alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Period  | Minneapolis - Other operating loans | Minneapolis - Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Minneapolis - Long-term real estate loans | Kansas City - Other operating loans | Kansas City - Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Kansas City - Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| 2001:Q1 | 9.7                                 | 9.59                                             | 9.13                                      | .                                   | .                                                | .                                         |
| 2001:Q2 | 9.25                                | 9.13                                             | 8.49                                      | .                                   | .                                                | .                                         |
| 2001:Q3 | 8.75                                | 8.69                                             | 8.08                                      | .                                   | .                                                | .                                         |
| 2001:Q4 | 7.9                                 | 7.71                                             | 7.22                                      | .                                   | .                                                | .                                         |
| 2002:Q1 | 7.43                                | 7.45                                             | 7.01                                      | 0                                   | 0                                                | 0                                         |
| 2002:Q2 | 7.2                                 | 7.19                                             | 6.81                                      | 7.65                                | 7.57                                             | 7.06                                      |
| 2002:Q3 | 6.81                                | 6.74                                             | 6.36                                      | 7.51                                | 7.43                                             | 6.85                                      |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 06-cv-293-SM

Charles Ward, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Re: Document No. 17, Motion to Continue TRO Hearing of 

 12/15/06

Ruling: Granted. The defendants in this case have no

control over where plaintiff is housed by the state. I recommend

that the injunction be denied in this case since it is sought

against non-parties and that he be instructed that his injunctive

complaint is against state authorities. 

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

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

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: December 11, 2006

cc: John A. Curran, Esq.

 Jonathan A. Lax, Esq.

 William J. Carey, pro se

 

Case 1:06-cv-00293-SM Document 20 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 1
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, August 2-6, 2004Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,181,257 48,512 194,695 434,333 189,847 30,152 30,7Number of loans 33,547 2,450 7,656 12,594 4,026 1,003 1,2Weighted average maturity (months)1 17.96 14.02 30.05 21.69 13.87 6.95 21.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 7.61 8.98 22.96 7.24 .63 .36 8.9Weighted average risk rating3 2.95 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 nWeighted average interest rate4 5.51 6.15 6.05 5.31 4.93 6.02 5.5 Standard error5 .10 .15 .20 .13 .17 .54 .4 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.43 7.08 6.81 6.50 5.64 7.47 6. 25th percentile 4.34 5.58 5.30 4.33 4.32 4.59 4. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.34 6.29 5.17 5.32 4.19 8.14 5.7 Other livestock 5.54 3.92 5.95 5.48 4.03 4.87 7. Other current operating expenses7 5.84 6.74 6.27 5.55 5.27 6.48 5.

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.65 5.44 6.35 5.55 4.67 4.75 7. Farm real estate 5.33 6.73 5.75 4.91 5.21 5.71 6.9 Other8 5.07 4.00 5.97 4.57 4.74 4.30 4.5

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 73.67 39.65 46.70 72.76 96.44 92.25 64.7 Under commitment 74.48 49.96 46.57 74.70 87.53 92.61 65.2 Callable 20.23 21.86 40.93 24.40 9.70 4.75 5. Subject to prepayment penalty .86 2.98 .04 1.15 1.35 .67 2. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.20 10.92 4.86 4.14 5.97 3.75 2. Other livestock 11.90 14.12 28.69 10.19 9.55 8.53 6. Other current operating expenses7 38.39 56.97 46.36 40.25 53.05 68.28 37.5

 Farm machinery and equipment 10.37 8.92 2.87 19.75 4.68 7.17 7. Farm real estate 6.21 8.08 12.30 8.62 3.67 .14 . Other8 28.93 .99 4.91 17.04 23.08 12.13 45.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 12.10 7.35 20.72 14.84 12.56 1.27 16. Other 82.47 91.94 73.14 77.92 84.58 98.73 70. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Exhibit 10.rr


 


Adopted pursuant to resolutions of the Cinergy


Corp. Benefits Committee on March 31, 2004


 


 


AMENDMENT TO THE


CINERGY CORP. 401(K) EXCESS PLAN


 


 


The Cinergy Corp. 401(k)
Excess Plan, originally adopted as of January 1, 1997, as amended from time to
time (the “Plan”), is hereby amended.




(1)           Explanation
of Amendment


 


The
Plan is amended to provide that all distributions from the Plan will be made in
the form of cash, except with respect to nonelective employer contributions and
deferrals made to the Plan on or before December 31, 2003 on behalf of certain
participants designated by the Committee, which amounts may be distributed in
the form of shares of the Company’s common stock, if so elected by such a
designated participant, to the extent such amounts are deemed invested in the
Company’s common stock as of December 31, 2003.


 


(2)           Amendment


 


Section
5.1(d) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(d)                           Distribution in
Cash or in Kind.  All
distributions from the Plan shall be made in the form of cash.  Notwithstanding the preceding sentence,
amounts credited on or before December 31, 2003 to the Nonelective Employer
Contributions Account or the Deferral Account of any Participant designated by
the Benefits Committee (the “Designated Participants”), adjusted for earnings
and losses, may be distributed to such Designated Participant, if so elected by
the Designated Participant in accordance with procedures established by the
Benefits Committee, in the form of Company Stock to the extent such amounts are
deemed invested in Company Stock as of December 31, 2003.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Cinergy
Corp. has caused this Amendment to be executed and approved by its duly
authorized officer as of March 31, 2004.


 


 


	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Timothy V. Verhagen

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Timothy J. Verhagen

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Vice President of Human
  Resources
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (08-065)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council. The agenda for the meeting includes updates from each of the Council committees, including discussion and deliberation of potential recommendations. The Council Committees address NASA interests in the following areas: Aeronautics, Audit and Finance, Space Exploration, Human Capital, Science, and Space Operations. 

# DATES:

Thursday, October 16, 2008, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

Sea Oats Room, Hilton Cocoa Beach, 1550 North Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Paul A. Iademarco, Designated Federal  Official, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546,  202-358-1318. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

 [FR Doc. E8-22320 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 06-cv-354-PB

General Electric Company

O R D E R

Document Nos. 37 and 44 seek to strike evidence cited by

defendant General Electric Company in its memorandum in support

of its motion for summary judgment and its memorandum in

opposition to the United States’ motion for partial summary

judgment. Because General Electric has failed to establish that

the information in question is based on personal knowledge and is

otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, I grant the

motions to strike. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 3, 2008

cc: Peter Biagetti, Esq.

Daniel Bleck, Esq.

Bret Cohen, Esq.

William Cowan, Esq.

Catherine Fiske, Esq.

Jeffrey Porter, Esq.

Laura Rowley, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 51 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSCRYPT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,594
<SECURITIES>                                    14,150
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,404
<PP&E>                                          11,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,025
<BONDS>                                          2,595
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,185
<SALES>                                         21,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,988
<CGS>                                           12,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (295)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                       712
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,316
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.10
<FN>
<F1>INTEREST EXPENSE IS NET OF $394 OF INTEREST INCOME LESS $99 OF INTEREST
EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NA R E ND R A P R AS AD , P et i t i on er , v. MI C HA E L B . MUKA S E Y, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71664 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 652- 077 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N ar e ndr aP r a s a d, anat i ve and c i t i z e n of F i j i , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen al l egi ng i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 

# FI LED SEP 30 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71664 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . R e v ie w in g f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng P ra sa d’ s m ot i on t o reopen because i tw as fi l ed m ore than tw o years af t erthe B IA ’ s M ay12 , 20 05 , order d is m is s in g th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , an dP r a s a df a ile dto d e m o n s tr ate th at h e a c te dw ith th e du e d ilig e n c e r e qu ir e df o re qu itab le to llin g , se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 3 2 1 F .3 da t 8 9 7 ( e qu itab le to llin g av a ilab le “w h e n ap e titio n e ris prevent ed fr om fi l i ng because of dec ept i on , fr aud, or error, as l on g as the pet i t i on er a c ts w ith du e d ilig e n c e ” ) ; se e al so Si ng h v. G on zales , 4 9 1 F .3 d1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 6 - 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . In l i g h to f o u r d i sp o si t i o n , w e d o n o treach P rasad ’ s rem ai n i n g co n t en t i o n s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
### C OURT OF 

### A PP EALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 12

- 00462

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 18938

Style: Kenneth Dale Childers, Jr.

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : March 27, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Appella nt's Pro Se Brief or Response to Anders

Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Pro se response

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: February 4, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 1

Date Requested: May 6, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: May 6, 2013

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________

________________________

Judge's signature: /s/ Justice Michael Massengale

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: M a rch 29, 2013
#### Henry J. VEITH, Jr. v. Raymond Harold REYNOIR.

No. 19350.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 14, 1955.

Frederick G. Veith, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Harry R. Cabral, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

By Act No. 615 of 1954, Article 3519 of the LSA-Civil Code was amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

> “Any appeal, now or hereafter pending in any appellate court of the State, in which five years have elapsed without any steps having been taken in the prosecution thereof, shall be considered as abandoned, and the court in which said appeal is pending shall summarily dismiss such appeal.”

The appeal in this matter was lodged on June 27, 1949. No steps were taken in the prosecution thereof and accordingly counsel for appellant was given due notice that on the 3rd day of January, 1955, the appeal would be considered as abandoned and would be dismissed. On January 3, 1955, counsel for appellant filed a protest against the dismissal of the appeal, complaining that, although the appeal had been on our docket for more than five years and although no steps in the prosecution thereof had been taken, the matter had never been reached for hearing by this Court since it was on the ordinary docket.

Counsel suggested that in such situation the appeal should not be dismissed since, at all times, appellant had been ready and willing to present the matter had it been reached on our ordinary docket.

On that same day, January 3, 1955, counsel for appellant filed a motion suggesting that the appeal should be transferred to our preference docket.

At that time there was no rule of this Court which, in such a situation, required that counsel must ask that such a case be transferred to our preference docket. Consequently, since there was no requirement that such a case be transferred to our preference docket, we feel that we would not be justified in dismissing the case which had never been reached for hearing. Therefore, this appeal will not be dismissed but will be transferred to our preference docket and fixed for hearing in due course.

It is now so ordered.

Appeal transferred to preference docket.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael DeAngelis

v. Civil No. 06-cv-376-PB

New Hampshire State Prison, et al.

O R D E R

An evidentiary hearing on plaintiff’s motion for emergency

preliminary injunction will be held on July 19, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. 

Denial of access to his legal work is allegedly impacting his

ability to respond to a summary judgment motion as ordered by

Judge McAuliffe in 04-cv-456-SM. The subpoenas are denied. See

LR 45.2. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 12, 2007

cc: Andrew B. Livernois, Esq.

 Michael DeAngelis, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00376-JL Document 45 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Branlett Eugene KIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10354.

D.C. No. CR-99-40162-DLJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

*722Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN 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**

Branlett Eugene Kimmons appeals his conviction and 110-month sentence imposed after his jury trial for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)(d).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U. S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Kimmons has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Kimmons has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,215
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    159,653
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          38,407
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            38,859
<LOANS>                                        863,990<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,159,508
<DEPOSITS>                                     705,589
<SHORT-TERM>                                   155,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             25,924
<LONG-TERM>                                    142,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,159,508
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 50,422
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,156
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   500
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                56,078
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,283
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,582
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,496
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,050
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 164
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,468
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,468
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,362
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,305
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,456
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,788
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      128
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,721
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,721
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,488
<FN>
<F1>
LOANS HELD TO MATURITY
</FN>
        

</TABLE>