alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-235-SM

Kelly Vietze

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. 

Ms. Vietze changed her address without notice, left the drug

program early and used drugs over the weekend.

Given the number of failed opportunities to comply with

conditions I find that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any

condition or combination of conditions. The conditions of

release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

Case 1:07-cr-00235-SM Document 23 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 2
2

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 7, 2008

cc: Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

 Clyde R.W. Garrigan, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00235-SM Document 23 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2
Chart 1

Number, Size, and Volume of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2006

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

1

2

3

4

5

Number of non-real-estate farm loans Millions, annual rate

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

Average size of non-real-estate farm loans Thousands of dollars

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

25

50

75

100

125

Volume of non-real-estate farm loans

3

Billions of dollars, annual rate
Chart 2

Maturity and Interest Rate of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2006

 Note. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other

 terms of the loans and weighted by loan size.

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

4

8

12

16

Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans 20

Months

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

4

8

12

16

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans 20

Percent

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

0

25

50

75

100 Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

4

Percent
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 147 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 147

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain severance 
                      payment amounts from income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. Pascrell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain severance 
                      payment amounts from income.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Layoff Tax Relief Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME OF SEVERANCE PAYMENT AMOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items specifically excluded 
from gross income) is amended by redesignating section 139 as section 
140 and by inserting after section 138 the following new section:

``SEC. 139. SEVERANCE PAYMENTS.

    ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, gross income shall 
not include any qualified severance payment.
    ``(b) Limitation.--The amount to which the exclusion under 
subsection (a) applies shall not exceed $2,500 with respect to each 
separation from employment described in subsection (c)(2).
    ``(c) Qualified Severance Payment.--For purposes of this section--
            ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified severance payment' 
        means any payment received by an individual if--
                    ``(A) such payment was paid by such individual's 
                employer on account of such individual's separation 
                from employment, and
                    ``(B) such separation was in connection with a 
                reduction in the work force of the employer.
            ``(2) Limitation.--Such term shall not include any payment 
        received by an individual if the aggregate payments received 
        with respect to the separation from employment exceed 
        $150,000.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item 
relating to section 139 and inserting the following new items:

                              ``Sec. 139. Severance payments.
                              ``Sec. 140. Cross references to other 
                                        Acts.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IN RE SMARTFORCE PLC NO. 02-CV-544-B

SECURITIES LITIGATION

CHIEF JUDGE PAUL J.

BARBADORO

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO :

ALL ACTIONS

FINAL JUDGMENT AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

The Court having held the Final Approval Hearing on November 21, 2005 and

having considered all prior proceedings in the Action and all submissions made in

connection with the proposed Settlement;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that :

1 . The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over

all parties to the Action, including all Class members .

20

2. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees equivalent to

_% of the Settlement Fund. This fee shall be awarded as provided in the

Stipulation of Settlement With Defendants Ernst & Young, Chartered Accountants and

Ernst & Young LLP, dated August 31, 2005 (the "Stipulation") together with interest

earned on the Settlement Fund from the date of the deposit to the date of payment .

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel shall in their sole discretion, allocate the award of attorneys'

fees to Class Counsel in the amounts Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel deem appropriate based

Case 1:02-cv-00544-PB Document 102 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
upon the work performed and contribution made to the litigation of the Action by the

non-lead counsel.

3 . Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are further awarded $ 57 , 612 .75 as

reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the prosecution of this

Action, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund.

4. The foregoing awards of fees and expenses shall be paid out of the

Settlement Fund and distributed at the times and in the manner provided in the

Stipulation.

5. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment, the Court hereby

retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Action and the parties to the Settlement for all

matters related to this Action, including the administration, interpretation, effectuation or

enforcement of the Stipulation and this Judgment, and including any application for fees

and expenses incurred in connection with the administration and distribution of the

Settlement Fund to the Class.

DATED: November 21, 2005

cc : Counsel of Record

Ski I I ISott'S \Final_Jud gment_Appmving_Fees_EY

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

PAUL J. BARBADORO, U.S.D.J .

2

Case 1:02-cv-00544-PB Document 102 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    79266
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      57535
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                138558
<PP&E>                                           31573
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  274992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            44389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      102864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    274992
<SALES>                                         158516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                158516
<CGS>                                           127053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    24541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4681
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2524
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023298
<NAME> AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         390,678
<SECURITIES>                                   707,419
<RECEIVABLES>                                  444,039
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,867,467
<PP&E>                                         264,517
<DEPRECIATION>                                 143,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,867,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,356,031
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,478
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,473,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,867,467
<SALES>                                      2,126,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,126,312
<CGS>                                        1,150,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,490,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,643,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (72,367)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (291,964)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (291,964)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
214 La. 283

#### STATE ex rel. DOWLING v. CANAL BANK & TRUST CO. et al.

No. 39133.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1948.

Clarence Dowling, Charles A. Danna and Dorothy Dowling, all of New Orleans, for relator.

J. Blanc Monroe, John L. Toler, L. H. Yarrut, and James G. Schillin, all of New Orleans, for respondents.

Clem H. Sehrt, of New Orleans, for in-tervenor, J. S, Brock.

McCALEB, Justice.

An alternative writ of mandamus was issued herein, ordering the judge of Division “E” of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans to grant suspensive and devolutive appeals petitioned for by relatrix on August Sth, 1948 or show cause to the contrary. Inasmuch as the judge has granted the appeals, the question presented on the rule is moot except for the claim of relatrix that the judge be condemned to pay the costs.

In the recent case of Tucker v. Edwards, 212 La. 457, 32 So.2d 845, where a similar contention was made, we said that we knew of no rule of law authorizing the taxing of costs against a trial judge in matters where remedial writs are granted to review his rulings. That decision governs this case.

Accordingly, the rule issued herein is discharged. The costs incurred in this court in connection with the securing of the writ are to be taxed against the party cast after final determination of the suit on its merits.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1161

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 2001

Received

AN ACT

To authorize the Government of the Czech Republic to establish a memorial to honor Tomas G. Masaryk in the

District of Columbia.

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

HR 1161 RDS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Government of the Czech Re3 public is authorized to establish a memorial to honor

4 Tomas G. Masaryk on the Federal land in the District

5 of Columbia.

6 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMO7 RATIVE WORKS.—The establishment of the memorial shall

8 be in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40

9 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), except that sections 2(c), 6(b), 8(b),

10 and 10(c) of that Act shall not apply with respect to the

11 memorial.

12 (c) LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.—The

13 United States Government shall not pay any expense for

14 the establishment of the memorial or its maintenance.

Passed the House of Representatives October 2,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FORM MARCH 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         584,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  739,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    294,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,071,000
<PP&E>                                       1,176,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 433,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,203,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,186,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,422,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,203,000
<SALES>                                      1,702,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,702,000
<CGS>                                        1,055,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,112,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (481,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (481,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (481,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (481,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
*Release Date: June 30, 2006*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 6.3     | 6.3                    | 5.8                                |
| 6.4     | 6.3                    | 6.0                                |
| 6.6     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.8     | 6.8                    | 6.4                                |
| 7.1     | 7.1                    | 6.7                                |
| 7.4     | 7.3                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.7     | 7.7                    | 7.2                                |
| 8.1     | 8.0                    | 7.6                                |
| 8.3     | 8.3                    | 7.8                                |
||
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 7.3     | 6.8                    | 6.4                                |
| 7.3     | 7.1                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.5     | 7.3                    | 6.8                                |
| 7.7     | 7.5                    | 7.0                                |
| 8.1     | 7.9                    | 7.3                                |
| 8.4     | 8.2                    | 7.6                                |
| 8.6     | 8.4                    | 7.9                                |
||
| 5.7     | 6.1                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.0     | 6.2                    | 6.6                                |
| 6.2     | 6.6                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.7     | 7.0                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.1     | 7.3                    | 7.3                                |
| 7.4     | 7.7                    | 7.5                                |
| 7.9     | 8.0                    | 7.8                                |
| 8.8     | 8.8                    | 8.5                                |
| 8.9     | 9.0                    | 8.6                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6866

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

IAN ANDRE PERSAUD, a/k/a Baby Face Persaud, a/k/a Mark 

Persaud,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036-RLV-7)

Submitted: March 9, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ian Andre Persaud, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ian Andre Persaud appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for return of his property under Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 41(g). Our review is for an abuse of discretion. 

Peloro v. United States, 488 F.3d 163, 173 (3d Cir. 2007). A 

district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to 

exercise discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or 

legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 

(4th Cir. 2008) (citing James v. Jacobson

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Persaud’s motion because it was filed in 

the wrong district. Rule 41(g) requires that the motion be 

filed “in the district where the property was seized.” Here, 

the property was seized in the Greensboro area, which lies 

within the Middle District of North Carolina. The district 

court therefore properly denied the motion and correctly advised 

Persaud to pursue his request in the Middle District of North 

Carolina or through the state judicial system. 

, 6 F.3d 233, 239 

(4th Cir. 1993)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yor Eduardo ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50474. D.C. CR-01-01445-MJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 5, 2003.

Decided Aug. 13, 2003.

Before KOZINSKI and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.

*

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Yor Eduardo Espinoza appeals his jury conviction of importation of marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960) and possession of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).

Defendant has a fundamental right to compulsory process, but the trial judge also has discretion in running his courtroom. *Perry v. Rushen,*713 F.2d 1447, 1450-51 (9th Cir.1983) (citing *Chambers v. Mississippi*410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (“Of course, the right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.”)).

We find here that the court abused its discretion. Counsel was not required to foresee that a subpoenaed witness would not appear and should have been permitted a brief amount of time after the witness faded to appear to present proof of service of the subpoena upon the witness. The possibility that the witness might exercise his right not to incriminate himself under the Fifth Amendment does not trump defendant’s right to compulsory process with regard to a percipient witness.

We do not reach the other issues raised by defendant as the judgment of conviction herein is vacated.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.