alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,000 $24,000 $49,000 $99,000 $249,000 

Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 681,410 36,176 63,894 84,332 131,563 216,14

Number of loans 20,626 9,863 4,364 2,481 2,002 1,51

Weighted average maturity (months)1 34.10 12.08 13.81 18.66 38.18 43.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 12.71 6.36 5.87 9.08 13.95 12.0

Weighted average risk rating3 2.42 2.52 2.55 2.41 2.19 2.5

Weighted average interest rate4 6.54 7.35 7.05 6.67 6.51 6.5 Standard error5 .14 .13 .11 .10 .12 .2

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 7.38 8.03 7.67 7.50 7.25 7.2

 25th percentile 5.75 6.51 6.45 5.92 6.14 5.7

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.51 7.78 6.94 6.98 6.34 6.3

 Other livestock 6.86 7.43 7.09 6.66 7.01 6.6

 Other current operating expenses7 6.54 7.32 7.04 6.66 6.73 6.6

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.80 7.49 7.31 6.39 6.70 6.6

 Farm real estate 6.33 6.02 6.35 6.67 5.74 6.0

 Other8 6.41 7.38 7.39 6.65 6.58 7.3

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 58.60 56.02 54.37 47.20 51.44 63.1

 Under commitment 45.63 63.37 55.14 49.06 33.27 38.4

 Callable 28.70 21.07 31.82 29.18 18.16 34.3

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.01 3.70 10.24 17.52 15.48 6.1

 Other livestock 4.61 11.04 7.12 7.14 3.93 5.4

 Other current operating expenses7 50.54 68.21 64.45 52.71 54.18 51.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 12.80 11.67 12.67 15.31 6.33 14.0

 Farm real estate 13.00 1.65 3.28 .60 15.96 18.9

 Other8 10.04 3.73 2.25 6.73 4.13 4.0

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 24.15 5.66 7.39 15.21 23.61 35.0

 Other 72.63 87.45 87.35 81.21 74.48 62.4

 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.
Exhibit 32.1


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

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of M Power Entertainment Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     .    The Quarterly Report for the period ended Sept. 30, 2005 (the "Form
           10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
           Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     .    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
           all material respects, the financial condition and results of
           operations of the Company.



Date: May 15, 2006



/s/  Gary F. Kimmons
----------------------
Gary F. Kimmons
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Greg Schillinger

v. Civil No. 07-cv-309-PB

State of New Hampshire, 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 September 28, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

October 15, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Greg Schillinger, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00309-PB Document 4 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1901

To modify the manner in which the wage index adjustment to payments

under the Medicare Program to hospitals for inpatient hospital services

is calculated.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. KIND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To modify the manner in which the wage index adjustment

to payments under the Medicare Program to hospitals

for inpatient hospital services is calculated.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Equitable

5 Payment Enhancement Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1901 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF CALCULATION OF MEDICARE IN2 PATIENT HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective with respect to cost re4 porting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2002, in

5 determining what proportion of operating costs of inpa6 tient hospital services (as defined in section 1886(a)(4)

7 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(a)(4))) are

8 attributable to wages and wage-related costs, the Sec9 retary of Health and Human Services shall exclude the

10 following cost categories:

11 (1) ‘‘Professional fees’’.

12 (2) ‘‘Postal services’’.

13 (3) Under the cost category of ‘‘All other labor

14 intensive’’, the following:

15 (A) ‘‘Business services’’.

16 (B) ‘‘Computer and data processing’’.

17 (C) ‘‘Other membership organizations’’.

18 (b) USE OF MORE RECENT DATA IN UPDATING THE

19 WAGE INDEX.—The Secretary of Health and Human

20 Services, in updating the factor (established by the Sec21 retary) reflecting the relative hospital wage level in the

22 geographic area of a hospital compared to the national av23 erage hospital wage level under the second sentence of sec24 tion 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

25 1395ww(d)(3)(E)) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall use
3

•HR 1901 IH

1 data from the cost reports beginning during the third fis2 cal year that precedes the fiscal year involved.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-045-01-PB

Zbigniew May

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. Defendant admitted to the violations. Given

his two violations for marijuana use, this DUI indicates that the

number of failed opportunities to comply with conditions I find

that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or

combination of conditions. The conditions of release are

revoked.

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

Case 1:05-cr-00045-PB Document 15 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 2
2

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 9, 2005 

cc: Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

 Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00045-PB Document 15 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-49-01-SM

Anthony R. Capobianco

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 25) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the December 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than November 13, 2007. On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account

Case 1:07-cr-00049-SM Document 26 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 2
2

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: November 26, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Jury Selection: December 4, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

November 5, 2007 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Peter Horstmann, Esq.

 Timothy Bush, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00049-SM Document 26 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SPENSER WARE,

Defendant.

4:23CR3116

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the conference call, (Filing No. 23), 

because defense counsel is not available during the current setting. The motion 

to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court 

finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 23), is granted.

2) The conference call previously scheduled to be held today is 

continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held before 

the undersigned magistrate judge at 9:45 a.m. on December 29, 

2023 to discuss setting any change of plea hearing, or the date of 

the jury trial and deadlines for disclosing experts as required under 

Rule 16. Counsel for all parties shall use the conferencing 

instructions provided by the court to participate in the call.

3) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between today’s date and December 29, 2023 shall 

be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel 

have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately 

prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 

4:23-cr-03060-JMG-CRZ Doc # 24 Filed: 12/19/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 54
Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court’s 

local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 19th day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03060-JMG-CRZ Doc # 24 Filed: 12/19/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 55
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

George Blaisdell, 

v. Civil No. 07-390-JL

City of Rochester, et al,

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

February 19, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

Case 1:07-cv-00390-JL Document 8 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

February 15, 2008

cc: George Blaisdell, Pro so

Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00390-JL Document 8 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofFebruary 20, 2019, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-1 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the“Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2022By: 
/s/ Erik Laney
Name: Erik LaneyTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2022**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-23-PB

Matthew Cormier

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

September 5, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need 

additional time to schedule a plea hearing in late September in

conjunction with a hearing to be set in US v. Douglas, 07-cr-45-

PB. The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 5, 2007 to October 10, 2007. 

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 

Case 1:07-cr-00023-PB Document 19 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 2
2

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

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

No further continuances. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 28, 2007

cc: Harry Batchelder, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00023-PB Document 19 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-200-01-SM

Kanhnha Sao

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial for 60 days (document no.

22) is granted, in part. This case has been continued a number of times; therefore,

continuance is limited to 30 days. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further

continuances will be granted.

 Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2009 trial period. Defendant shall file

a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than April 27, 2009. On the filing of such

waiver, continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

Case 1:07-cr-00200-SM Document 23 Filed 04/14/09 Page 1 of 2
2

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: May 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM 

Jury Selection: May 19, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

April 14, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00200-SM Document 23 Filed 04/14/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eric Dickner

v. Civil No. 07-cv-120-PB

NH Governor, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner has failed to amend to demonstrate exhaustion as

he was directed to do by Order on September 28, 2007. I

therefore recommend that his petition be denied without

prejudice. 

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: November 9, 2007

cc: Eric Dickner, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00120-PB Document 27 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Criminal No. 07-189-GZS 

DANIEL RILEY, JASON GERHARD, 

CIRINO GONZALEZ, and ROBERT 

WOLFFE 

 Defendants 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GONZALEZ’S 

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS 

Now before the Court is Defendant Gonzalez’s Motion for Bill of Particulars 

(Docket No. 176). The Government has objected to the Motion (Docket No. 215). 

Defendant Gonzalez’s Motion shall be granted only if “in the absence of a more detailed 

specification, will be disabled from preparing a defense, caught by unfair surprise at trial, 

or hampered in seeking the shelter of the Double Jeopardy Clause.” United States v. 

Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1192-93 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Abreu, 952 

F.2d 1458, 1469 (1st Cir. 1992) (collecting cases)). After a careful review, the Court 

does not find that the Third Superseding Indictment reveals a material inability to prepare 

a defense, untenable surprise, or other potential prejudice such that it is necessary to 

mandate further particulars. The Court, therefore, ORDERS that Defendant Gonzalez’s 

Motion for a Bill of Particulars be, and it is hereby, DENIED. 

 /s/ George Z. Singal__________________ 

 Chief United States District Judge 

Dated this 29th day of January, 2008. 

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 220 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,972
<SECURITIES>                                    16,288
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,128
<INVENTORY>                                         42
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,044
<PP&E>                                          12,828
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,225
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,985
<SALES>                                         39,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,719
<CGS>                                            7,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     50
<INCOME-TAX>                                       403
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (353)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 07-cv-366-JM

Conway, NH, 126 Davis Hill Road et al.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated March 4, 2008 Michael J. Sheehan, Esq. was appointed

to represent claimant Lyndon K. Larrabee on his claim for Land and Buildings Located at 126 Davis

Hill Road, Conway, New Hampshire. 

It was further ordered that Michael J. Sheehan shall promptly file an appearance in this

matter on behalf of Lyndon K. Larrabee.

Michael J. Sheehan, Esq., having failed to promptly file an appearance on behalf of Lyndon

K. Larrabee, it is hereby ordered that Attorney Sheehan shall file an appearance within ten (10) days

of the date of this order or a show cause hearing will be held on April 24, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. to show

cause why an appearance has not been filed.

Lyndon K. Larrabee's claim was filed on January 15, 2008 with an answer to the Verified

Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem due by February 7, 2008. It is ordered that an answer shall be filed

within ten (10) days of the date of this order.

Case 1:07-cv-00366-JM Document 24 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

April 9, 2008 /s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.

Charles W. Gallagher, Esq.

Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00366-JM Document 24 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2
59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-223-01-SM

Jerry A. Shanahan

O R D E R

Defendant Shanahan’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document no. 49). Trial has been rescheduled for the October 

2008 trial period. Defendant Shanahan shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than June 6, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: September 26, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: October 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 61 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

May 28, 2008 

cc: Andrew Good, Esq.

Philip Cormier, Esq.

Peter Anderson, Esq.

William Morse, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 61 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2