alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

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

1993...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.5 .5 1.1

1994...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1995...... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1995: Q3... .6 .2 .4 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.6 .6 .9

 Q4... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.7 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.2

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 3.0 1.1 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.6 .9 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997: Q1... .8 .4 .4 .2 .2 3.2 1.4 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.8 1.0 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.3 .8 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.5 1.6 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .2 2.6 1.0 1.6 .8 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.5 .9 1.6 .7 .9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of MCSi, Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the three months
ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

| |  | /s/MICHAEL E. PEPPELName: Michael E. Peppel
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
August 13, 2002

---

QuickLinks
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... 18 1 5 2 10 .044 .003 .012 .005 .021

2005...... 17 2 11 4 0 .039 .005 .024 .009 .000

2006...... n.a. 2 6 n.a. n.a. n.a. .003 .012 n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                 TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
          (Unaudited and in thousands, except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED                  SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 -------------------------------     -------------------------------
                                                                 JUNE 30, 2000     JUNE 30, 1999     JUNE 30, 2000     JUNE 30, 1999
                                                                 -------------     -------------     -------------     -------------
<S>                                                              <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Net loss                                                         $     (2,594)     $       (336)     $     (5,845)     $     (4,293)
                                                                 ============      ============      ============      ============

                                                                                     NET LOSS PER SHARE - BASIC

Weighted average common shares - Basic                             13,004,124        12,946,624        12,980,498        12,946,624
                                                                 ============      ============      ============      ============

Net loss per share - Basic                                       $      (0.20)     $      (0.03)     $      (0.45)     $      (0.33)
                                                                 ============      ============      ============      ============

                                                                                     NET LOSS PER SHARE - DILUTED
Shares used in this computation:
     Weighted average common shares  - Basic                       13,004,124        12,946,624        12,980,498        12,946,624
     Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plans                  --                --                --                --
                                                                 ------------      ------------      ------------      ------------
     Weighted average common shares - Diluted                      13,004,124        12,946,624        12,980,498        12,946,624
                                                                 ============      ============      ============      ============

Net loss per share - Diluted                                     $      (0.20)     $      (0.03)     $      (0.45)     $      (0.33)
                                                                 ============      ============      ============      ============
</TABLE>


                                                                      Page 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Mark Boulanger

Criminal No . 07-cr-25-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no .

26) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . 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) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : June 12, 200 8

cc : Richard Monteith, Jr ., Esq .

Robert Kinsella, Esq .

U .S . Marshal

U .S . Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00025-JD Document 27 Filed 06/12/08 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      Exhibit 12

Prime Succession, Inc. and subsidiaries
(Debtors-in-Possession)
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Three Months Ended               Nine Months Ended
                                                                  September 30,                   September 30,
                                                                  -------------                   -------------
                                                             2000             1999             2000            1999
                                                             ----             ----             ----            ----
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>             <C>              <C>
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Earnings:
      Loss before income taxes                            $(8,758)          $(4,079)        $(20,033)        $(6,301)
      Add: Fixed charges, net                               7,158             6,616           20,826          18,966
Income (loss) before income taxes and fixed                (1,600)            2,537              793          12,665
charges, net
Fixed Charges:
      Total interest (1)                                    6,857             6,351           19,913          18,206
      Interest factor in rents(2)                             301               265              913             760
        Total fixed charges                                 7,158             6,616           20,826          18,966
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          (0.22)             0.38             0.04            0.67
Coverage deficiency (3)                                     8,758             4,079           20,033           6,301
</TABLE>

FN

(1)     Total interest expense for each period includes amortization of loan
        costs.

(2)     Interest factor in rents represents one-third of rent expense, which is
        considered representative of the interest factor.

(3)     The Company's earnings are inadequate to cover fixed charges for all
        periods presented. Coverage deficiency represents the excess of fixed
        charges over income before income taxes and fixed charges, net.



                                       23
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10654 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

also known as Luis Avina-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CR-1-1-C

--------------------

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Gonzalez-Rodriguez appeals the 57-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after removal in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gonzalez-Rodriguez contends that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He

argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 
No. 01-10654 

-2-

Gonzalez-Rodriguez notes that he pleaded guilty to an indictment

which recited only facts and elements supporting a charge of

simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and argues that his

sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which

may be imposed for that offense. Gonzalez-Rodriguez acknowledges

that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision

in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). GonzalezRodriguez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The Government’s motion

to dismiss is DENIED. However, in light of our decision to

affirm the district court’s judgment, the Government need not

file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No

. 18

- 1045

_________________

JAMES R. ADAMS

v.

GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE

,

A ppellant

_________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. No . 17

- cv

- 00 181 )

Hon orable Mary Pat Thynge, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Before: MCKEE, RESTREPO

, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

.

_________________

ORDER

_________________

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the opinion filed on February 5, 2019 in the above

captioned case be amended as follows:

On page 11, the text of footnote 16 shall be replaced by the following:

See Joel Edan Friedlander, Is Delaware’s ‘Other Major Political Party’

Really Entitled to Half of Delaware’s Judiciary? , 58 Ariz. L. Rev. 1139, 1154

(2016).

An amended precedential opinion is being filed concurrently with this Order. The

amendment does not substantively change the Opinion, therefore, the filing date of the

Opinion will not be modified nor the judgment.

By the Court:

s/ Julio M. Fue ntes

Circuit Judge

Dated: February 13, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paragon Residential Group,

LLC, et al.

v. Civil No. 07-cv-118-JL

Town of Hanover, New Hampshire

ORDER

Before the court is the parties’ joint status report. The

parties state that settlement negotiations are ongoing and

request that the current stay be extended to allow them to

continue.

On April 14, 2010, the parties filed a motion requesting

that the court stay all discovery deadlines and continue trial

pending resolution of this matter through settlement. In their

motion, the parties noted that possible settlement “may require

inter alia the involvement of third parties, third party

financing, municipal legislative body action, and municipal board

action.” On the same date, the court granted the parties’

motion, noting that the parties could agree to stay the case for

any length of delay they deemed appropriate. 

By order dated December 8, 2010, the court directed the

parties to file a status report by December 15, 2010. The

parties complied with that order and on December 17, 2010 the

Case 1:07-cv-00118-JL Document 51 Filed 03/28/11 Page 1 of 2
court continued the stay and directed counsel to file a single

status report on or before March 17, 2011. Again, that report is

before the court. Settlement discussions continue, with

indefinite prospects for success.

The clerk is hereby directed to statistically close the

case. 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.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 28, 2011

cc: Barry C. Schuster, Esq.

Robert H. Miller, Esq.

Andrew B. Livernois, Esq.

Laura Ann Spector, Esq.

R. Matthew Cairns Esq.

Walter L. Mitchell, III, Esq.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00118-JL Document 51 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-037-01-SM

Ryan Nimblett

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing. Defendant

has already pled guilty. Between November 8, 2004 and January

21, 2005, defendant failed to provide four urine samples as

directed. He was out of monitoring range four times. Since May

2005 he has failed to provide three samples as directed. He

admitted to one use of LSD on July 10, 2005 which he maintains

was involuntarily received while co-operating with Maine police. 

Even crediting the latter he has been non-compliant. Given 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

Case 1:05-cr-00037-SM Document 27 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 2
2

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

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 9, 2005 

cc: Donald A. Feith, Esq.

 Paul J. Haley, Esq.

 Jonathan R. Saxe, Esq.

 Robert J. Veiga, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00037-SM Document 27 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Phillip S. Scherrer

v. Civil No. 08-cv-2-SM

Opinion No. 2008 DNH 092

United States of America

O R D E R

Petitioner seeks relief from his conviction and sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming, among other things, that his

defense counsel provided ineffective assistance and that his

guilty plea was not competently offered because, at the time, he

was suffering from an overdose of a number of prescription drugs

administered at the jail in which he was being detained. 

Essentially, petitioner asserts that he was not capable of

understanding the nature of the plea proceedings, or of

meaningfully participating in those proceedings, or communicating

effectively with his counsel. Petitioner also says that counsel

had no basis upon which to assure the court that he was capable

of understanding the nature of the proceedings, and, indeed,

claims that he was not only incapable of competently

participating in the plea colloquy, but was also incompetent

during plea negotiations, and had no understanding of the terms

of the resulting negotiated agreement.

Case 1:08-cv-00002-SM Document 3 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Having reviewed the petition, exhibits, and record, it is

apparent that a hearing is required as petitioner’s allegations,

if true, would entitle him to relief. Petitioner has submitted

medical records, albeit seemingly incomplete, that facially

support his claim that he was taking several prescription

medications, and the court cannot, based on the record as it

stands, find that his improvident plea claims are “so evanescent

or bereft of detail that they cannot reasonably be investigated,”

or that they amount to “threadbare allusions.” David v. United

States, 134 F.3d 470, 478 (1st Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, the clerk shall appoint counsel to represent

the petitioner and schedule a hearing on the petition.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 28, 2008

cc: Phillip S. Scherrer, pro se

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, AUSA

Case 1:08-cv-00002-SM Document 3 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1840

To extend eligibility for refugee status of unmarried sons and daughters

of certain Vietnamese refugees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 15, 2001

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Ms. SANCHEZ) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To extend eligibility for refugee status of unmarried sons

and daughters of certain Vietnamese refugees.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR REFUGEE STATUS.

4 Section 255 of the Admiral James W. Nance and

5 Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal

6 Years 2000 and 2001 (section 255 of division A of H.R.

7 3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public

8 Law 106–113, appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A–460) is

9 amended—
2

•HR 1840 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘and 2001,’’

2 and inserting ‘‘2001, 2002, and 2003,’’;

3 (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ‘‘except

4 as provided in subsection (d), on or after April 1,

5 1995,’’; and

6 (3) by striking subsection (d).

Æ
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 Annual Report of The Dress Barn, Inc. (“the Company”) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 25, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, David R. Jaffe,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and





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





The
foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the
provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
to be used for any other purpose.





/s/ David R. JaffeDavid
      R. JaffePresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember
      21, 2009
**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**





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of China Solar
      & Clean Energy Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December
      31, 2007 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 this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date: November
      6 ,
      2008




/s/ Deli
                DuBy:
                Deli Du,
              Chief
                Executive Officer and President
              (principal
                executive officer)





/s/ Yihai
                YangBy:
                Yihai Yang
              Chief
                Financial Officer (principal financial
              officer
                and accounting officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China Solar & Clean Energy Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by China
      Solar & Clean Energy Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.