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
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                               
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......    |         129      28       17       46       38      .284      .062      .039     .099      .081
2005......    |        n.a.       8     n.a.     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      n.a.      n.a.     n.a.      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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 3, 2021

NO. 03-20-00161-CR

Curtis A. Fenderson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is 

made.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, William E. Klitgaard, Corporate Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.

 

 
| Date:  October 26, 2007 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    | /s/    | William  E. Klitgaard |   |
|                    |   | William E. Klitgaard |
|                    |   | Corporate Senior Vice  President |
|                    |   | and Chief Financial  Officer |
|                    |   | (Principal Financial  Officer) |

** **

** **

----
|   | 1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  July      16, 2009 | By:    | s/ Jean Bernhard Buttner                    |
|-------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Jean      Bernhard Buttner                  |
|                                |   | Chairman      & Chief Executive Officer |
|                                |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)          |

----
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 23, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1500 Lower Tribunal No. F12-23766B

________________ Enrique Pena Rodriguez, Appellant,
vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge. Law Offices of Michelle Walsh, P.A., and Michelle Walsh, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Order entered November 7, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01268 - CR JENNIFER FOLEY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 26th Dist rict Court Williamson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14 - 0094 - K26



### O RDER Before the Court is the October 25, 2018 motion to withdraw as counsel filed by appellant’s retained counsel, Jeremiah Walters. In his motion, Walters requests permission to wit hdraw on the grounds he is not qualified to represent appellant on appeal. By filing the notice of appeal, Walters became appellant’s appellate counsel. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6.1(a). This Court may, on appropriate terms and conditions, permit an attorney to withdraw from representation. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6.5. The motion to withdraw, however, must comply with the requirements of rule 6.5. The motion before the Court does not comply with rule 6.5 in that it does not contain a statement showing that a c opy of the motion was delivered to appellant, either by hand delivery or through both certified and first

- class mail, and it does not– 2

–

contain a statement that appellant was notified in writing of her right to object to the motion

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6. 5(a)(3

- 4), (b). Because the motion does not comply with the requirements of the rules of appellate procedure, the motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a motion that conforms to rule 6.5.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of National Holdings Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Alan B. Levin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/ Alan B.
Levin


Alan B. Levin


Chief Financial Officer


May 17,
2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chanrathana Khem

v. Civil No. 06-cv-330-JD

John Teves, individually, and

Strafford County Department of Corrections

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

May 30, 2008 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Michael Sheehan, Esq.

Michael A. Ricker, Esq.

John Teves, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00330-JD Document 27 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1432 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1432

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3698 Inner Perimeter Road in Valdosta, Georgia, as the ``Major Lyn 
                    McIntosh Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Bishop (for himself, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Deal 
  of Georgia, Mr. Norwood, and Mr. Collins) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3698 Inner Perimeter Road in Valdosta, Georgia, as the ``Major Lyn 
                    McIntosh Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MAJOR LYN MCINTOSH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3698 Inner Perimeter Road in Valdosta, Georgia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Major Lyn McIntosh Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Major Lyn 
McIntosh Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
1As petitioner is in custody at the Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility (“NCF”), I construe the respondent to be

the Warden of the NCF. See Habeas Rule 2 (where petitioner is in

custody pursuant to a state judgment, the state officer having

custody of the petitioner shall be named as respondent).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas P. Cossette

v. Civil No. 08-cv-21-JL

State of New Hampshire1

O R D E R

Petitioner Thomas P. Cossette has filed a submission

(document no. 5), which I liberally construe as a request to lift

the stay of federal proceedings and review his petition filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Proceedings (“Habeas Rules”) (requiring initial review to

determine whether petition is facially valid and may be served);

see also United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire Local Rules 4.3(d)(authorizing the magistrate judge to

preliminarily review pro se pleadings). For the reasons stated

below, I deny Cossette’s request and order him to further amend

his petition.

Case 1:08-cv-00021-JL Document 6 Filed 10/22/08 Page 1 of 3
2

On April 2, 2008, I ordered the federal proceedings stayed

and the habeas petition held in abeyance, thereby affording

Cossette an opportunity to demonstrate exhaustion of state court

remedies with regard to the claims raised in the petition and to

further demonstrate that the petition was timely filed. In

response, Cossette’s counsel has filed a two-page submission

(document no. 5), broadly alleging that Cossette has demonstrated

exhaustion. A broad statement of exhaustion, without any

supporting documentation, is insufficient to demonstrate

exhaustion of state remedies. Accordingly, counsel’s submission

is nonresponsive to this Court’s order.

Counsel is granted ten days from the date of this Order to

(1) demonstrate the federal nature of Grounds Two and Three and

to (2) demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies, including the

federal nature of each claim, as to Grounds One, Four, Five and

Six. Counsel is further ordered to demonstrate the timeliness of

each ground raised in the petition. Lastly, counsel is ordered

to provide this Court with a copy of the appeal filed with the

New Hampshire Supreme Court in 2007 and a copy of the court’s

dispositive order of March 20, 2008.

Failure to respond to this Order within the allotted time

Case 1:08-cv-00021-JL Document 6 Filed 10/22/08 Page 2 of 3
3

may result in dismissal of the petition without prejudice.

Conclusion

 For the reasons stated above, Cossette’s request to lift the

stay of federal proceedings and review his petition is denied.

Cossette is ordered to amend his petition consistent with this

order. 

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 22, 2008

cc: Jean Vanim-Botting, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00021-JL Document 6 Filed 10/22/08 Page 3 of 3
| 1)   | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2)   | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      June 8, 2009 | By:    | s/      Jean Bernhard Buttner                                                 |  |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                    |   | Jean      Bernhard Buttner                                                    |
|                    |   | Chairman      & Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mary Ann Stalter

v. Case No. 05-cv-70-PB

New Hampshire Seacoast Cruises, Inc.

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 21, Motion in Limine to Exclude

 Expert Testimony

Ruling: Defendant filed a well-supported motion to preclude

testimony from the plaintiff’s experts based on the plaintiff’s

failure to comply with expert disclosure deadlines established by

the court. The motion and supporting materials establish both that

the disclosure was several months late and that plaintiff had also

failed to comply with an earlier expert disclosure deadline.

Plaintiff’s responsive memorandum does not persuasively demonstrate

either that the defendant was not prejudiced by the late disclosure

or that the delay was substantially justified. In the future,

plaintiff’s counsel should seek extensions of disclosure deadlines

rather than let them pass and hope that noncompliance will be

excused. Motion granted. 

 

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge

Date: September 13, 2006

cc: Paul Haley, Esq.

Thomas Hunt, Esq.

Leonard Langer, Esq.

William Pandolph, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00070-PB Document 31 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Eric W. ZESSMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Robert ROGERS, Detective, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-16204.

D.C. No. CV-99-01693-LRH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

*755Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Eric Zessman appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by searching his home and seizing property not particularly described in their search warrant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Trevino v. Gates,*99 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.1996), and vacate and remand.

Because the property seized from Zessman’s home could be used as evidence against him in his pending criminal prosecution, the district court properly concluded that Zessmaris action was barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477,114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). *See Harvey v. Waldron,*210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2000).

We vacate the district court’s judgment, however, and remand with instructions to enter judgment without prejudice. *See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,*49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Olympic Cascade Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark Goldwasser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                                /s/ Mark Goldwasser
                                                -------------------
                                                Mark Goldwasser
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                August 4, 2005


                                       26
29

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures

Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

1986...... 14 14 21 16 65

1987...... 22 19 12 16 69

1988...... 11 6 12 7 36

1989...... 5 7 5 5 22

1990...... 3 5 6 3 17

1991...... 2 2 3 1 8

1992...... 1 1 1 4 7

1993...... 1 2 2 0 5

1994...... 0 0 0 0 0

1995...... 0 0 0 0 0

1996...... 0 2 0 0 2

1997...... 0 0 0 1 1

1998...... 0 0 1 0 1

1999...... 0 1 0 0 1

2000...... 0 0 0 0 0

2001...... 0 0 0 0 0

2002...... 1 0 0 1 2

2003...... 0 1 0 0 1

2004...... 0 1 0 0 1

2005...... 0 0 0 0 0

2006...... 0 0 0 0 0

2007...... 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and

mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in

the introduction to section B.

 n.a. Not available.
#### PETTY v. McCORKLE. *

No. 5206.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 3, 1936.

■Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Irion & Switzer, of (Shreveport, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied April 30, 1936.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff alleged he was the true and lawful owner of lot No. 260 of the Henderson Iron Works subdivision, of the city of Shreveport, La.; that he acquired same by purchase of bankrupt sale on March 24, 1933; that the defendant is in actual, physical possession of said property without any title whatsoever, and refuses to deliver possession. He prayed to be recognized as owner of said property, and.that defendant be ordered to deliver possession to him.

Defendant filed several exceptions which he has not urged here, then answered, denying the allegations of plaintiff’s petition, and averring that he is in actual, physical possession of a house boat which is situated on the bank of Cross bayou, between the levee and the water; and that said house boat floated to the said location during the year 1929, has remained on said bank, and cannot be removed until high water renders it available.

Defendant further alleged that the boat was placed at its location by a government boat, and that it cannot be removed and taken to another location unless it is done by a government boat. He further alleged he had a right to the use and occupation of said property for the reason it is dedicated by law to public use.

Defendant further alleged that he arid his predecessors have been in quiet and peaceful possession of said property since the boat was moored during 1929.

On these issues the case was tried below, resulting in judgment for defendant and rejecting plaintiff’s demands as of non-suit. Plaintiff has appealed, and asks that the judgment be amended by totally rejecting defendant’s demands.

The judgment of the lower court was based upon the fact that plaintiff had failed to allege and proye title in himself anterior in date to the possession of defendant, under the authority of Young v. Chamberlin, 15 La.Ann. 454. Plaintiff alleged and proved title in himself by virtue of a deed, dated March 24, 1933, and the defendant proved he had been in actual possession since 1927. Whether plain*908tiff can allege and prove title anterior in date to defendant’s possession, is not shown, and, until_he does, defendant’s possession is not at stake. If plaintiff can prove such a title and, through oversight or otherwise, failed to allege and prove it, it would not be in the interest of justice to deny him that right. If he has no such title, defendant cannot be disturbed. If he has, justice demands that he have the opportunity to prove it.

It is unnecessary to pass upon the defenses set up in the answer until plaintiff has established a prima facie title in himself anterior in date to defendant’s possession.

The lower court was clearly within its rights in rejecting plaintiff’s demands as of nonsuit, and the judgment is affirmed; cost of appeal to be paid by appellant.