alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                               
                                  Estimated volume                  Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                               (millions of dollars)                                (percent)
                      ________________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1       Q2       Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                               
1993......    |          54       7       16        5       26      .155      .020      .049     .014      .069
1994......    |          69      10       11       15       33      .187      .026      .032     .037      .082
1995......    |          51      -2       14       13       25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
1996......    |          95      16       27       24       30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6       19       19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4       15       24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18       37       35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11       17       34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67       53      140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40       50       58       73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |         175      34       35       48       58      .382      .074      .080     .108      .128
2004......    |        n.a.      28     n.a.     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .062      n.a.     n.a.      n.a.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated September 10, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1961 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-232118) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


September 10, 2019
#### ODOM et al. v. WARE.

No. 5785.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 31, 1939.

Fred L. Jackson, of Homer, for appellant.

Meadors & Gensler, of Homer, for ap-pellees.

DREW, Judge.

The lower court arrived at.the quantum of damages in the following language:

> “As to the quantum of damages in the case of Paul Odom et al v. Samuel A. (Jinks) Ware, the testimony shows that Elton Austin Odom received a fracture of the right thumb, the thumb being almost torn from the hand, and that he received a cut on the right forearm which severed the small tendon, necessitating the sewing together of the tendon and wound; and also received a small wound in front of the left ear, both of which required stitches. The doctor and hospital bills were $140.00, and, according to Dr. C. O. Wolffs testimony, the thumb has never entirely healed and at this time has some limitation of motion, and it would require further medical treatment which, in his opinion, would cost Two or Three Hundred Dollars,' to make the thumb have its normal use. The testimony of Dr. Wolff shows that Elton Austin Odom was treated about three months and that he suffered severe pain. From all the circumstances, the court considers an award of $1750.00 in favor of the minor, Elton Austin Odom; and the plaintiff, Paul, Odom, should have judgment for $140.00, hospital and doctor’s bills, and $200.00, the amount it will require for further treatment of Elton Austin Odom.

> “Therefore, there will be judgment in favor of the minor, Elton Austin Odom, ■ and against the defendant in the sum of $1750.00; ánd judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Paul Odom, and against the defendant, Samuel A. (Jinks) Ware, in the sum of $140.00, doctor and hospital bills; and $200.00 additional expenses that will be required to.have Elton Austin Odom’s thumb treated.”

For the reasons assigned in Asberry Bolin Greer et ux. v. Samuel A. (Jinks). Ware, 187 So. 842, decided by us this day, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1756 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1756

To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make certain products 
  eligible for drawback and to simplify and clarify certain drawback 
                              provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make certain products 
  eligible for drawback and to simplify and clarify certain drawback 
                              provisions.

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

SECTION 1. UNUSED MERCHANDISE DRAWBACK.

    (a) In General.--Section 313(j) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 131(3j)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``because of its'' and 
        inserting ``upon entry or'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``because of its'' and 
        inserting ``upon entry or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) No prior notification of intent to export is required 
        to be provided to the Customs Service for any exports under 
        this subsection.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any 
drawback claim filed on or after that date and to any drawback entry 
filed before that date if the liquidation of the entry is not final on 
that date.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

Richard Ellison

Case No . 07-cr-144-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant Ellison's motion to continue the final pretrial conference an d

trial is granted (document 14) . Trial has been rescheduled for the November

2007 trial period. Defendant Ellison shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than October 5, 2007 . On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective .

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S .C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference : October 30, 2007 at 10 :00 a .m.

Jury Selection : November 6, 2007 at 9 :30 a .m.

Case 1:07-cr-00144-SM Document 15 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

September 24, 2007

cc : Michael R. Smith, Esq .

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:07-cr-00144-SM Document 15 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1595

To protect innocent children.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed

Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To protect innocent children.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Innocent Child Protec5 tion Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF INNOCENT CHILDREN.

7 It shall be unlawful for any authority, military or

8 civil, of the United States, a State, or any district, posses9 sion, commonwealth or other territory under the authority

10 of the United States to carry out a sentence of death on
2

•HR 1595 IH

1 a woman while she carries a child in utero. In this section,

2 the term ‘‘child in utero’’ means a member of the species

3 homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried

4 in the womb.

Æ
Hon. Jules Damiani, Jr.

Criminal District Attorney 405County Courthouse Galveston,Texas 77550

DearMr. Damiani: Opinion No: M-698 Re: Interpretationof Section 52c, Article 6701d, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and related
. sections.

You have requested an opinion of this office as follows: "Is it a violation of Article 6701d,

Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, for a motorist to make a lefthand turn off of a four lane highway across a double yellow stripe **(no** passing zone) into a private driveway?"
you further state that Farm Road 517 in GalvestonCounty, Texas, is a state highway maintained by the Texas Hiqhway nepartment located in the corporate limits of the city of Texas City, Texas, and is a four lane highwayhaving a doubleyellow stripe in the center. Prior to the amendment of Section 52 by Acts 1969, 61stLegislature, Chapter 329, Page 1019, the question you ask probablywould have been answeredby Section 57 or 58 of Article 6701d,which relate to passing on the lefthand side of a roadway. However, Section 52c specifically appliesto driving on the left side of the center line on four lanehighways having two-way travel and states as follows: "C. Upon any roadwayhaving four

or more lanes for moving traffic and providing for two-waymovement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the center line of the roadway, except when authorizedby official traffic control devices designating certain lanes to the left side of the

-3373-'Bon.Jules Damiani,Jr., Page 2 (W-698)

center of the roadway for use by traffic not otherwisepermitted to use such lanes, or except as permitted under Subsection 2(ai hereof. However, this subsection shall not **be** construed as prohibiting a crossing of a center line in makins a,,leftturn into or from an alley, rivate road or driveway." (EmphasisAdde The provisions of Section 52~ of Article 6701d disallow any person from traveling **for** any reason on the lefthand side of a roadwayhaving four or more lanes for moving traffic exceptwhen authorizedby the exceptions provided therein. One of the exceptions is that left-hand turns into a private driveway **are** not prohibited. It is, therefore,our opinion that it is not a violation of Article 6701d,Vernon's Civil Statutes of Texas, for a motorist to make a lefthand turn off of a four lanehighway across a double yellow stripe into an alley, a private road or driveway,because Section 52c of Article 6701d specificallY allows this act.

SUMMARY It is not a violation of Article 6701d,Vernon's Civil Statutes of Texas, for a motorist to make a left hand turn off of a four lanehighway across a double yellow stripe into an alley,private road or driveway, because Section 52c of Article 6701d specifically :? 110~s this act.

Att$ney General of Texas Preparedby Bennie W. Bock, II Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Ch&znan W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman R. D. Green Ed Esquivel liarold Xennedy Sam L. Jones '. -3374- ‘\Hon.Jules Damiani, Jr., page 3 (M-0)x)

MEADI:

F. GRIFFIN staffLegal Assistant
ALFREDWALKER ExecutiveAssistant NOLAWHITE FirstAssistant Attorney General

-3375-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 607,617
<SECURITIES>                                           279,487
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6,109,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                           538,198
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9,229,525
<PP&E>                                                 801,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                         482,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      10,372,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                7,593,440
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                             10,000
<COMMON>                                                12,601
<OTHER-SE>                                           2,461,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         8,868,425
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    13,142,254
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       12,577,449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     281,885
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        564,805
<INCOME-TAX>                                           219,399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           345,406
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.027
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.027


</TABLE>
#### Ingrid Tortola, Respondent, v NHT Owners, LLC, et al., Appellants.

[806 NYS2d 890]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated June 13, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion to quash three subpoenas served upon nonparties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that unusual or unanticipated circumstances occurred after the filing of the note of issue which required the nonparty depositions sought in their subpoenas to prevent substantial prejudice *(see 22*NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas *(see Candray v Eicher,*19 AD3d 352 [2005]; *Gigliotti v Allstate Ins. Co.,*258 AD2d 559 [1999]; *Scocozza v Tolia,*254 AD2d 475 [1998]; *Koonmen v Town of Brookhaven,*236 AD2d 591 [1997]). Cozier, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2002


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 99.1


         Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned
President and Chief Executive Officer of Avenue Entertainment Group, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



                                                              Cary Brokaw


November 14, 2002





<PAGE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1748

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia, as the ‘‘Tom Bliley Post

Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. CANTOR (for himself, Mr. WOLF, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr.

TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. GOODE, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr.

SCHROCK, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government

Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia,

as the ‘‘Tom Bliley Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. TOM BLILEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Rich6 mond, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Tom Bliley Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1748 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Tom Bliley Post Office

5 Building.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SAVAGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10591.

D.C. No. CR-93-00385-CAL-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Michael Savage appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion to modify *728Ms sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *United States v. Sprague,*135 F.3d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Guideline Amendment 591, concerning the selection of offense gmdelines, does not provide grounds for modifying Savage’s sentence because the district court’s original sentencmg fully complied with that Amendment. GMdeline Amendment 599, concerning the application of specific offense characteristics when a weapon was used, also does not provide grounds for modifying Savage’s sentence, because Savage was sentenced as a career offender, and thus his total offense level would have been 34 whether or not the enhancement at issue was applied.

The district court’s demal of Savage’s motion was therefore correct. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (allowing modification when a sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered”); *United States v. Townsend,*98 F.3d 510, 513 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (affirmmg the demal of a motion to modify when the amendment at issue had no effect on the defendant’s sentencing range).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22052]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel P41 SEP.
    Date: November 7, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, 
Board Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Arthur A. Petrosian, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Programs, National Library of 
Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 
301, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 301-496-4253, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65150011170a160c042508040c094b0b0c0d4b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0809584829f839991b09d91999cde9e9998de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 15, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-22052 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul Hendrickson, et al. 

v. 05-cv-133-SM

Governor Wentworth Regional School District, et al. 

O R D E R

Following appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declared the case moot. Thus

the Judgment previously entered must be vacated. (Mandate November 13, 2006). Therefore, the

clerk of court shall enter judgment in accordance with the mandate and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

November 21, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: All Counsel of Record 

Case 1:05-cv-00133-SM Document 48 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cr-00063-SM Document 5 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cr-00063-SM Document 5 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cr-00063-SM Document 5 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cr-00063-SM Document 5 Filed 02/22/07 Page 4 of 4