alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19

A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters 

Percent except as noted 

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA 

Proportion of farm loans 

 outstanding, 2004 Q4 survey, 

 region share of national 

 total 3.0 8.8 26.8 22.7 8.5 4.6 4.6 8.9 5.2 6.9 

 

Sample coverage, 2004 Q4 

 survey, sample share of total 

 regional loans 11.5 2.9 18.7 33.9 17.7 13.0 7.7 5.3 8.6 28.4 

 

Avg. loan size, 2005 Q1 survey 

(thousands of dollars) 83.8 33.9 84.9 55.5 41.2 131.8 44.2 34.6 22.5 72.9 

 

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

 

2001: Q1 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.7 8.4 7.8 9.5 9.0 9.8 8.8 

 Q2 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.8 7.4 8.1 8.3 9.2 8.6 7.9 

 Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2 

 Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2 

 

2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9 

 (.12) (.37) (.26) (.22) (.63) (1.14) (.39) (.45) (.26) (.25) 

 Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1 

 (.14) (.29) (.27) (.21) (.48) (1.03) (.23) (.34) (.36) (.26) 

 Q3 6.0 6.9 4.8 5.6 4.4 4.9 6.6 5.3 5.6 4.3 

 (.14) (.03) (.51) (.40) (.69) (.68) (.22) (.96) (.36) (.33) 

 Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5 

 (.35) (.45) (.47) (1.01) (.56) (.62) (.68) (.35) (.47) (.62) 

 

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5 

 (.15) (.26) (.31) (.73) (.65) (.63) (.54) (.66) (.35) (.40) 

 Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2 

 (.29) (.17) (.37) (.34) (.71) (.63) (.45) (.71) (.36) (.50) 

 Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3 

 (.15) (.04) (.49) (.39) (.73) (.69) (.27) (.99) (.35) (.26) 

 Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2 

 (.59) (.22) (.30) (.71) (.54) (.83) (.54) (.58) (.39) (.42) 

 

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8 

 (.21) (.15) (.44) (.25) (.48) (.64) (.37) (.23) (.37) (.41) 

 Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1 

 (.19) (.05) (.66) (.32) (.45) (.31) (.57) (.19) (.40) (.24) 

 Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9 

 (.79) (.14) (.58) (1.15) (.38) (.75) (.41) (.45) (.29) (.08) 

 Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2 

 (.48) (.07) (.45) (.88) (1.01) (.81) (.30) (.22) (.30) (.10) 

 

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0 

 (.19) (.16) (.14) (.71) (.60) (.67) (.34) (.59) (.17) (.15) 

 Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7 

 (.19) (.21) (.77) (.75) (.28) (.65) (.33) (.19) (.05) (.18) 

 Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is 

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. They 

are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.
Exhibit 32


  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
               of Navidec, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the Quarterly report on
form 10Q of Navidec, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2003:

1)   complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
     and Exchange act of 1934; and

2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Navidec,
     Inc.

By /S/ John McKowen
------------------------------------
       John McKowen
CEO and Principal Accounting Officer

Date: December 11, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                 13,408
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          33,240
<ALLOWANCES>                            1,158
<INVENTORY>                             7,115
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       53,380
<PP&E>                                 11,126
<DEPRECIATION>                          5,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         65,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  24,506
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                   80
<OTHER-SE>                             40,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           65,086
<SALES>                                65,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       65,360
<CGS>                                  55,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          55,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        8,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1,841
<INCOME-TAX>                              755
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1,086
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,086
<EPS-BASIC>                            .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .13


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR MAGANA REYES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71026

Agency No. A043-245-712

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Salvador Magana Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition for review.

FILED

JUL 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71026

In his opening brief, Magana Reyes fails to address, and therefore has

waived any challenge to, the BIA’s February 11, 2008, order. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are

not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Theodore WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Sept. 14, 1954.

Davis, Davis & McClure, Madison, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin,. Atty.. Gen., Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SEBRING, Justice.

Theodore Warren was informed against for a second offense against the beverage laws. Section 562.451, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. He was tried and found guilty and sentenced to the state penitentiary. He has appealed from the judgment and sentence.

In an effort to prove that the defendant had been convicted of an offense against the beverage laws prior to the time of the alleged commission of the offense which formed the basis for the information for which the defendant was on trial, the trial court received in evidence, over the objection of the defendant, a certified copy of a judgment rendered in a prior proceeding in the County Judge’s Court of Madison County, Florida. The trial court also, allowed the County Judge of Madison County to testify, over seasonable objection by the defendant, that he had presided at the former trial of the defendant and that the judgment entered in the County Judge’s Court had never been reversed but was in full force and effect..

It is established by the decisions that the reception of such evidence constitutes reversible error. As is held in Norwood v. State, 80 Fla. 613, 86 So. 506, 508, in respect to a certified copy of a judgment of a prior conviction rendered in the County Judge’s Court, “The allegation in the [information] that the defendant had been theretofore convicted of a like offense was a necessary element in the crime with which he was charged. The *whole*record of .the first judgment of conviction should have been offered.” (Emphasis supplied.) By the term “whole record”' of the conviction and sentence is meant the record proper, “meaning the record of those elements necessary to show the existence of a, valid judgment in law without the aid of any presumptions of regularity and correctness;” that is to say, the information, the plea of the accused, the jurisdiction of the court, the verdict of the jury, and .the judgment and sentence of the court. These are the essential elements of the record *689proper. See Jarvis v. Chapman, 118 Fla. 577, 159 So. 282, 160 So. 366.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed.

It is so' ordered.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, HOB-SON, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, C.W.
Gilluly, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMASYS
Corporation;




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:




(a)         Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)         Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing of this
report (the “Evaluation Date”); and




(c)         Presented
in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;




5.           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the
audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):




(a)         All
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and




(b)         Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal
controls.





6.           The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in any
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.









July
      23, 2008
            /s/ C.W.
      Gilluly,
      Ed.D.C.W.
      Gilluly, Ed.D.President
      and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.



This Annual Statement as to Compliance
is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 13, 2019 (the “Agreement”)
and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2019-1 (the
“Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery
of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection
therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



The undersigned certifies
that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as
follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during
the preceding period from March 13, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any
such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





|By: | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 6, 2020
|--- | --------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|    | Connie Coffey                           |  |                     
|    | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                     
|    | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Leon Hammell

v. Civil No. 06-cv-176-SM

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Pro se petitioner Michael Leon Hammell has filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging the constitutionality of his state court conviction

and confinement (document no. 1). The petition is before me for

preliminary review. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Proceedings (“Habeas Rules”) (requiring initial review to

determine whether the petition is facially valid and may be

served); United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire Local Rules 4.3(d)(authorizing the magistrate judge to

preliminarily review pro se pleadings). 

For the reasons stated in the report and recommendation

issued simultaneously herewith, I recommend that the petition be

served on the respondent as to Grounds Two, Three and Four. The

remaining claim, Ground One, fails to state a claim upon which

Case 1:06-cv-00176-SM Document 5 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 3
2

federal habeas relief may be granted, therefore, I have

recommended that it be dismissed.

Accordingly, I order the petition to be served on the

respondent. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings

(“§ 2254 Rules”). Respondent shall file an answer or other

pleading in response to the allegations made therein. See id.

(requiring reviewing judge to order a response to the petition). 

The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire Office

of the Attorney General as provided in the Agreement On

Acceptance Of Service, copies of this Order and the habeas

petition (document no. 1). Respondent shall answer or otherwise

plead within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The

answer shall comply with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5

(setting forth contents of the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

Case 1:06-cv-00176-SM Document 5 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 3
3

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 26, 2006

cc: Michael Leon Hammell, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00176-SM Document 5 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0607

IN THE MATTER OF

B.A.F.,

AN ALLEGED MENTALLY

ILL PERSON.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 5, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 25 2020

06/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0607
EXHIBIT 31.1








RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) CERTIFICATION (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)











I, Andrew J. McMonigle, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2019-1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.








Date: May 27, 2022








/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Name: Andrew J. McMonigle


Title: Vice President and Treasurer


(Senior officer in charge of securitization)


Company: CarMax Auto Funding LLC


as Depositor on behalf of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2019-1
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2006 (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 780(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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                             
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Kevin T. Michaels           
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
---

Exhibit 32.01





Officer Certification





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Form 10-Q), each of the undersigned officers of PSCo certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:





(1)
The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSCo as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Form 10-Q.





Date: Oct. 29, 2010





/s/ DAVID L. EVESDavid L. EvesPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ DAVID M. SPARBYDavid M. SparbyVice President and Chief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PSCo and will be retained by PSCo and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.