alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, NPercent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 317,311 56,553 107,384 76,657 23,748 1,013 17,13Number of loans 8,816 1,606 2,190 2,398 954 79 43Weighted average maturity (months)1 27.53 12.37 10.18 39.88 76.30 11.87 67.6

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 14.97 7.24 4.44 23.94 54.10 .67 24.8

Weighted average risk rating3 2.27 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate4 8.82 8.73 8.86 8.76 8.78 9.72 9.5

 Standard error5 .11 .34 .17 .17 .25 .57 .2

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.30 9.96 9.19 9.31 9.31 10.08 10.4 25th percentile 8.17 7.95 8.68 8.17 8.25 8.95 9.1 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.74 8.55 8.95 8.82 9.04 n.a. 9.4 Other livestock 8.88 8.27 n.a. 8.98 8.91 n.a. 9.0 Other current operating expenses7 9.05 9.13 8.89 9.15 9.69 9.72 9.1

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.53 9.42 7.57 9.32 9.29 n.a. 8.6 Farm real estate 8.27 7.47 8.44 8.14 8.25 n.a. 9.1 Other8 9.16 9.38 8.50 8.74 8.43 n.a. 10.4

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 50.98 50.72 65.77 40.43 46.94 100.00 59.1 Under commitment 62.04 62.16 72.10 71.99 39.50 100.00 50.4 Callable 15.10 28.67 11.62 11.27 17.69 n.a. 8.1 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 26.85 34.44 39.55 15.17 15.72 n.a. 5.4 Other livestock 15.72 15.01 17.47 17.85 10.70 n.a. 11.6 Other current operating expenses7 34.90 41.31 35.22 29.43 17.56 100.00 26.7

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.50 4.28 5.81 3.78 5.82 n.a. 1.9 Farm real estate 13.41 4.80 1.61 29.75 36.27 n.a. 27.1 Other8 4.63 .15 .34 4.03 13.93 n.a. 27.0

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 24.65 .65 16.15 43.05 51.25 n.a. 55.1 Other 74.53 98.53 83.19 55.59 47.65 n.a. n.a Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22319]



[[Page 55108]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Office of Community Services

AGENCY: Office of Community Services, ACF, DHHS.

ACTION: Notice to Award a Program Expansion Supplement for the 
Community Action Partnership (CAP) in Washington, DC.

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

    CFDA#: 53.570.
    Legislative Authority: Section 678A(a)(1)(A) of the Community 
Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act of 1981, (Pub. L. 97-35) as amended by 
the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and 
Educational Services (COATES) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 
1998, (Pub. L. 105-285) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) to use a percentage of appropriated funds for training, 
technical assistance, planning, evaluation, performance measurement, 
monitoring, assistance for States in carrying out corrective actions 
and the correction of programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities 
under the CSBG Act.
    Amount of Award: $40,000.
    Project Period: 9/30/2006-9/29/2009.
SUMMARY: This supplement would enhance the ability for the CAP to find 
new ways to address training and technical assistance needs. After 
gathering information from the Community Action Network, the applicant 
will provide a report to the Office of Community Services (OCS) 
containing recommendations about creative approaches and strategies for 
providing technical assistance and training to Community Action 
Agencies (CAAs). The applicant will compile information gathered thru: 
Brainstorming sessions with members of the Community Action Network and 
the Virtual CAP. The report to OCS will include sections on major 
recommendations and a strategy for implementation. These will be 
supported by summaries of the ideas presented at the sessions and input 
compiled by Virtual CAP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josephine B. Robinson, Director, 
Office of Community Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, 
DC 20047, Telephone: 202/401-9333.

    Dated: September 16, 2008.
Josephine B. Robinson,
Director, OCS.
 [FR Doc. E8-22319 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1 

TP 16-00249 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ. 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF NATHAN BROWN, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALBERT PRACK, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL HOUSING, 

R. CALIDONNA, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT 

ADMINISTRATION, AND MOHAWK CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, RESPONDENTS. 

 

NATHAN BROWN, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Norman I.

Siegel, J.], entered July 2, 2015) to review a determination of

respondents. The determination found after a tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to

annul a determination finding him guilty, following a tier III

hearing, of violating various inmate rules, and imposing a penalty. 

At the outset, we note that, “ ‘[b]ecause the petition did not raise a

substantial evidence issue, Supreme Court erred in transferring the

proceeding to this Court’ ” (Matter of Wearen v Deputy Supt. Bish, 2

AD3d 1361, 1362). In the interest of judicial economy, we

nevertheless address petitioner’s contention that he was denied his

right to contact his attorney (see id.). Nothing in the record

indicates that petitioner sought to contact his attorney prior to the

hearing (cf. Matter of Jeckel v New York State Dept. of Corr., 111

AD3d 1180, 1181). Rather, the record establishes that petitioner

asked to consult with his attorney after the tier III hearing

commenced, and it is well established that an inmate does not have a

right to counsel at that hearing (see Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539,

570; Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 146). We therefore

confirm the determination and dismiss the petition. 

 Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                           10,662,348
<SECURITIES>                      8,471,149
<RECEIVABLES>                     7,411,810
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                      10,592,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 40,682,090
<PP&E>                            3,103,818
<DEPRECIATION>                    1,563,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   44,470,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             7,585,483
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             99,091
<OTHER-SE>                       36,785,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     44,470,210
<SALES>                           3,626,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  3,626,572
<CGS>                             2,677,337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     6,835,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (3,209,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (866,998)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (2,022,995)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (2,022,995)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.20)

        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                      10,997,266
<SECURITIES>                                 5,239,625
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,768,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                   692,028
<INVENTORY>                                    105,683
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,784,904
<PP&E>                                       3,011,695
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,860,440)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,489,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,258,722
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,346
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,805,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,489,853
<SALES>                                      5,454,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,684,184
<CGS>                                        1,580,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,913,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,825,768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,054,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,628,579)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,628,579)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.17)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.7



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



In connection with the Annual Report of
Acreage Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glen Leibowitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)      The
Report 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|April 29, 2019 | /s/ Glen Leibowitz                          
|-------------- | --------------------------------------------
|               | Glen Leibowitz                              
|               | Chief Financial Officer                     
|               | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Acreage Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Acreage Holdings, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 15








TXU Corp.:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of TXU Corp. and subsidiaries (TXU
Corp.) for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2003 and
2002, as indicated in our report dated November 11, 2003 (which includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 143 and the recission of Emerging Issues Task Force
Issue 98-10 as discussed in Note 1 to the Notes to Financial Statements);
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TXU Corp.'s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-37652, 333-64504,
333-64504-01, 333-64504-02, 333-71004, 333-71004-01, 333-71004-02, 333-84418,
333-84418-01, 333-84418-02 and 333-110125 on Form S-3 and Registration
Statements Nos. 333-32833, 333-32837, 333-45657, 333-46671, 333-79627 as amended
by Post Effective Amendment No. 1 thereto, 333-62014, 333-86640, 333-92260 and
333-105133 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Dallas, Texas
November 11, 2003
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-64,016] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade September 10, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed a company official on behalf of workers at Turbine Airfoil Designs, Inc., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

      ( print page 55141)    
Signed at Washington, DC this 18th day of September 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E8-22397 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### S. FRIEDLANDER v. J. T. SIMS.

No. 31789.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 10, 1935.

Stone & Stone, of Coffeeville, for appellant. S. C. Mims, Jr., of Grenada, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
23




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-47415, 33-17488, 33-60196, 333-18135, 333-136061 and 333-138506 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-25377 on Form S-3, of our report dated
September 21, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of The
Dress Barn, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the
Company’s adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No.
48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – An Interpretation of FASB
Statement No. 109”) and of our report dated September 21, 2009 relating to the
effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Dress Barn, Inc. for the year
ended July 25, 2009.




/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




New York,
New York


September
21, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven J. Roy

v. Case No. 07-cv-353-PB

Commissioner Wrenn, et al.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated February 29, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

April 4, 2008 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Steven Roy, Pro Se

Danielle Pacik, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00353-PB Document 44 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Olympic Cascade Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert H. Daskal, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

            (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/ Robert H. Daskal
                                                  --------------------
                                                  Robert H. Daskal
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                                  February 7, 2006
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

** **

** **

****

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

** **

** **

** **

I, Joseph A. Venezia,do hereby certify that I am the Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and further certifyon behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement,dated as of October 17, 2018 (the “Agreement”), among World Omni Auto Receivables Trust 2018-D, as Issuing Entity,World Omni Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and the Servicer, as follows:

 

(i)                 A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Agreement,has been made under my supervision.

 

(ii)               To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntoset my hand as of March 6, 2020.

 

 

WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.

 

 

By: /s/ Joseph Venezia                            

Name: Joseph Venezia

Title: Chief Financial Officer
183 La. 724

#### LEWIS et al. v. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF NEW ORLEANS et al.

No. 33460.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1935.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1935.

Agnes E. Lewis, in pro. per.

Plarold Moses, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs asked for and obtained an order for a suspensive and devolutive appeal from a judgment dismissing their suit. It was stated in the petition for the appeal, and in the order of appeal, that the appellants were allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, under the provisions of Act No. 156 of 1912, as amended by Act No. 260 of 1918 and by Act No. 165 of 1934, and that the appellants therefore were not required to furnish an appeal bond. They did not file the record in the Supreme Court, or obtain an extension of the time allowed for filing the record; but, on the eleventh day after the time had expired, they presented to the judge of the civil district court another petition for an appeal, and were granted another order of appeal, withouf bond. The appellants filed the record in the Supreme Court within the time stipulated in the new order of appeal. The defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the effect of the granting- of the first order of appeal was to transfer the case from the jurisdiction of the civil district court into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that the judge of the civil district court therefore had no authority to grant the second order of appeal.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is well founded. One who obtains an order for a devolutive appeal from a judgment which has been rendered against him, and files the appeal bond required hy law or by the order of appeal, thereby takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the judgment, and if he fails to file the record in the appellate court within the time allowed by law or by the order of appeal,- he thereby abandons his appeal and cannot take another appeal from the same judgment. Smith v. Vanhille, 11 La. 380, citing Code of Practice, art. 594; Braud *781v. Huth, 154 La. 1054, 98 So. 664; Mundy v. Phillips, 157 La. 445, 102 So. 519; In re Gem Co., 173 La. 934, 139 So. 11; Paramount Wood Products Co. v. Colonial Fire Underwriters, 180 La. 886, 158 So. 7. The same rule is applicable to a case where the appellant is not required to furnish an appeal bond, because in such a case the granting of the order of appeal completes the proceedings in the court that rendered the judgment, and divests the court of its jurisdiction over the case.

The appeal is dismissed.
1For example, plaintiff might well re-examine whether its

discovery requests comply with Rules 26 and 33. The defense

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ben’s Auto Body, Inc.

v. Civil No. 07-cv-417-PB

Progressive Casualty 

Insurance Company,

Progressive Direct

Insurance Company

O R D E R

The plaintiff moves to compel answers to interrogatories. 

Defendant interposes a catalogue of objections.

Discussion

This discovery dispute is precisely the type of unnecessary

dispute I thought New Hampshire lawyers had become smart enough

to resolve between themselves without any assistance from me. A

hearing will be held Tuesday, January 20, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. on

the motion unless the parties and counsel notify the Clerk that

they have resolved their answers. Each party and their attorney

should be prepared to show cause why they should not be

sanctioned.1

Case 1:07-cv-00417-PB Document 31 Filed 01/09/09 Page 1 of 2
might well ask itself for a justification for the claim of

privilege without a log and of “privacy claims” without moving

for a protective order.

2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 9, 2009

cc: Earl L. Kalil, Jr.

 Christopher E. Ratte, Esq.

 Russell F. Hilliard, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00417-PB Document 31 Filed 01/09/09 Page 2 of 2