alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, November 7-1Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 759,693 31,608 99,512 397,122 177,164 11,385 1,031 Number of loans 15,403 475 1,826 8,376 3,116 716 85 Weighted average maturity (months)1 17.81 10.62 13.26 20.56 16.36 27.78 26.24 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 4.13 10.30 5.26 4.88 .67 4.45 19.56 

Weighted average risk rating3 3.05 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate 4 7.25 6.66 7.49 7.20 7.31 8.59 8.16 

 Standard error5 .20 .20 .25 .28 .27 .33 .01 

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.00 7.25 8.02 8.01 7.98 9.84 8.57  25th percentile 6.43 6.18 6.86 6.18 6.70 7.76 7.76  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.32 7.30 7.79 7.03 7.33 10.10 n.a Other livestock 7.40 6.21 6.93 7.59 7.29 n.a. n.a Other current operating expenses7 7.41 6.08 7.54 7.49 7.36 8.48 9.64 

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.48 6.77 7.55 7.44 8.05 7.76 9.73  Farm real estate 6.88 n.a. 7.45 6.74 7.58 n.a. 7.67  Other8 6.78 6.68 6.64 6.36 7.19 8.26 8.27 

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 80.38 8.37 65.34 84.54 93.55 99.24 60.78  Under commitment 85.11 98.72 80.26 83.55 92.54 87.47 60.78  Callable 22.70 54.45 29.93 22.31 8.87 13.34 55.23  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 18.37 45.38 36.67 17.89 8.96 10.69 n.a Other livestock 10.50 5.33 13.10 9.25 12.74 n.a. n.a Other current operating expenses7 40.25 47.02 39.56 39.69 42.40 65.74 10.18 

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.31 .85 1.04 10.80 1.58 3.32 5.31  Farm real estate 6.65 n.a. 3.55 9.80 2.83 n.a. 54.73  Other8 17.93 1.43 6.09 12.57 31.49 20.25 29.79 

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 6.75 12.44 6.22 6.04 6.10 12.22 13.00  Other 89.14 86.96 89.43 88.69 92.59 84.31 68.19  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. n.a. Not available.
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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Richard Patton, President, Chief Executive Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund,
LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ G. Richard Patton                          
|G. Richard Patton                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|November 4, 2004                               



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



29
*Release Date: September 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 |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 6.4     | 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                                |
| 8.7     | 8.7                    | 8.2                                |
||
| 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                                |
| 9.0     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
||
| 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                                |
| 9.1     | 9.1                    | 8.7                                |
```
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
210 La. 204

#### EMERY v. TRUDEAU SYNDICATE, Inc.

No. 38020.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 1946.

F. Rivers Richardson, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Harold J. Winling and John F. Stafford, both of New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

*699KENNON, Justice.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of the district court maintaining an exception of no cause and no right of action in a proceeding in which he sought specific performance of a contract to sell certain tracts of land in Jefferson Parish, La. The agreement, dated January 6, 1928, and made a part of the petition, sets forth a consideration of $4,200, $172 cash, three notes of $600 each and one note of $2,228. The original petition states that the cash consideration was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement and that the notes had been paid or “discharged by operation of law”.

A supplemental petition and copy of the $2,228 note annexed thereto discloses that the cash consideration and the three notes of $600 each were “duly paid”, and that $1,628 remains unpaid on the $2,228 note, the last payment being made in January, 1932, more than five years prior to the filing of this suit.

The district court sustained the exception of no right and no cause of action, finding that “* * * The plaintiff in the matter never paid the promissory notes, * * and holding that a purchaser cannot “* * * exact the transfer of property to him when he has never complied with the agreement or paid the price thereof”.

This is not a case in which the purchaser wishes to pay the balance due and secure a transfer of title. No offer to do so is contained in the petition and, from the argument, it appears that the property is not worth even the unpaid portion of the purchase price. The sole question for decision is whether the purchaser, whose obligations as vendee have not been met, has gained, through prescription, the right to specific performance.

Under Subsection 3 of Article 1758 of the Revised Civil Code there still exists upon the part of the plaintiff a natural obligation to pay the prescribed portion of the purchase price. This undischarged obligation, although not enforceable at law as a civil obligation, remains as an equitable bar to plaintiff’s action for specific performance.

Article 2487 of the Revised Civil Code provides that the seller, unless he has granted additional time, is not bound to make a delivery of the thing, if the buyer does not pay the price. A study of the petition and the attached note made a part of same, reveals that a substantial portion of the purchase price — though prescribed —nevertheless, remains unpaid. There is no allegation that the seller granted any extension of the term of payment. The Code provides plainly that the seller is not bound to make delivery “* * * if the buyer does not pay the price * *

We, therefore, conclude that one cannot secure specific performance of a contract of sale when a substantial part of the agreed consideration . has not been paid by him, even though prescription has accrued upon his obligation evidencing this unpaid portion.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

HAWTHORNE, J., took no part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rohan Marshall, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 691]

Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered October 9, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and, in so doing, expressly waived his right to appeal. Before County Court accepted the plea, however, it warned defendant that, in the event that he violated the conditions of the plea agreement, including the obligation to return to court on the sentencing date, it would not be bound by the agreed-upon prison sentence of 3 to 6 years. Defendant acknowledged that he understood the warning as explained to him. He nevertheless failed to appear for the scheduled sentencing hearing and was brought before the court in October 2003. County Court, finding that defendant had breached the terms of the plea agreement, sentenced him to a prison term of 4 to 8 years. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Defendant’s argument that County Court erred in imposing a sentence greater than that which was contemplated by the plea agreement without allowing him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea “falls squarely within the scope of his waiver of *877the right to appeal, which he failed to challenge by moving to vacate the plea or judgment” *(People v Perham,*263 AD2d 766, 766 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 1045 [1999] [citation omitted]; *see People v Caines,*268 AD2d 790, 791 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 833 [2000]). In any event, defendant’s contention is unpersuasive inasmuch as he, without any valid excuse, breached the unequivocal requirement that he be present for sentencing, thereby justifying County Court’s determination to impose an enhanced sentence *(see People v Perham, supra*at 767).

We similarly conclude that defendant’s challenge to his sentence on the ground that it is harsh and excessive is not properly before us in light of his knowing waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Schryver,*306 AD2d 626, 626-627 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 598 [2003]; *People v Espino,*279 AD2d 798, 800 [2001]). Nevertheless, even if we were to consider this issue, there is no record evidence demonstrating an abuse of discretion on the part of County Court or the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence here *(see People v Calkins,*6 AD3d 744, 746 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 671 [2004]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se brief, and find each of them to be similarly encompassed by the waiver of his right to appeal.

Peters, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, *JJ.,*concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chad Evans,

Petitioner

v. No. 1:08-cv-105-JD

Warden, 

New Hampshire State Prison, 

Respondent 

OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Chad Evans objects to the Warden’s Motion for Summary

Judgment.

In support, Evans states:

1. He incorporates by reference all factual assertions and

legal arguments in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.

2. Evans agrees that no evidentiary hearing is necessary to

resolve the pending issues and that the Court may enter judgment

on the pleadings. 

3. Evans asserts that the Warden is not entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law. In addition to the arguments in his

Petition, Evans had filed a Memorandum of Law to support both

this Objection and his separately-filed Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment.

WHEREFORE, Evans respectfully requests that this Honorable

Court deny the Warden’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Case 1:08-cv-00105-JD Document 21 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ David M. Rothstein 

By 

 David M. Rothstein #5991

 Deputy Chief Appellate Defender

 Appellate Defender Program

 2 White Street

 Concord, NH 03301

 603) 228-9218

 Email: drothstein@piercelaw.edu 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has

been emailed this 17th day of March, 2010, to:

Elizabeth C. Woodcock

ASsistant Assistant Attorney General

at: Elizabeth.Woodcock@doj.nh.gov

/s/ David M. Rothstein 

 David M. Rothstein

DATED: March 17, 2010

Case 1:08-cv-00105-JD Document 21 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2
*Release Date: December 30, 2003*

*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 |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 8.8     | 8.7                    | 8.1                                |
| 7.9     | 7.7                    | 7.2                                |
| 7.4     | 7.5                    | 7.0                                |
| 7.2     | 7.2                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.8     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.5     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.3     | 6.2                    | 5.9                                |
| 7.1     | 7.0                    | 6.5                                |
||
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| 7.7     | 7.6                    | 7.1                                |
| 7.5     | 7.4                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.2     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.0     | 6.9                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.9     | 6.8                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
||
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| 5.9     | 6.2                    | 6.3                                |
| 5.2     | 5.3                    | 5.2                                |
| 9.8     | 10.1                   | 10.4                               |
```
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
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, February 5-9, 2007Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,559,577 170,516 202,679 532,345 362,727 77,416 16,6Number of loans 24,902 2,521 3,903 9,693 4,191 730 45Weighted average maturity (months)1 22.13 14.19 24.63 21.69 19.70 14.87 12.4

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 7.89 6.46 12.21 8.52 2.56 1.28 9.

Weighted average risk rating3 2.98 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 8.57 8.31 8.73 8.62 8.38 8.97 8. Standard error5 .10 .22 .09 .11 .22 .46 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.31 8.87 9.38 9.46 9.14 9.73 8.5 25th percentile 7.88 7.75 7.95 8.18 7.57 8.04 7.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.93 8.45 8.99 9.26 8.89 8.84 8.7 Other livestock 8.61 7.76 9.03 8.79 8.44 7.55 8. Other current operating expenses7 8.69 8.27 8.76 8.68 8.70 9.19 9.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.93 8.79 9.17 8.69 9.36 n.a. 10.4 Farm real estate 8.42 8.08 8.11 8.67 7.36 n.a. 9.5 Other8 8.06 8.86 8.26 7.88 8.10 8.61 7.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 64.59 42.07 50.27 60.84 85.81 89.91 24.7 Under commitment 68.54 75.24 72.40 65.28 85.19 80.17 27.9 Callable 27.13 21.06 32.99 29.08 17.46 48.92 12.9 Subject to prepayment penalty 1.91 1.72 .15 3.37 1.26 1.49 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.30 15.96 10.08 9.12 1.55 .11 3. Other livestock 8.68 4.25 10.95 4.19 19.04 6.19 2. Other current operating expenses7 53.40 70.54 55.43 60.29 29.83 73.59 13.4 Farm machinery and equipment 4.70 4.71 4.63 5.49 2.79 n.a. 1.5 Farm real estate 4.34 2.90 5.49 6.91 1.25 n.a. .4 Other8 21.57 1.66 13.42 14.00 45.52 20.10 78.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 14.44 6.63 16.85 10.98 16.21 5.18 55. Other 82.93 87.65 81.44 86.54 82.55 94.82 38.0 For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Exhibit 1

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 338-2 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 338-2 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 338-2 Filed 11/19/12 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brenda K. Taite,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 08-cv-258-SM

James B. Peake, Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Defendant

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: (Document No. 10) The Secretary of Veteran Affairs’

Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Her Complaint

Ruling: The Magistrate Judge properly granted plaintiff's

motion to amend her complaint and properly concluded that the

amended complaint is the controlling pleading. I decline to

treat the objection to plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint

as a "motion to dismiss." That is, the Magistrate Judge's

construction to that effect is not accepted. If defendant wishes

to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, he must do so

via a properly captioned pleading and focused argument. 

Otherwise, the docket will quickly become indecipherable. 

Entered by: Steven J. McAuliffe, Chief Judge

Date: February 19, 2009

cc: Brenda K. Taite, pro se

Seth R. Aframe, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00258-SM Document 17 Filed 02/19/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brian Woodburn

v. Civil No. 06-cv-260-PB

Commissioner, NH Dept. of Corrections, et al

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated November 2, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

November 25, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Brian Woodburn, pro se

Nancy Smith, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00260-PB Document 18 Filed 11/25/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey Carano

v. Civil No. 07-cv-124-PB

N.H. Governor, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff seeks to enjoin a hearing on May 15, 2007 in the

Brentwood Family Division. The hearing is on a show cause order

and a motion for attorney’s fees, a motion to continue and a

motion to stay the contempt hearing. The Anti Injunction Act, 28

U.S.C. § 2283, provides that: 

A court of the United States may not grant an

injunction to stay proceedings in a state

court except as expressly authorized by Act

of Congress . . .

Congress has not authorized an injunction on the applicable

facts. I recommend that the motion (document no. 5) be denied. 

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of 

Case 1:07-cv-00124-PB Document 8 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 11, 2007

cc: Jeffrey Carano, pro se

 Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00124-PB Document 8 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 2