alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harold L. HALL et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45726.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1972.

*564Edith Roberts, Austin, for appellants.

Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty., and Michael J. McCormick, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a bond forfeiture proceeding.

Appellants first contend that the bond is insufficient to meet the requirements of Art. 17.08 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., Sec. 4, in that the principal failed to write his address following his signature. Such omission does not exonerate either the principal or the surety. Bowen v. State, 413 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.Cr.App.)

They next contend that the bond is not enforceable because the number of the Justice Precinct in which complaint had been filed was not stated. We find no language in Art. 17.08, supra, which requires that the name of the court in which the bond is set appear on the face of the bond.

It is further contended that the judgment was for a greater sum than the sum of the bond. The bond was in the sum of $5,000. The judgment authorized recovery from both the principal and the surety in the full amount of the bond. Recently in Barrington v. State, 437 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Cr.App.), this court held that such recovery was proper, but that payment by one of the parties constitutes complete settlement and satisfaction for all as far as the State is concerned.

Appellants’ fourth contention is that the bond required the principal to appear in the 147th District Court of Travis County while the bond was forfeited in the 167th District Court of Travis County which had no jurisdiction to hear the forfeiture proceedings. Art. 199, Sec. 167, Subsec. (G), Vernon’s Ann.C.S., authorizes the several District Judges of Travis County to try and determine any case or proceeding in any other District Court of said County without having the case transferred.

*565The fifth contention is that there is a fatal variance between the offense named in the bond and the offense designated in the judgment nisi. The bond recites the offense charged to be: “Possession of Marihuana”, while the judgment nisi recites “A felony, to wit: unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to wit: marihuana.”

Art. 725b, V.A.P.C. makes any possession of marihuana unlawful and makes marihuana a narcotic drug. There is no variance. Cummins v. State, 478 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Cr.App.)

Appellants’ sixth contention is that “the record clearly shows that the defendant appeared before the court on March 25, 1971, . . . and at that time the State should have set the $1,000 [pre-in-dictment bond] bond aside and held the defendant over on the $10,000 bond, as required by the indictment”. However, we have examined the record and find no evidence to indicate any post-indictment appearance by the appellants. Nothing is presented for review.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LARSCOM INCORPORATED FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,630
<SECURITIES>                                    16,838
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                       532
<INVENTORY>                                     14,823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,420
<PP&E>                                          19,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,443
<SALES>                                         40,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,969
<CGS>                                           20,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,198
<INCOME-TAX>                                       835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,363
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,363
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
<FN>
<F1>Item consists of basic earnings per share
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report of StemGen, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Simon Dawson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: February 21, 2019BY: /s/ Simon DawsonSimon DawsonCEO and Chairman of the Board  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:08-cv-00233-JL Document 8 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-00233-JL Document 8 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-00233-JL Document 8 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Olga L. Bogdanov,

Chapter 7 Trustee of

Amherst Technologies, LLC, et al.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-430-JD

Airport Network Solutions, Inc.

O R D E R

Olga L. Bogdanov is the Chapter 7 Trustee in In re Amherst

Technologies, LLC, et. al., Bk. No. 05-12831-JMD. In the course

of that proceeding, Bogdanov has filed a series of adversary

actions seeking to recover accounts receivable owed to the

estate. Because those actions involved pre-petition and postpetition accounts receivable, Bogdanov filed motions to have the

reference to the bankruptcy court withdrawn pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 157(d). This court consolidated five previous cases for the

purpose of deciding the motions to withdraw the reference and

then denied the motions. See Olga L. Bogdanov, Chapter 7 Trustee

v. B&H Foto & Electronics, Corp., et al., 06-cv-384-JD (D.N.H.

Nov. 14, 2006) (doc. nos. 5 & 6).

In this case, Bogdanov moves to withdraw the reference for

an adversary proceeding against Airport Network Solutions, Inc.,

in which she seeks to recover $24,066.44 in pre-petition accounts

receivable. Airport Network Solutions has defaulted in the case,

Case 1:06-cv-00430-JD Document 3 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 3
2

and the Trustee has moved for entry of default judgment. Judge

Deasy recommends that Bogdanov’s motion to withdraw the reference

be granted because the claims against Airport Network Solutions,

Inc., involve pre-petition accounts receivable that are non-core

matters. 

In the context of the Trustee’s motions to withdraw the

reference for the five previous adversary proceedings, the court

concluded that because of the complexity of the bankruptcy case

and the number of adversary proceedings it has generated, it was

more appropriate to have all of the proceedings heard in the

bankruptcy court. See Bogdanov, 06-cv-384 (doc. no. 6) at 4-5. 

Although this case seeks to recover only pre-petition accounts

receivable, while the previous cases sought both pre- and postpetition accounts, that difference has not been shown to be a

basis for withdrawing the reference here. In light of the need

for continuity in the disposition of these proceedings, as noted

in the court’s decision denying the previous motions, it is

appropriate in this case, as in the five previous cases, to have

the issues addressed in the first instance by the bankruptcy

court.

Case 1:06-cv-00430-JD Document 3 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s motion to withdraw

the reference (document no. 2) is denied. The clerk of court

shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 28, 2006

cc: Olga L. Bogdanov, Esquire

Clerk, US Bankruptcy Court 

Case 1:06-cv-00430-JD Document 3 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-77-PB

Kevin Corbin

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

February 5, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete extended discovery, including

procuring IRS records, and prepare for trial. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 5, 2007 to May 6, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:07-cr-00077-PB Document 19 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 28, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 23, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 2, 2008

cc: Robert Kinsella, Esq.

Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00077-PB Document 19 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Douglas Warford et al

v. Civil No. 06-463-JL 

Industrial Power Systems, Inc.

 O R D E R

The court, sua sponte, has reconsidered its order denying

the plaintiffs’ request for a continuance, instead affording

protection for Maine school vacation week. When the court denied

the request for a continuance, it had not reviewed the parties’

Pretrial Statements which estimate that the length of trial will

be 4-5 days. This will likely prove unworkable, in that a jury

trial before the court is scheduled for the same date, and that

case will be tried prior to initiation of trial in this matter.

Since counsel are in agreement that the week of May 20,

2008, is a suitable trial date, the Clerk will reschedule trial

on or after that date.

The court apologizes to the parties and counsel for any

inconvenience caused by the court’s initial order on the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 19, 2008

Case 1:06-cv-00463-JL Document 44 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

cc: Christine Friedman, Esq.

William H. Welte, Esq.

Lee Stephen MacPhee, Esq.

Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.

Michael Kaplan, Esq.

Daniel P. Luker, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00463-JL Document 44 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1885 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1885

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of 
 status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
     extending the deadline for classification petition and labor 
             certification filings, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1885

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of 
 status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
     extending the deadline for classification petition and labor 
             certification filings, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Section 245(i) Extension Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1255(i)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``2001;'' and 
        inserting ``2001, or during the 120-day period beginning on the 
        date of the enactment of the Section 245(i) Extension Act of 
        2001;''; and
            (2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
            ``(C) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for 
        classification, or an application for labor certification, 
        described in subparagraph (B) that was filed after January 14, 
        1998--
                    ``(i) was physically present in the United States 
                on December 21, 2000; and
                    ``(ii) demonstrates that the familial or employment 
                relationship that is the basis of such petition for 
                classification or application for labor certification 
                existed on or before April 30, 2001;''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
1On March 21, 2008, Palermo filed his complaint in this

matter (document no. 1). On May 12, 2008, Palermo filed an

“additional complaint” (document no. 3). On May 21, 2008,

Palermo filed another “additional complaint” (document no. 6). 

ON August 4, 2008, he filed an untitled addendum (document no.

9). I construe the latter three filings as addenda to the

original complaint, and will consider the four documents, in the

aggregate, to be the complaint in this matter.

2In addition to Collins, Palermo names CCHC Nurse Sherill

Eastman and CCHC Dr. Robe Soucy as defendants to this action.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Palermo

v. Civil No. 08-cv-109-JL

Suzanne Collins, Superintendent,

Coos County Department of

Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Before the Court is Christopher Palermo’s complaint

(document nos. 1, 3, 6 & 9),1 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Palermo brings this action against Suzanne Collins,

Superintendent of the Coos County House of Corrections (“CCHC”),

and other CCHC employees,2 alleging that the defendants have

violated his federal constitutional rights during his

incarceration. The complaint is before me for preliminary review

Case 1:08-cv-00109-JL Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 3
3In my Report and Recommendation, I recommended dismissal of

all of the other claims in the complaint.

2

to determine whether, among other things, it states any claim

upon which relief might be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A;

United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons fully explained in my Report

and Recommendation issued simultaneously with this Order, I

direct service of the retaliatory transfer claim in the complaint

against defendant Collins, and service of the inadequate medical

care claim against defendants Eastman and Soucey.3

Palermo has completed summons forms for each of the

defendants to be served. Therefore, the Clerk’s office shall

issue the summonses against defendants and forward to the United

States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire (the “U.S.

Marshal’s office”) the summonses and copies of the complaint

(document nos. 1, 3, 6 & 9), the Report and Recommendation, and

this Order. Upon receipt of the necessary documentation, the

U.S. Marshal’s office shall effect service upon defendants. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Case 1:08-cv-00109-JL Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Palermo is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Justo Arenas

Justo Arenas

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 14, 2008

cc: Christopher Palermo, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00109-JL Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 3
221 La. 1026

#### LOUISIANA BOARD OF PHARMACY v. SMITH.

No. 40531.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1952.

A. V. Pavy, Kenneth Boagni, Opelousas, for defendant-appellant.

Henican, James *&*Cleveland, New Orleans, Dubuisson & Dubuisson, Edward Dubuisson, Opelousas, Murray F. Cleveland, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

This Court is without appellate jurisdiction of the appeal of the defendant, Lloyd T. Smith, from the judgment of the District Court enjoining him from operating a pharmacy without a permit and without having on duty a registered pharmacist, since the record fails to *affirmatively*disclose any amount in dispute or fund to be distributed — the other provisions of the Constitution, La.Const. of 1921, Art. 7, Sec. 10, by which appellate jurisdiction is vested in this Court being inapplicable. See State v. Cook, 197 La. 1027, 3 So.2d 114; New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co. v. Redmann, 210 La. 525, 27 So.2d 321; and Succession of Derouen, 216 La. 957, 45 So.2d 91. In the last-named case this Court quoted with approval the following from the Cook case: “ ‘In determining whether this court has appellate jurisdiction because of the amount in dispute, or because of the value of the thing in dispute, or because of the subject matter of the suit, in a given case, the record must show affirmatively that the court has appellate jurisdiction; otherwise the appeal must be dismissed or transferred to the Court of Appeal.’ ” 216 La. at page 960, 45 So.2d at page 92.

This Court not being one of original jurisdiction, the suggestion by the attorneys that, because of the importance of the issues herein, the record be supplemented by affidavits, to be filed in this Court, in order to establish that there is the requisite jurisdictional amount involved in the outcome of this suit, cannot be followed.

By virtue of the authority vested in this Court by LSA-R.S. 13:4441, 13:4442, it is ordered that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, the transfer to be made within 30 days after this decree has become final; otherwise the appeal is to be dismissed; the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal to this Court and the costs of transferring' the case to the Court of Appeal; all other costs to await the final disposition of the case.
#### Roland DYCK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8175.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 25, 1954.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1954.

Jackson, Mayer & Kennedy, Shreveport, for appellants.

Gravel *&*Downs, Alexandria, for inter-venor.

Hobbs & Yeates, Minden, for appellee.

GLADNEY, Judge.

Roland Dyck,, plaintiff and appellee herein suffered' personal injuries in the accident of December Í1, 1951, on U. S. Highway 80 involving a truck in which he was a passenger. Our findings on the issues of fact and law given in Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, La.App., 73 So.2d 583, are equally applicable to the instant case and our decision therein is controlling here.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment from which appealed be and the same is hereby annulled, set aside and reversed and plaintiff’s action dismissed. It is further ordered that the judgment in favor of the intervenor is annulled, set aside and reversed and intervenor’s claim is denied. ■Costs to be prorated equally between plaintiffs.

AYRES, J., dissents for the reason that he is of the opinion, that the driver of ■defendant’s truck was guilty of negligence ■constituting a proximate cause of the accident
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1997...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004...... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005...... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006...... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .1 .5

1998: Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999: Q1... 1.1 .5 .6 .3 .3 3.6 1.6 2.0 .9 1.0

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .8 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .8 1.5 .7 .8

 Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .1 .5 3.2 1.6 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .7 .2 .5 2.6 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.3 .7 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.5 1.1 1.4 .3 1.1

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.9 .7 1.2 .3 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 1.0 1.0 .2 .8

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7

 Q4... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 .9 .9 .2 .6

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .5

 Q2... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .7 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .1 .5

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24