purification, Inc.                      Ohio

            MEPI Corp.                                       Ohio

            Environmental Purification
            Industries Company,                              Ohio
                a general partnership 100% owned by
                National Purification, Inc. and MEPI Corp.
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 1993: Q4... 100 8.00 8.00 26.00 16.00 20.00 18.00 3.00 2.00 * * * * * * 1994: Q4... 100 * 3.00 15.00 27.00 23.00 20.00 6.00 6.00 * * * * * * 1995: Q4... 100 * .01 10.00 12.00 11.00 30.00 25.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 .01 * .01 * 1996: Q4... 100 * .01 19.00 8.00 27.00 25.00 16.00 4.00 1.00 .01 * .01 .01 * 1997: Q4... 100 * .01 5.00 6.00 34.00 31.00 16.00 6.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1998: Q4... 100 .01 .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 * * * 1999: Q4... 100 .01 .01 3.00 9.00 30.00 36.00 17.00 5.00 1.00 .01 .01 * * * 2000: Q4... 100 * .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2001: Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * *  Q3... 100 1.10 9.00 23.00 25.00 25.00 12.00 3.00 1.00 .26 .01 * * * *  Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q1... 100 23.76 17.31 19.76 23.14 10.76 4.30 .80 .00 .00 * .00 .00 * .00  Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * *  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 * * * *  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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Roland Larson

v. Case No. 01-cv-384-SM

United States of America

ORDE R

Petitioner, Roland Larson, seeks to challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence

on a number of grounds, including claims that his guilty pleas were coerced by his defense

counsel; his guilty pleas were improvidently entered ; and that he was not competent at the time

he entered his pleas.

Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of kidnapping (18 U .S.C. Section 1201(a)(1))

and interstate domestic violence (18 U .S .C. Section 2261 (a)(1)). Concurrent sentences of 120

months imprisonment were imposed on each count . Judgment was entered on October 9, 2002 .

No appeal was taken .

Petitioner seems to recognize that his claims directly challenge the legality of his

conviction and sentence, rather than the execution of that sentence (e .g. the conditions of his

confinement). Accordingly, although he labels his petition for habeas corpus relief as one filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C . Section 2241, it is, in reality, one seeking relief afforded under 28 U .S .C

Case 1:07-cv-00384-SM Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 3
Section 2255 . But, to the extent petitioner may disagree with the court's construction, and may

insist that he is properly challenging the execution of his criminal sentence under Section 2241,

then, at best, he has filed his petition in the wrong court . A Section 2241 petition must be filed in

the district court with jurisdiction over the prisoner's custodian, which in this case appears to be

the District of Massachusetts . See United States v . DiRusso, 535 F.2d 673 (1st Cir. 1976);

United States v. Barrett , 178 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1999) .

As a Section 2255 petition, the pleading is correctly filed in this, the sentencing court .

But, it is untimely . A 1-year period of limitation applies to a petition seeking relief under

Section 2255, i.e. one challenging the legality of a federal conviction or sentence . For purposes

of this case, that period began to run from "the date on which judgment of conviction becomes

final." 28 U .S.C. Section 2255 Para. 6( i). (Petitioner does not suggest any bases upon which

the petition could be timely under other provisions of Section 2255, and seems to tacitly

acknowledge, by 51ing it as a Section 2241 petition, that it is plainily untimely under Section

2255 .) Petitioner's conviction became final on October 24, 2002, when the time in which an

appeal could have been filed expired . This petition, then, is more than five years too late, and,

for that reason, is dismissed.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00384-SM Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 3
SO ORDERED.

January

~

, 2008

cc : Roland Larson, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00384-SM Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven J. Huard

v. Civil No. 08-cv-120

Essex County Correctional

Center, et al.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

May 28, 2008

cc: Steven J. Huard, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 11 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 1
| (3)  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4)  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Yang Mu                 |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   | Yang Mu                               |   |
|                                |   | Chief Financial Officer and Principal |   |
|                                |   | Financial and Accounting Officer      |   |

----
#### LAROQUE v. OVALASITI

No. 17950.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 24, 1943.

Arthur Landry, of New Orleans, for appellant.

James N. Brittingham, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a stationer against a prize fight promoter for a printing bill in the sum of $104.66. The suit was defended upon the ground that the stationery was not ordered by the defendant promoter, but by some one else to whom the plaintiff should look for payment.

There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

It appears that Lou Ovalasiti, who was a pipe fitter, was also an experienced prize fight promoter in his spare time, having been in the business for over seven years and that it is customary for the promoter to pay for the expenses of a prize fight including the printing of the tickets. On this particular occasion Ovalasiti was promoting a fight in which an individual by the name of Cleo Shan was participating. Shan’s manager was a party by the name of Summers. Summers went to Adrien J. Laroque, the plaintiff, and ordered the printing for the payment of which this suit was instituted. While Ovalasiti contends that Summers had agreed to pay for the printing and that he was not responsible for the bill, he, nevertheless, called at the plaintiff’s place of business and inspected the proof and had no other tickets printed for the particular fight in which Shan participated. Summers, it seems, has left the City and, according to Ovalasiti is a “slicker”. Ovalasiti also called at plaintiff’s place of business with his truck and brought the tickets to Weaver’s barroom. Under the circumstances we have reached the conclusion that Summers was acting for Ovalasiti and, consequently, Ovalasiti should pay the printing bill.

■ For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Scott Unger, Respondent, v Theodore Leviton, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 691]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated October 1, 2003, which denied his motion for leave to amend his answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleged that he entered into a partnership agreement (hereinafter the agreement) with the defendant, pursuant to which, inter alia, the defendant would obtain a mortgage on certain real property, as the purchaser thereof, and the plaintiff would manage the property. The parties agreed that upon the sale of the property by the partnership, the profits from the sale would be divided equally. The defendant allegedly sold the property but did not share any of the proceeds with the plaintiff. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, inter aha, to recover damages for breach of contract. The defendant, in his answer, denied the material allegations in the complaint and raised six affirmative defenses. The defendant subsequently moved for leave to amend his answer to raise a seventh affirma*690tive defense based upon illegality and unclean hands. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

Leave to amend pleadings is generally freely given unless the proposed amendment will prejudice or surprise the opposing party, or the proposed amendment is patently insufficient or devoid of merit *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Bolanowski v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y.,*21 AD3d 340 [2005]; *Crespo v Pucciarelli,*21 AD3d 1048 [2005]). The defendant’s proposed amendment to his answer, to assert an affirmative defense based upon illegality and unclean hands was patently insufficient and devoid of merit. The defendant’s allegations regarding the plaintiffs illegal acts and unclean hands pertain to certain actions taken in connection with a mortgage transaction with a nonparty bank. The proposed amendment neither alleged the illegality of the parties’ agreement that is the subject of this action *(see First Family Mtge. Corp. of Fla. v Lubliner,*113 AD2d 868 [1985]), nor contended that the defendant sustained any injury as a result of the plaintiffs alleged unclean hands *(see Fade v Pugliani/Fade,*8 AD3d 612, 614 [2004]; *Kopsidas v Krokos,*294 AD2d 406 [2002]; *Brown v Lockwood,*76 AD2d 721, 729 [1980]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Florio, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

 v. Case No. 08-mc-43-PB

Edward F. McGovern

O R D E R

I herewith approve the [5] Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

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

The taxpayer, Edward F. McGovern, is ordered to obey the summons and is

ordered to appear on October 6, 2008 at 1:00 p.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 February 12, 2008. 

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

SO ORDERED.

September 10, 2008 /s/ Paul J. Barbadoro

Paul J. Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Gretchen Leah Witt, AUSA

 Edward F. McGovern, pro se

Case 1:08-mc-00043-PB Document 6 Filed 09/10/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Peter Damelio

v. Civil No. 08-cv-500-JL

NH State Prison, Warden, et al

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $5.20 is due no later than January

5, 2009. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income

credited to plaintiff’s account is to be remitted by the NH State

Prison for Men when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00

until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay the fee

as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 5, 2008

cc: Peter Damelio, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 NH State Prison for Men, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:08-cv-00500-JL Document 3 Filed 12/05/08 Page 1 of 1
|   | 1. | the      Amendment No. 1 to 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:      March 8, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/      RONALD J. BUSCHUR |
|                     |   |   |                       | Ronald      J. BuschurPresident      and Chief Executive OfficerPowerwave      Technologies, Inc. |
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      June 8, 2009  |  By: | s/      Mitchell E. Appel                                           |
|-------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |      | Mitchell      E. Appel                                              |
|                          |      | Chief      Financial Officer(Principal Financial      Officer) |

----
December 20, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FLORENTINO ROBERT ENGLISH, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00421-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED, to read as 

follows: we reform the judgment of the trial court to reflect the administrative fees 

assessed in the amount of $0. 

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.