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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven L. Bromley

 v. Civil No. 08-cv-161-JL

State of Utah, et al

O R D E R

The Court has issued a Report and Recommendation directing the US Marshals to effectuate

service on behalf of the plaintiff in this case. On April 29, 2008, plaintiff was sent blank

summonses for completion to be filled out and was instructed to return those summonses to the

Court. To date the Court has not received the completed summonses. The plaintiff has 20 days

from the date of this order to complete and submit summonses to the Court or this case will be

dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

September 26, 2008 _________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Steven L. Bromley, Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 5 Filed 09/26/08 Page 1 of 1
**
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Q&K International Group Limited (the “Company”) onForm 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guangjie Jin, Chairman of the Board ofDirectors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 
Date: February 18, 2020By: /s/ Guangjie Jin
Name:
 Guangjie Jin
Title:
 
Chairman of the Board of Directors and

ChiefExecutive Officer (principal executive officer)
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023767
<NAME> MC INFORMATICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         461,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,039,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                    83,859
<INVENTORY>                                     47,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,842,157
<PP&E>                                         308,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,631,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,574,845
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,958,153
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,631,946
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,193,995
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,893,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,022,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (722,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (723,114)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (723,114)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
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
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
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
2006......    |        n.a.       2     n.a.     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .003      n.a.     n.a.     n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40996

Summary Calendar

 

JEHAAD A.M.E SAAHIR,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CV-680

- - - - - - - - - -

March 17, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jehaad A.M.E. Saahir, Texas prisoner # 291515, seeks a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his

application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He also requests the appointment of counsel,

which is DENIED. He argues that the district court erred in

dismissing his application for want of prosecution pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
No. 98-40996

-2-

A COA may be issued only if the prisoner has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). However, in an appeal such as this one, 

in which the applicant challenges the district court’s dismissal

for a reason not of constitutional dimension, the petitioner must

first make a credible showing that the district court erred. See

Murphy v. Johnson, 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997)(applying the

COA standard to nonconstitutional issue of exhaustion of state

remedies). Only if a showing of error is made will the court

then consider whether the petitioner has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right on the

petitioner’s habeas claims. Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384,

386 (5th Cir. 1998).

Saahir contended in his motion for relief from judgment in

the district court and contends in his motion for a COA in this

court that the mailroom on his unit erroneously reported to the

district court that he had moved without giving a forwarding

address, and he asserted that he was still housed on the same

unit as when he filed this action. Although the district court’s

dismissal was without prejudice, it became effectively with

prejudice due to the operation of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations provision contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). There

is no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. The

district court abused its discretion in dismissing Saahir’s §

2254 application for want of prosecution. Berry v. CIGNA/RSICIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992).
No. 98-40996

-3-

We therefore GRANT a COA on the issue of the district

court’s dismissal for want of prosecution, and we vacate the

judgment of the district court and remand this case to the

district court for consideration of the merits of Saahir’s habeas

claims. See Whitehead, 157 F.3d at 388.

COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED; MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
#### Mrs. Artie LITTLE, Administratrix of the Succession of Bunyan Little, Deceased, and guardian of the minors, Patsy Ann Little, J. B. Little and Dodd Little, plaintiffs, appellees and appellants v. EL DORADO CREOSOTING COMPANY, defendant-appellant and Coal Operators Casualty Company, defendant-appellee.

No. 8123.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 24, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1954.

Writ of Certiorari Granted May 31, 1954.

Booth, Lockard, Jack & Pleasant, Shreveport, for El Dorado Creosoting Co.

Gravel & Downs, Alexandria, for Coal Operators Cas. Co.

Spencer & Spencer, El Dorado, Ark., Jackson & Reynolds, Homer, for Mrs. Artie Little 'and others.

GLADNEY, Judge.

The issues of both fact and law presented in this case are not different from those presented in Johnson v. El Dorado Creosoting Company and Coal Operators Casualty Company, La.App., 71 So.2d 613. Our findings therein are decisive in the instant case.

The judgment from which appealed is reversed and set aside insofar as it overruled the exception to the jurisdiction ratione personae filed by the El Dorado Creosoting Company, Inc., and it is ordered that said exception be sustained as to the above named defendant, and plaintiff’s suit be and is hereby dismissed as of non-suit at plaintiff’s cost. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed at plaintiff’s cost.

AYRES, J., is recused.
<Page>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 22

                      The Dress Barn, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                 Schedule II- Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
        Fiscal Years Ended July 31, 2004, July 26, 2003 and July 27, 2002
                                 (in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               Balance at    Additions   Adjustments   Balance at
                              Beginning of   Charge to      and/or       end of
Description                      Period        Income     Deductions     Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                               <C>         <C>          <C>            <C>
Sales Returns and Allowance

Year:

July 31, 2004                     $--         $11,190      $10,447        $743
July 26, 2003                     $--         $    --      $    --        $ --
July 27, 2002                     $--         $    --      $    --        $ --
</TABLE>


                                      F-25
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1994...... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003...... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004...... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

1996: Q1... 100.0 78.1 17.4 3.6 .6 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 78.0 17.2 4.0 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .5 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997: Q1... 100.0 79.1 16.7 3.7 .4 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.5 15.8 3.2 .3 ... .1

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 77.7 18.3 3.6 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004: Q1... 100.0 79.2 17.2 3.2 .2 .1 .0

 Q2... 100.0 81.3 15.1 3.2 .3 .0 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.1 15.1 2.4 .2 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

2005: Q1... 100.0 84.4 13.3 2.0 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 85.7 12.0 2.0 .3 .0 ...

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Peerless Insurance Company, et al

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

NuTone LLC

O R D E R

The Court has been advised that NuTone has filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Code;

therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the case is automatically stayed at this time. On request

of a party in interest, the Bankruptcy Court may grant relief from this stay.

It is therefore ordered that the counsel for Petitioner in Bankruptcy shall file a status

report on January 1 and July 1 of each year until the issues are resolved. The Court should, of

course, immediately be notified upon ultimate resolution of the issues. Failure to respond will

result in the referral of the action to a judicial officer for sanctions which may include imposition

of fines.

By the Court,

 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

October 28, 2009 Paul Barbadoro

District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:08-cv-00081-PB Document 25 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11796

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-466-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Angel 

Gutierrez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11796 Document: 00514279621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 16-11796

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-11796 Document: 00514279621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
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 Annual Report of The Dress Barn Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending July 26, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I,
David R. Jaffe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

          (1) 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 78o(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.

     The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not
intended to be used for any other purpose.



/S/ DAVID R. JAFFE
David R. Jaffe
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 22, 2003
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1994...... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003...... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004...... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

1995: Q3... 100.0 82.8 14.3 2.4 .3 .0 .1

 Q4... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996: Q1... 100.0 78.1 17.4 3.6 .6 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 78.0 17.2 4.0 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .5 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997: Q1... 100.0 79.1 16.7 3.7 .4 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.5 15.8 3.2 .3 ... .1

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 77.7 18.3 3.6 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004: Q1... 100.0 79.2 17.2 3.2 .2 .1 .0

 Q2... 100.0 81.3 15.1 3.2 .3 .0 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.1 15.1 2.4 .2 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, August 6-10, 2007Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,221,443 59,546 209,970 465,654 255,911 42,817 19,2Number of loans 26,087 2,047 4,149 10,035 3,862 698 67Weighted average maturity (months)1 23.79 11.40 49.80 18.86 15.61 11.58 79.4

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 7.50 8.76 18.84 2.86 3.94 .62 78.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.01 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 8.39 8.48 8.12 8.33 8.41 9.01 8.5 Standard error5 .13 .18 .16 .17 .28 .31 .2

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.12 9.26 8.93 8.97 9.25 9.92 8. 25th percentile 7.63 7.91 7.19 7.85 7.57 7.76 7.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.77 8.69 9.52 8.69 8.22 9.37 8.9 Other livestock 8.85 9.04 8.65 8.49 8.01 8.80 9. Other current operating expenses7 8.24 8.58 8.73 8.89 9.48 9.34 9.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.44 8.37 8.27 9.30 10.00 9.49 8.2 Farm real estate 6.88 8.11 8.48 8.34 9.43 7.91 5.7 Other8 8.74 7.30 7.52 7.96 8.87 8.32 8.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 71.89 22.99 59.31 78.64 84.47 97.44 9.2 Under commitment 77.78 57.43 85.51 88.29 93.68 96.67 40. Callable 23.18 33.16 43.34 20.15 22.72 2.24 n Subject to prepayment penalty 2.05 5.40 .43 3.52 1.76 .15 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.58 30.83 4.50 3.88 6.05 1.10 n Other livestock 7.98 19.90 3.03 6.94 10.91 20.44 23.7 Other current operating expenses7 39.84 36.19 44.30 36.50 33.90 50.09 20.7 Farm machinery and equipment 13.92 6.81 7.35 25.43 3.91 .14 7.5 Farm real estate 4.54 3.40 2.17 5.54 2.95 .46 39.2 Other8 27.15 2.88 38.66 21.71 42.27 27.76 8.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 15.97 11.74 36.36 9.93 11.46 20.93 39.2 Other 77.61 86.91 62.27 78.22 87.39 79.07 58.9 For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1766

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4270 John Marr Drive in

Annandale, Virginia, as the ‘‘Stan Parris PostOffice Building’’.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1766

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia,

as the ‘‘Stan Parris Post Office Building’’.

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

•HR 1766 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Stan Parris Post

5 Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Stan Parris Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 10,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.