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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-25-01-SM

Kenneth Perron,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Perron’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

14). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of September 2009. Defendant

Perron shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than June 16, 2009. 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 the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:08-cr-00025-SM Document 15 Filed 06/05/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for September 4, 2009 at 

10:00 a.m. 

Jury selection will take place on September 15, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 5, 2009

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Rene Sororrio, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00025-SM Document 15 Filed 06/05/09 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
2ND QUARTER ENDED JULY 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             383
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,127
<ALLOWANCES>                                       737
<INVENTORY>                                    258,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               316,277
<PP&E>                                          60,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,823
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          255,989
<BONDS>                                         27,515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,661
<SALES>                                        277,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               277,934
<CGS>                                          223,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  223,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        


</TABLE>
Case 1:08-cv-00168-JL   Document 98   Filed 11/05/09   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00168-JL   Document 98   Filed 11/05/09   Page 2 of 2
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
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......    |         129      28      17      46      38      .284      .062      .039     .099      .081
2005......    |          59       8      16      12      24      .124      .017      .035     .026      .048
2006......    |          73       9       7      23      34      .146      .018      .015     .045      .064
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

W/S North Hampton Properties, LLC

v. Case No. 08-cv-345-PB

TGI Friday’s Inc.

O R D E R

The case shall be removed from the June trial list and

scheduled during the September trial period. Defendants shall

file an objection to the motion in limine (Doc. No. 24) on or

before June 17, 2010. Any reply to the objection shall be filed

on or before July 1, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 19, 2010

cc: William Pribis, Esq.

Matthew Johnson, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00345-PB Document 28 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 1
36

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1estate loans estate loans

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2005: Q4... 8.0 8.0 n.a. 7.3

2006: Q1... 8.3 8.3 n.a. 7.5

 Q2... 8.7 8.8 n.a. 7.9

 Q3... 8.7 8.7 n.a. 7.8

 Q4... 8.7 8.7 n.a. 7.7

2007: Q1... 8.6 8.6 n.a. 7.7

 Q2... 8.6 8.7 n.a. 7.7

 Q3... 8.4 8.4 n.a. 7.5

 Q4... 7.9 7.8 n.a. 7.1

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2005: Q4... 8.9 8.9 8.7 8.1

2006: Q1... 9.0 9.2 8.8 8.2

 Q2... 9.4 9.6 9.2 8.1

 Q3... 9.6 9.7 9.4 8.5

 Q4... 9.5 9.6 9.3 8.7

2007: Q1... 9.4 9.7 9.3 8.6

 Q2... 9.4 9.5 9.1 8.5

 Q3... 9.4 9.6 9.2 8.5

 Q4... 8.9 9.1 8.7 7.9

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 

2005: Q4... 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.0

2006: Q1... 8.9 9.1 8.7 8.4

 Q2... 9.0 9.2 8.8 8.8

 Q3... 9.3 9.2 8.8 8.6

 Q4... 9.3 9.3 8.9 8.4

2007: Q1... 9.1 9.0 8.6 8.3

 Q2... 8.9 8.9 8.7 8.5

 Q3... 8.7 8.6 8.2 8.2

 Q4... 8.2 7.9 7.6 7.5
37

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans (continued)

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1-estate loans estate loans

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2005: Q4... n.a. 8.5 8.4 7.9

2006: Q1... n.a. 8.8 8.7 8.1

 Q2... n.a. 9.1 9.0 8.4

 Q3... n.a. 9.2 9.1 8.5

 Q4... n.a. 9.2 9.0 8.4

2007: Q1... n.a. 9.1 9.0 8.4

 Q2... n.a. 9.1 8.9 8.3

 Q3... n.a. 9.1 8.8 8.3

 Q4... n.a. 8.6 8.4 7.9

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2005: Q4... n.a. 8.3 8.3 7.8

2006: Q1... n.a. 8.4 8.5 7.9

 Q2... n.a. 8.9 8.9 8.4

 Q3... n.a. 9.1 9.1 8.5

 Q4... n.a. 9.0 9.0 8.3

2007: Q1... n.a. 9.0 8.9 8.3

 Q2... n.a. 9.0 8.8 8.3

 Q3... n.a. 8.8 8.7 8.2

 Q4... n.a. 8.3 8.2 7.7

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA) 

2005: Q4... n.a. 9.0 8.8 8.3

2006: Q1... n.a. 9.0 8.7 8.2

 Q2... n.a. 9.2 8.9 8.4

 Q3... n.a. 9.1 9.0 8.4

 Q4... n.a. 9.0 9.1 8.3

2007: Q1... n.a. 8.9 8.8 8.3

 Q2... n.a. 8.9 8.8 8.4

 Q3... n.a. 8.7 8.6 8.0

 Q4... n.a. 8.0 8.2 7.8

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of

livestock (including poultry).

 * 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.
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1985
          12
          21
          17
          18
          681986
          14
          14
          21
          16
          651987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12004
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12005
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02006
          0
          0
          0
          0
          0 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: April 09, 2007
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Edward G. Caminos, as Vice President – Finance andChief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely forthe purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledgeand belief, that:

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/ Edward G. Caminos*                                    |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward G. Caminos                                          |
| Vice President – Finance and Chief Accounting Officer |
| May 9, 2007                                                |

 

----
Exhibit



Exhibit 10(F)



















SECOND AMENDMENT OF 
THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES OF CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made on April 15, 2019, by CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Company”).


INTRODUCTION


The Company maintains the Deferred Compensation Plan for Officers and Key Employees of Carpenter Technology Corporation (the “Plan”), which was last amended and restated effective as of July 1, 2014 and amended one time since then.  The Company wishes to amend the Plan to remove the hardship deferral suspension requirement and to change the entry date for new participants to the first day of the calendar year following the date of hire or the date they become eligible to participate in the Plan.


AMENDMENT


NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January 1, 2020, the Company does hereby amend the Plan as follows:


1.    By deleting the existing Section 2.2 and substituting therefor the following:


“2.2    Participants.  Any Senior Executive who elects to participate in the Plan shall become a Participant in the Plan as of the first day of the Plan Year following the date the Participant becomes employed by a Plan Sponsor or becomes eligible to participate in the Plan and shall enroll in the Plan by the method required by the Plan Administrator.  Any Senior Executive receiving Employer Additions shall become a Participant on the date of the initial Employer Addition, if the Participant has not enrolled under the preceding sentence.  An individual shall remain a Participant in the Plan until all amounts credited to the Participant’s Account have been distributed to the Participant and the Participant’s Beneficiary.”  


2.    By deleting the existing Section 4.4.1.1 and substituting therefor:


“4.4.1.1    Any elections made pursuant to this Section 4.4 may not be modified during the Plan Year to which such election applies, except that a Participant’s elections must cease to apply in the event such Participant receives a distribution from this Plan due to an Unforeseeable Emergency.  For Salary Deferrals, Other Cash Deferrals and Employer Additions, described in Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.3 and 4.3 respectively, the Participant must make an election by December 15th of a Plan Year for it to take effect for the next Plan Year.”


Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect prior to this Second Amendment.


[Signatures on following page]


1




Exhibit 10(F)





















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to be executed on the day and year first above written.


CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
By: ____________________________
Title:___________________________


2
189 La. 518

#### GLASER v. DOESCHER.

No. 34390.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 7, 1938.

Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Benjamin Y. Wolf, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered on a rule to reduce alimony.

The plaintiff, wife, brought suit on May *17, 1932,*against *the*defendant, husband, for separation from bed and board, in which she asked for the temporary custody of their minor child and for $150 per month alimony pendente lite. On May 27, 1932, by rule the defendant was condemned to pay the plaintiff $45 per month alimony pendente lite. The alimony was fixed at $45 per month in the judgment of separation from bed and board rendered January 16, 1933. On May 2, 1934, the amount of the alimony was reduced from $45 per month to $40 per month on a rule issued at defendant’s instance. On February 26, 1937, plaintiff obtained judgment of final divorce and judgment condemning the defendant to pay her $40 per month alimony. On March 2, 1937, the présent rule to reduce the amount of the alimony was issued at the instance of the defendant. The court after hearing the rule on March 5, 1937, reduced the amount of the alimony from $40 per month to $20 per month. It is from this judgment the defendant appeals. The plaintiff has answered the’appeal asking that the amount of alimony be increased to $40 per month.

Upon examination of the evidence we find that the child is now of age; that the child is not giving any support to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff has no property or income. The evidence as to the net income of the defendant is very conflicting. The evidence shows that the defendant operates a small grocery store, employs help and operates a small truck in connection with his business. The lower court was of the opinion, as evidenced by its judgment, that the defendant’s income was more than $30 per month. However, the lower court, in view of the evidence and the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to any alimony-for the support of the child since it has reached the age of majority, reduced the alimony from $40 to $20 per month.

Under the facts in this case, we can see no good reason to disturb the judgment of the lower court.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment is affirmed. The cost of this appeal to be paid by the appellant

HIGGINS, J., absent
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         31,058
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,108
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          446,208
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,378,223
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,588,323)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,108
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0




</TABLE>
#### SportsChannel Associates, Appellant, v Sterling Mets, L.P., Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 61]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered April 11, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action (denominated counts II and III) of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), and order, same court and Justice, entered August 18, 2005, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining causes of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly dismissed the third cause of action, which alleges that the Mets breached section 13.1.1 of the license agreement by negotiating with third parties for the Pay TV rights to certain Mets games. When read in the context of the entire agreement, section 13.1.1 was immediately terminated when defendant delivered the termination notice and paid plaintiff more than $54 million on May 27, 2004. Plaintiffs interpretation—that section 13.1.1 did not terminate until November 1, 2005—would “produce a result that is absurd, commercially unreasonable [and] contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties” *(Matter of Lipper Holdings v Trident Holdings,*1 AD3d 170, 171 [2003] [citations omitted]).

As to the grant of summary judgment on the first cause of action, the motion court properly implied a temporal limitation to the term “Mets Games” in section 2.4. Moreover, to the extent that section 2.4 conflicts with sections 7.4 and 13.1, the latter sections govern because they are more specific *(see Chemical Bank v Stahl,*223 AD2d 460, 461 [1996]), newer *(see Jacob Gold Realty v Sckoczylas,*186 Misc 2d 612, 613 [2000]), and specifically negotiated in 1996 *(see Trans Pac. Leasing Corp. v Aero Micronesia, Inc.,*26 F Supp 2d 698, 709 [SD NY 1998]). Further, since plaintiff did not controvert defendant’s assertion *315that the 1982 agreement was predominantly drafted by plaintiff and controlled the 1996 agreement, any ambiguities in the agreements must be interpreted against plaintiff *(see Chatterjee Fund Mgt. v Dimensional Media Assoc.,*260 AD2d 159, 159 [1999]).

“Facts appearing in the movant’s papers which the opposing party does not controvert, may be deemed to be admitted” *(Kuehne & Nagel v Baiden,*36 NY2d 539, 544 [1975]). Defendant’s undisputed evidence of the parties’ negotiations showed that the parties did not intend section 2.4 to restrict defendant’s right to walk away “free and clear” if it exercised its early termination right under section 7.4 and paid plaintiff $54 million.

We have considered plaintiffs arguments about section 8.3 of the agreement (the second cause of action in the complaint) and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Malone, JJ. *[See*8 Misc 3d 1027(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51303(U) (2005).]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6860

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLINTON F. TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-58, CA-95-23-NN)

Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis McQuaid Lawrence, ST. JOHN, BOWLING & LAWRENCE, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Harvey Lee Bryant, III, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Taylor, Nos. CR-91-58; CA-95-23-NN

(E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED