alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1992...... 100.0 76.2 18.8 3.9 .8 .2 .0

1993...... 100.0 80.7 15.8 2.8 .6 .1 ...

1994...... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

1993: Q4... 100.0 80.7 15.8 2.8 .6 .1 ...

1994: Q1... 100.0 79.3 16.7 3.3 .5 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.9 16.2 2.4 .4 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 83.5 13.7 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995: Q1... 100.0 81.6 15.3 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 82.0 15.0 2.6 .2 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.8 14.3 2.4 .3 .0 .1

 Q4... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996: Q1... 100.0 78.1 17.4 3.6 .6 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 78.0 17.2 4.0 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .5 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997: Q1... 100.0 79.1 16.7 3.7 .4 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.5 15.8 3.2 .3 ... .1

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

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

 ... Not applicable.

26
Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 8Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 8Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 8Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 4 of 8Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 5 of 8Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 6 of 8Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 7 of 8Case 1:07-cv-00349-PB Document 2 Filed 10/31/07 Page 8 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

Thomas Sutliffe, et al .

V .

Town of Epping, et al .

Civil No . 06-cv-474-JL

ORDER

Re : Document No . 60, Motion to Continue Tria l

Ruling : Denied without prejudice . November 4 is ten months

away, and the motion to continue contains no indication that the

Joubert case is likely to require a trial, or more likely to

require a trial than this case . Counsel may re-file the motion

after September 15, 2008 if both cases look like they are headed

for trial, and can be assured she will receive the desired

continuance . If the court has misunderstood the purpose of the

motion, or if the November 4 trial date is unsatisfactory to any

party or party's counsel for some other reason, either party may

move for reconsideration of this order .

/s/ Joseph N . Laplante

Joseph N . Laplante

U .S . District Judge

Date : February 6, 200 8

cc : Benjamin T . King, Esq .

Charles Douglas, III, Esq .

Charles Bauer, Esq .

Daniel Mullen, Esq .

Diane Gorrow, Esq .

Case 1:06-cv-00474-JL Document 61 Filed 02/06/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven L. Bromley

v. Civil No. 06-cv-181-JD

State of Utah, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 12, 2006, Steven L. Bromley sued the State of Utah

and several of its officers who have garnished his wages in New

Hampshire. Bromley claims that the defendants’ actions have

violated his constitutional right to due process, were taken in

the absence of jurisdiction over him, and violate the provisions

of 15 U.S.C. § 1673. He requested that the court grant him

relief in a temporary restraining order.

In a Report and Recommendation issued on May 17, 2006, I 

recommended that Bromley’s request for a temporary restraining

order be denied, but that a prompt preliminary injunction hearing

be set. Document No. 4. Bromley filed no objection to the

Report and Recommendation, and the District Judge approved it on

June 9, 2006. Document No. 6. This matter was then scheduled

for a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on June 26, 2006.

Notice of the injunction hearing was sent to Bromley, and that

Case 1:06-cv-00181-JD Document 7 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 2
2

notice has not been returned to the court as undeliverable. In

addition, Bromley was informed that since he is proceeding in

this action in forma pauperis, he is entitled to have the United

States Marshal serve the complaint and summonses on defendants. 

Blank summonses were sent to Bromley and have not been returned

to the court.

This matter was called for a preliminary injunction hearing

as scheduled on June 26, 2006. Neither Bromley nor any of the

named defendants appeared. Accordingly, I recommend that the

court dismiss this action without prejudice based on Bromley’s

failure to prosecute.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 26, 2006

cc: Steven L. Bromley, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00181-JD Document 7 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Walter S. Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify,
pursuant of ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that
to his/her knowledge:

         (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 the report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ WALTER S. WOLTOSZ
---------------------
Walter S. Woltosz
Chief Executive Officer
January 11, 2008


/S/ MOMOKO A. BERAN
-------------------
Momoko A. Beran
Chief Financial Officer
January 11, 2008

(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-214113) and Amendment No. 512 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763),
      and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity
      Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC

Civil No. 07-cv-350-JM

v.

World Sport Products, Inc.

O R D E R

The court granted the joint motion to stay this civil action on March 24, 2008, pending

completion of an ongoing arbitration in California.

There appears to be no further reason to maintain the file as an open one for statistical

purposes. The Clerk is instructed to statistically close the case. 

Defendant's counsel shall file a status report every 90 ninety days commencing June 1,

2008.

Nothing contained in this Order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this

matter, and should further proceedings become necessary, any party may move to reopen.

SO ORDERED.

March 27, 2007 /s/Justo Arenas 

Justo Arenas

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Teresa C. Tucker, Esq.

Michael J. Bujold, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00350-JM Document 30 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.



This Annual Statement as to Compliance
is delivered to you pursuant to Section 2.9 (c) of the 2019-1 Servicing Supplement dated as of January 1, 2019 (the “Agreement”)
and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Automobile Leasing 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 GMF Leasing LLC 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 February 21, 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 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-218-01-SM

Richard Porter

ORDER

Re: Document No. 22, Assented to Motion for Status of

Counsel Hearing

Ruling: Denied. There does not appear to be any need for a

status conference with respect to counsel. Defendant has not

requested new counsel and counsel has not moved to withdraw. The

representations made in the motion do not describe any

disqualifying conflict of interest, or an irreparable breakdown in

the relationship between counsel and client. No doubt the client

is difficult, given his disadvantages, but the difficulties

described will merely be assumed by another attorney, and another,

and another, if a change in appointed counsel could be had on such

common grounds. It is not necessary for counsel and defendant to

get along well, it is necessary only that counsel provide defendant

with a zealous and effective defense within the bounds of the law

and ethical standards. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: March 13, 2009

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cr-00218-SM Document 23 Filed 03/13/09 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL RHAMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR97-217-S, CA-00-3749-S) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell Rhames, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Darrell Rhames appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (1994) after construing it as a motion to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record andthe district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Rhames , Nos. CR-97-217-S; CA-00-3749-S (D. Md. filed Jan. 3, 2001, entered Jan. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
USDCNH-92 (10-05)

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IMPORTANT NOTICE

DOCUMENTS MUST BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY

Effective October 1, 2005, all members of the bar for the U.S. District Court for the

District of New Hampshire are required to file documents in all cases electronically

through the court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system. 

Our records indicate that you currently have an ECF case pending in this court

and that you have not registered for e-filing.

Please complete an ECF Registration Form and mail it to:

Office of the Clerk

United States District Court

55 Pleasant St., Room 110

Concord, NH 03301-3941

Attn: ECF Registration

Pursuant to Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Section 2.1(c) you

must register within thirty (30) days.

The ECF Registration Form, Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing, User

Manual, Executive Summary, and other helpful information can be accessed on our

website: www.nhd.uscourts.gov. 

JAMES R. STARR

Clerk

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 2 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 1
SHANE COREY GRIFFIN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3410

Opinion filed August 19, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Shane Corey Griffin, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits. 

ROBERTS, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>   1

                                       EXHIBIT 11

                 TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (Unaudited And As Restated, See Note 11)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended               Six Months Ended
                                                             ----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                               June 30,         June 30,        June 30,         June 30,
                                                                 1997             1996             1997             1996
                                                             -----------      -----------      -----------      ----------- 
<S>                                                          <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>         
Pro Forma Net Loss                                           $  (790,234)     $   (16,568)     $  (647,723)     $    (8,677)
                                                             ===========      ===========      ===========      =========== 

                                                                           PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE - BASIC
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares - Basic                       9,283,078        6,783,078        8,991,412        6,783,078
                                                             ===========      ===========      ===========      =========== 
  Pro forma net loss per share - Basic                       $     (0.09)     $     (0.00)     $     (0.07)     $     (0.00)
                                                             ===========      ===========      ===========      =========== 

                                                                             PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE - DILUTED
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares - Basic                       9,283,078        6,783,078        8,991,412        6,783,078
Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plans (*)              --               --               --               --
                                                             -----------      -----------      -----------      ----------- 
Weighted average common shares - Diluted                       9,283,078        6,783,078        8,991,412        6,783,078
                                                             ===========      ===========      ===========      =========== 
Pro forma net loss per share - Diluted                       $     (0.09)     $     (0.00)     $     (0.07)     $     (0.00)
                                                             ===========      ===========      ===========      =========== 

</TABLE>




(*) Common stock equivalents were not included as their effect would be
anti-dilutive.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-231-SM-1

Misty Lawrence

O R D E R

On May 27, 2008, defendant appeared for a “probable cause”

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on one alleged violation of

conditions of supervision. The government established probable

cause to believe that defendant violated her condition requiring

participation in a drug treatment program by leaving the

evaluation. I therefore find probable cause to hold her for a

revocation hearing. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). 

Under Rule 32.1(a)(6) defendant bears the burden of establishing

by clear and convincing evidence that she will not flee and that

she poses no danger to any other person or to the community. 

Defendant has been adamant that she does not need inpatient

treatment. She walked away from the LTG and Serenity

evaluations. She has no solid residence. She has been defiant

to the Probation Officer, to drug treatment personnel and even

Case 1:07-cr-00231-SM Document 17 Filed 05/29/08 Page 1 of 3
2

refused to leave a private residence. She does not believe

anyone can order her to do anything. Since I find that she is a

danger, I order her to go to jail until the revocation hearing. 

The Marshal’s service made her do what I ordered. There are no

conditions which are likely to assure her presence and the safety

of the community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

Case 1:07-cr-00231-SM Document 17 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 3
3

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 29, 2008

cc: Mark E. Howard, Esq.

 Debra M. Walsh, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00231-SM Document 17 Filed 05/29/08 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      14,025,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,970,533
<ALLOWANCES>                                   706,120
<INVENTORY>                                  2,855,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,362,980
<PP&E>                                       7,603,486
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,922,599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,803,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,477,006
<BONDS>                                      2,850,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,831
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,383,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,803,079
<SALES>                                      4,728,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,728,403
<CGS>                                        1,632,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,632,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,710,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               487,001
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (76,388)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                975,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                   292,507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            682,515
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   682,515
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>