alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         250,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  172,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,779,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,305,548
<PP&E>                                       8,672,287
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,896,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,016,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          765,630
<BONDS>                                      3,637,025
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,367,803
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,753,968)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,016,490
<SALES>                                      4,879,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,879,214
<CGS>                                        3,721,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,721,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             361,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (358,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (358,668)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (358,668)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
227 La. 131

#### Mrs. Eunice PECOT, Wife of Morris Hill v. Morris HILL.

No. 41608.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 14, 1955.

Cyril F. Dumaine, Joseph F. Deynoodt, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Anzelmo, Maxwell & Thriffiley, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

*536McCALEB, Justice.

This is a suit for an absolute divorce by a wife against her husband under authority of Act 1N0. 430 of 1938, now LSA-R.S. 9:301, on the ground of continuous separation for a period of two years. It was filed on April 13, 1953, it being alleged that the parties separated on April 9, 1951 and had not lived together since that time.

In his answer, filed on May 28, 1953, the husband denied that the separation took place on April 9, 1951 and alleged that it did not occur until June of that year.

After a hearing on this issue, there was judgment for plaintiff, as prayed for, and the husband has appealed.

It thus appears that the case presents only a narrow factual question as to. the date of the separation. At the trial, which was held on October 29, 1953, both parties testified that they have not become reconciled and hence it is clear that more than two years have elapsed since they last lived together. Notwithstanding this,, the husband insists that the suit should be dismissed because the separation occurred in June and not in April, 1951, and that, accordingly, two years had not accrued at the time the suit was instituted.

We find no merit in the contention. Conceding, for purposes of discussion, that matters of this sort come within the general rule that a plaintiff’s right to relief depends upon the existence of such right at the inception of the suit, see Manuel v. Deshotels, 160 La. 652, 107 So. 478, we cannot say, after a perusal of the record, that the judge erred in preferring the evidence of the wife over that of the husband. She testified, conformably with her pleadings, that the date of the separation was April 9, 1951 and her statement is corroborated by her mother, who was a witness in her behalf.

The husband at first denied that there was a separation on April 9, 1951, but, after being confronted with testimony to the contrary which had been given in a prior suit by his wife for a separation’from bed and board, he admitted the separation in April and tried to establish that there was a temporary reconciliation which lasted until the month of June, when he acknowledges that the final break occurred. He is supported in his statement that the parties lived together until June by three persons, who are employed by him in his business, which is located across the street from the. former matrimonial domicile.

In evaluating the evidence, the trial judge remarked that he was impressed with plaintiff’s testimony and her demeanor on the stand and that he was “singularly unimpressed” with defendant and his witnesses. We fail to detect error in his ruling.

The judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131783 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131783 COA: 260811 Wayne CC: 97-010478-01 EARL C. GRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 13, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany (successor by conversion to Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2022 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 13, 2019 (as amended, the“Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Company LLC II (successor by conversion to Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II), as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2019-A Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 27th day of June, 2022. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 
20 

**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

CIVIL ACTION NO. :

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATE S

DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

PETITION OF EULAH MCGRATH LLC FOR EXONERATION FROM, OR

LIMITATION OF, LIABILITY

ORDER TO APPRAISE

Upon consideration of the prayer in the Petition in the above entitled cause that due

appraisal be made of the amount of value of the petitioner's interest, in the F/V EULAH

MCGRATH, and its pending freight, if any, as of the time of the casualty as set forth in said

Petition it is now, to wit :

ORDERED AND DECREED that David DuBois of Marine Safety Consultants, 26 Water

Street, Fairhaven, MA, be and is hereby appointed Appraiser to ascertain said amount of value of

the petitioner's interest and report thereon to this Court .

By the Court,

Case 1:06-cv-00213-JM Document 5 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-21065 Conference Calendar

IROW FONTENOT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MARK BOYLE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-92-CV-148

- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * If necessary, this Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Rule 4(a)(1), Fed. R. App. P., requires that the notice of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which an appeal is taken. In this prisoner civil rights action, the final judgment was entered on July 27, 1995. Fontenot’s (#619588) notice ofNo. 95-21065 - 2 - appeal was filed no earlier than on December 7, 1995. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). Because Fontenot’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after entry of the judgement, this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Robbins v. Maggio , 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir. 1985).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 08-mc-10-JD

Steven W. Griffin

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated June 13, 2008, no objection having been filed.

The taxpayer, Steven W. Griffin, is ordered to appear on August 6, 2008 at

9:00 a.m. at 1000 Elm Street, Suite 900, Manchester, New Hampshire, before

Diane Saylor, to give testimony and produce all books and records in his

possession or control required and called for by the terms of the IRS summons

dated December 4, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

July 9, 2008 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Seth R. Aframe, AUSA

Steven W. Griffin, pro se

Case 1:08-mc-00010-JD Document 8 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 1
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, November 6-10Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,058,154 38,883 127,294 449,713 317,075 37,627 3,5Number of loans 14,867 568 1,776 6,865 3,204 638 Weighted average maturity (months)1 18.77 15.27 28.39 16.35 14.99 14.53 38.2

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 6.88 4.20 23.19 3.89 1.82 4.58 31.0

Weighted average risk rating3 3.19 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate 4 8.24 8.06 8.61 7.93 8.41 8.83 8.

 Standard error5 .30 .31 .07 .40 .29 .36 .0

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.84 8.60 9.14 8.81 8.87 9.31 9. 25th percentile 7.50 7.25 8.06 6.93 7.57 8.04 8.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.40 8.73 8.71 8.07 7.85 10.09 n Other livestock 8.33 6.72 8.64 8.88 8.10 8.00 n Other current operating expenses7 8.50 7.54 8.87 8.45 8.40 9.16 9.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 9.01 7.86 7.40 8.57 9.30 8.40 8.5 Farm real estate 8.37 8.87 8.15 8.73 8.46 8.61 n Other8 7.46 8.60 8.12 6.82 8.01 8.88 8.4

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 76.41 23.46 38.47 79.04 97.25 82.75 40. Under commitment 83.22 91.55 69.82 84.14 91.45 92.56 40. Callable 20.49 54.84 32.10 17.80 11.74 2.95 6.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 11.29 40.34 17.47 10.49 4.71 5.89 n Other livestock 7.29 2.43 5.83 3.89 12.72 23.38 n Other current operating expenses7 37.50 51.11 47.37 39.32 32.87 35.65 15. Farm machinery and equipment 9.28 1.11 .32 7.72 19.05 1.18 1.9 Farm real estate 8.09 3.11 18.56 6.40 5.39 1.61 n Other8 26.55 1.89 10.45 32.17 25.26 32.30 82.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 12.56 18.36 23.65 10.72 7.13 2.55 37.7 Other 81.97 67.38 69.85 82.93 89.49 97.19 61.4 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

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

1992...... 31.18 68.23 26.89 14.73 15.94 108.68 3.70 14.82 45.85 468.20 1993...... 34.28 79.68 23.07 15.25 13.91 111.99 3.71 14.94 46.12 490.33 1994...... 33.91 60.27 27.58 16.29 17.54 123.60 3.72 14.57 46.98 480.70 1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2001: Q1... 33.29 30.14 25.26 24.29 34.58 78.43 3.91 15.23 46.59 274.01  Q2... 26.91 31.36 29.51 19.30 41.18 47.15 3.89 14.50 44.07 263.70  Q3... 23.23 43.62 27.17 16.20 23.42 46.14 3.70 14.68 43.97 255.59  Q4... 35.30 51.03 37.52 21.12 22.89 83.12 4.01 14.69 47.12 280.16 2002: Q1... 33.13 48.19 33.07 25.93 26.71 60.82 3.65 15.01 47.55 237.43  Q2... 23.72 41.55 32.41 18.55 19.26 48.30 3.69 15.06 45.28 216.61  Q3... 28.88 48.00 28.87 21.00 30.85 75.68 3.69 14.83 44.27 329.62  Q4... 31.46 52.06 38.39 22.16 17.78 67.64 3.85 15.19 46.02 333.67 2003: Q1... 35.98 68.86 32.35 27.73 38.74 62.19 3.72 14.88 46.71 249.54  Q2... 24.61 43.91 32.67 18.01 28.73 55.73 3.72 14.67 48.45 241.93  Q3... 27.75 78.05 40.90 17.84 37.37 65.70 3.53 14.83 46.45 319.67  Q4... 35.13 79.92 42.70 23.13 28.16 75.70 4.11 14.85 47.42 313.07 2004: Q1... 45.07 60.59 43.04 35.57 56.02 98.51 3.86 15.02 47.24 341.06  Q2... 32.01 47.74 36.25 21.95 26.77 116.76 3.73 15.17 45.83 358.08  Q3... 33.42 32.56 62.64 18.04 42.06 143.63 3.76 14.56 44.91 359.39  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,532
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,035
<PP&E>                                       1,246,448
<DEPRECIATION>                               (748,034)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 612,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,400
<BONDS>                                        231,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,271
<OTHER-SE>                                     244,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   612,938
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,074
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    14
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,433)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 11.1**

 

**EF JOHNSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ANDSUBSIDIARIES**

 

**COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PERSHARE**

**(inthousands, except share and per share data)**

 
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **March 31,**     | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **2010**               | ** ** | **2009** | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | ** **             | ** ** | **(as  adjusted)** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                     |       | $                      | 190        |   | $ | (1,606 | ) |
| Weighted average common  shares — Basic          |       | 26,485,220             |       | 26,383,931 |   |
| Net income (loss) per  share — Basic             |       | $                      | 0.01       |   | $ | (0.06 | ) |
| **Net  income (loss) per share - Diluted:**           |       |                   |       |   |   |
| Shares used in  computation:                          |       |                   |       |   |   |
| Weighted average common  shares — Basic          |       | 26,485,220             |       | 26,383,931 |   |
| Dilutive effect of  shares under employee stock plans |       | 7,987                  |       | — |   |
| Weighted average  restricted stock grants and units   |       | 288,659                |       | — |   |
| Weighted average common  shares — Diluted        |       | 26,781,866             |       | 26,383,931 |   |
| Net income (loss) per  share — Diluted           |       | $                      | 0.01       |   | $ | (0.06 | ) |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Janice Emerson

v. Civil No. 1:07-cv-152-JL

The Morrell Corporation et al

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the May 28, 2008 order of Judge Joseph N. Laplante granting Petition

for Settlement on behalf of Minors and the September 4, 2007 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as

to Kennywood Entertainment, judgment is hereby entered.

By the Court,

/s/ James R. Starr

James R. Starr, Clerk

June 24, 2008

cc: Christopher E. Grant, Esq.

Paul F. Cavanaugh, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00152-JL Document 16 Filed 06/24/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-55-01-SM

Richard Ouellette

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the November 

2007 trial period. Defendant Ouellette shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than August 9, 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: October 26, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: November 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00055-SM Document 17 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

August 1, 2007

cc: Jaye Rancourt, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00055-SM Document 17 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary A. Gilroy

Appellant

v. Case No. 07-cv-297-SM

Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al.

Appellees

O R D E R

By orders dated October 4 and October 31, 2007, the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit ("BAP")

determined that the record on appeal was transmitted to this

court in error and ordered the bankruptcy court to request this

court to return the record on appeal to the bankruptcy court. 

The record shall be returned to the bankruptcy court as

requested; this case shall be closed, given the pending appeal

before the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

November 16, 2007

cc: Pro Se Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00297-SM Document 21 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 1