alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
                                 Estimated volume                 Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      ______________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
1993......    |          54       7      16       5       26      .155      .020      .049     .014      .069
1994......    |          69      10      11      15       33      .187      .026      .032     .037      .082
1995......    |          51      -2      14      13       25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
1996......    |          95      16      27      24       30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19      19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15      24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37      35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17      34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53     140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50      58       73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |         175      34      35      48       58      .382      .074      .080     .108      .128
2004......    |        n.a.      28      17      46     n.a.      n.a.      .062      .039     .099      n.a.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 82 Filed 09/16/09 Page 1 of 1
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, May 1-5, 2006Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,289,765 51,552 89,228 725,569 208,373 51,710 96,13Number of loans 19,578 744 1,778 10,177 3,182 1,090 1,55Weighted average maturity (months)1 13.83 10.90 12.17 11.67 16.49 15.91 18.8

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 2.88 3.58 4.33 1.74 1.37 10.30 5.3

Weighted average risk rating3 3.11 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.

Weighted average interest rate 4 7.95 7.62 8.24 7.81 8.30 8.44 8.1

 Standard error5 .16 .18 .11 .29 .24 .42 .1

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.57 8.03 8.94 8.30 9.11 9.11 8.5 25th percentile 7.45 6.98 7.25 7.23 7.50 7.04 7.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.26 8.37 7.78 8.24 8.52 8.49 8.2 Other livestock 8.12 7.49 8.00 7.79 8.47 7.92 7.6 Other current operating expenses7 8.28 7.62 8.33 8.32 8.41 8.42 8.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.93 7.91 8.06 7.85 8.99 9.94 7.8 Farm real estate 7.86 7.99 8.42 7.82 7.75 8.67 8.3 Other8 7.45 6.73 8.38 7.03 7.94 8.40 8.0

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 86.17 52.87 63.36 91.94 96.80 77.82 67.9 Under commitment 87.22 87.84 89.78 85.82 86.02 91.91 94.2 Callable 19.31 36.56 46.12 12.32 18.54 9.19 34.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.62 17.27 11.69 3.79 8.27 1.14 6.2 Other livestock 7.32 11.99 8.27 4.25 19.18 3.82 5.6 Other current operating expenses7 35.72 50.53 52.22 31.76 30.99 78.38 40.3 Farm machinery and equipment 21.95 3.43 5.26 34.80 7.25 2.76 5.9 Farm real estate 2.21 2.35 2.03 .95 4.00 .05 5.7 Other8 27.19 14.43 20.53 24.45 30.31 13.86 36.1

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 7.04 2.48 6.27 4.12 7.72 15.75 5.8 Other 88.62 76.18 88.63 92.74 88.18 78.44 90.9 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL MANLEY, §

§ No. 344, 2014

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, §

§ Court Below—Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: October 18, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 20th day of October 2017, it appears to the Court that the judgment of 

the Superior Court should be affirmed largely on the basis of and for the reasons 

assigned in its decision dated May 29, 2014.1 In particular, we agree with the 

Superior Court that the claims in this repetitive Rule 61 petition were procedurally 

barred.

In addition, as to the Strickland claims, like the Superior Court, we cannot 

conclude that any of the supposedly deficient actions of trial counsel, had they been 

done differently, would have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome, 

 

1

State v. Manley, 2014 WL 2621317 (Del. Super. May 29, 2014).
2

whether taken individually or collectively. Although Manley takes issue with 

aspects of counsel’s performance, as a general matter, trial counsel had a reasonable 

strategy and aggressively tried to create reasonable doubt about the state’s case 

against Manley. But, as the Superior Court found, no prejudice within the meaning 

of Strickland was shown because the reality was that Manley was captured shortly 

after the murder while fleeing a vehicle with the beneficiary of the witness-murder. 

Given this evidence and the other evidence in the case, the marginalia Manley now 

contends would have been admitted if counsel had acted differently does not, as the 

Superior Court found, come close to creating a reasonable probability of a different 

outcome. None of that marginalia would have meaningfully changed the mix of 

evidence, and most importantly, none of it would have explained how Manley came 

to be riding in and fleeing from a vehicle with Stevenson within a short period after 

the murder.

The parties and this Court are in agreement that under this Court’s decisions 

of Rauf v. State2and Powell v. State,

3 Manley’s death sentence must be vacated and 

he must be sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without 

benefit of probation, parole, or any other reduction.

4

 

2 Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016).

3 Powell v. State, 2016 WL 7243546 (Del. Dec. 15, 2016).

4

11 Del. C. § 4209(d)(2).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for 

resentencing.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2005...... 77.1 62.7 71.4 73.0 83.9 90.6 67.6 62.9 65.4 83.2 2006...... 75.3 56.9 68.0 70.4 84.1 91.8 68.7 66.1 65.5 79.8 2003: Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Q2... 80.5 79.6 52.8 77.7 72.5 94.5 68.5 66.1 67.6 88.9  Q3... 74.5 67.5 48.7 71.0 68.8 92.1 60.5 60.1 60.9 82.0  Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2 2005: Q1... 72.7 61.2 73.9 73.5 51.6 83.2 66.7 59.1 64.2 78.1  Q2... 82.7 64.7 78.6 74.9 89.7 95.4 65.8 64.4 69.5 88.9  Q3... 75.3 70.0 70.5 63.3 89.1 88.4 68.5 66.5 61.5 81.4  Q4... 75.4 59.7 65.2 81.5 72.6 87.9 70.3 60.5 66.7 81.1 2006: Q1... 70.5 59.1 71.1 65.7 76.4 90.9 63.9 64.5 62.7 74.0  Q2... 75.9 68.7 69.8 66.0 85.6 90.8 68.8 64.4 70.3 79.4  Q3... 78.3 43.0 64.3 81.2 78.5 96.6 76.9 72.9 62.9 83.5  Q4... 76.6 62.7 67.4 74.9 91.4 87.1 65.4 62.3 65.3 82.9 2007: Q1... 64.6 71.8 68.1 55.8 50.0 87.4 62.6 64.9 70.9 62.9  Q2... 71.4 55.6 75.2 65.5 70.8 90.0 63.9 65.3 71.3 73.3  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000716778
<NAME> UNITED DIAGNOSTIC, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         176,848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               246,425
<PP&E>                                           4,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 255,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,288,898
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         28
<COMMON>                                         6,826
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,040,325)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   255,427
<SALES>                                        113,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,179
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,893,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,216,932)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,216,932)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,216,932)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (6.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.18)


</TABLE>
39

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

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

2000: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2001: Q1... 9.7 9.6 9.1

 Q2... 9.3 9.1 8.5

 Q3... 8.8 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 7.9 7.7 7.2

2002: Q1... 7.4 7.5 7.0

 Q2... 7.2 7.2 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 6.7 6.4

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.3

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

2000: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2001: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... 7.7 7.6 7.1

 Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 Q4... 7.2 7.0 6.6

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

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephanie B. Barrett

v. Civil No. 06-cv-240-SM

Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd.

O R D E R

Defendant seeks sanctions based upon Plaintiff’s alleged

violation of the stipulated protective order.

Background

The Protective Order provides in part that “(a)ll documents,

material and information designated as ‘Confidential’ and/or ‘For

Attorneys’ Eyes Only...’ shall be used solely for purposes of

this action and for no other purpose whatsoever.” Doc. no. 120

at ¶ 2. Experts are required to execute an “Agreement to be

bound by confidentiality.” Id at Exhibit A.

On January 16, 2008 defendant was ordered to state how many

Inspiration Rebreathers had been sold. Defendant did so on

January 28th by supplemental interrogatory which included other

answers. The supplemental answers were designated “confidential”

in anticipation of the Protective Order approved on February 5th. 

On March 15th, Dr. Deas executed a Confidentiality Agreement.

Case 1:06-cv-00240-SM Document 186 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 3
2

In April, plaintiff’s expert posted on a website the number

of Inspiration Rebreather units manufactured. Dr. Deas has

stated that the published number is a reiteration of estimated

numbers he first posted in 2006. I have seen two emails or blog

posts from 2006 which do estimate the numbers manufactured as 2,

2 1⁄2 or 3 times the 1650 in use. The interrogatory answer

indicates one of these estimates was accurate.

The defendant demanded that the number of manufactured units

posted by Dr. Deas’ spreadsheet be removed. Plaintiff notified

Dr. Deas to remove it, which he did within hours (even though he

had published the number in 2006). The April 21st posting by

Deas demonstrates that he had precise data available, but

declined to publish it because of confidentiality restrictions.

Conclusion

Assuming arguendo that the number manufactured is a trade

secret, the evidence is not sufficiently convincing that the

Protective Order was violated. One of the 2006 published numbers

is accurate and it appears from Deas’ April 21st posting that he

was unwilling to use the confidential data he had received under

the Protective Order. This motion is not the time or place for a

Case 1:06-cv-00240-SM Document 186 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Daubert determination. Defendant has not established a right to

sanctions against plaintiff nor, at this point, against Dr. Deas. 

The motion (Document no. 174) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 19, 2008

cc: Counsel of Record 

Case 1:06-cv-00240-SM Document 186 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1852 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1852

 To amend the Natural Gas Act to limit the extent to which natural gas 
             prices charged to end users may be increased.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2001

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Natural Gas Act to limit the extent to which natural gas 
             prices charged to end users may be increased.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION.

    Section 4(a) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717c(a)) is amended 
by adding at the end the following: ``A rate or charge made, demanded, 
or received, for a sale in interstate commerce of natural gas to an end 
user, that represents an increase in the rate or charge to such end 
user in excess of 15 percent per month shall be deemed to be not just 
and reasonable.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Mary Souther 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

New Hampshire Department of Revenue 

Administration 

 Defendant. 

 Case No.: 07-CV-0053-PB 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 NOW COMES plaintiff Mary Souther, through counsel Ransmeier & Spellman, 

Professional Corporation, and moves to amend her Complaint, and says as follows: 

1. Ms. Souther filed a timely Complaint with this Court to commence her 

suit against the State of New Hampshire Department of Revenue. 

2. Ms. Souther’s Complaint did not include a request for reinstatement to her 

position in her prayers for relief. 

3. Reinstatement is proper relief under the A.D.A. and a remedy which Ms. 

Souther is entitled to seek against the State. 

4. Accordingly, Ms. Souther requests that this Court, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 

15(a), allow her to amend her Complaint to include a prayer for reinstatement. 

5. There is no prejudice to either party or to the Court in allowing Ms. 

Souther to amend her Complaint. 

 WHEREFORE, Ms. Souther respectfully requests that this Court: 

A. Allow her to amend her Complaint to include a prayer for reinstatement. 

Case 1:07-cv-00053-PB Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 2
B. Order such further relief as is proper and just. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

MARY SOUTHER 

By Her Attorneys, 

RANSMEIER & SPELLMAN 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

Dated: May 8, 2007 By: /s/ Marie M. McPartlin

Marie M. McPartlin (NHBA 

#14581) 

 One Capitol Street, 

 P.O. Box 600 

 Concord, NH 03302-0600 

 Tel. (603) 228-0477 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been forwarded this day via ECF to 

Nancy Smith, Esquire. 

 /s/ Marie M. McPartlin________

 Marie M. McPartlin 

RULE 7.1(c) CERTIFICATE

 I, Marie M. McPartlin, certify that Nancy Smith, counsel for the D.R.A. does not 

assent to the relief sought herein. 

 /s/ Marie M. McPartlin________

 Marie M. McPartlin 

 

357824 

Case 1:07-cv-00053-PB Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company as of June 30, 1999
and for the three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,785,535
<SECURITIES>                                32,728,411
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,899,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,787,433
<PP&E>                                         939,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,991,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,765
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,991,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,334,176
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,721,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             255,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                275,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,646
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            275,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   267,894
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Teresa Morton

v. Civil No. 06-cv-216-JD

US Social Security Administration, Commissioner

ORDE R

This case was filed on June 9, 2006. On June 15, an Order Regarding Visiting Attorney was

issued for Attorney Wright to obtain local counsel. On July 13, the Court received a check in the

amount of $50 for admission, however, the Motion was not filed until July 20 . On July 20, Attorney

Kelly's credit card account was charged $50 for the pro hac admission .

As there has been a double payment as to Attorney Wright's pro hac admission, it is herewith

ordered that Attorney Raymond Kelly be reimbursed $50 .

SO ORDERED.

July 27, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: G. Robert Wright, Esq .

Raymond Kelly, Esq .

Case 1:06-cv-00216-JD Document 6 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>



                    VEREX LABORATORIES, INC.
                 14 Inverness Drive East, D-100
                         P.O. Box 3817
                   Englewood, Colorado  80112
                        (303) 790-4499
                   (303) 799-1734 - Facsimile


                       August 28, 1996

Board of Directors
Verex Laboratories, Inc.
14 Inverness Drive East
Building D, Suite 100
Englewood, Colorado  80112

     Re:     Employment Agreement

Dear Members of the Board:

     Whereas, I have entered in the above-captioned employment agreement 
contract with Verex Laboratories, Inc. (the "Company"), and said contract 
among other things, provides for an annual salary increase, vacation pay and 
certain royalties, and since I have not received said items of compensation 
from the company totaling approximately $2,208,050 at June 30, 1996, I hereby 
agree to defer any obligation of the Company to pay me this amount through 
January 1, 1998, in exchange for $10.00 and other good and valuable 
consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged hereby.

Sincerely,

/s/ James M. Dunn, M.D.
3236 E. Hinsdale Place
Littleton, Colorado  80122






                                                               EXHIBIT 10.21