alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

No. 07-CV-00039-SM

v.

ERIC JAEGER, JERRY A. SHANAHAN,

Defendants.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT JERRY SHANAHAN

The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed a Complaint and Defendant Jerry 

Shanahan (“Defendant”) having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court’s 

jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final 

Judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to 

jurisdiction); waived findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal 

from this Final Judgment:

I.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant and 

Defendant’s agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or 

participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or 

otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 

13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(5)] 

and Rule 13b2-1 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240. 13b2-1], by knowingly 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 356 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 2
2

circumventing or knowingly failing to implement a system of internal accounting controls or 

knowingly falsifying any book, record, or account described in paragraph 2 of Section 13(b)(2) 

of the Exchange Act.

II.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all other claims are 

dismissed.

III.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain 

jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment.

IV. 

There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith and without further notice.

Dated: ______________, _____

____________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

February 25 2013

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 356 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2016

No. 04-16-00241-CR

Cody Allen WATERS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR1094

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After Appellant’s court-appointed counsel missed deadlines to file the brief, we abated 

this appeal and remanded it to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. The trial court held a 

hearing as ordered; it filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. The court reporter filed a supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(3). 

The trial court found the following:

 Appellant wishes to prosecute his appeal,

 Appellant’s court-appointed counsel Andrea Polunsky did not abandon the appeal,

 Andrea Polunsky’s motion to withdraw was granted, and

 Suzanne Kramer was appointed to represent Appellant in this appeal.

We REINSTATE the appellate timetable in this appeal. We ORDER Appellant’s courtappointed counsel Suzanne Kramer to file Appellant’s brief with this court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of December, 2016.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

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

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2003...... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

1995: Q2... 100.0 82.0 15.0 2.6 .2 .1 .1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 77.7 18.3 3.6 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004: Q1... 100.0 79.2 17.2 3.2 .2 .1 .0

 Q2... 100.0 81.3 15.1 3.2 .3 .0 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.1 15.1 2.4 .2 .1 .0

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

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

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

 ... Not applicable.

26
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
               of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302
                       of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

I, John R. McKowen, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Navidec, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
     the registrant and have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
     over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date:  May 14, 2004

/s/ John R. McKowen
-------------------
John R. McKowen, Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 05-cv-085-JM

$38,000.00 US Currency

O R D E R

 The following rulings are made on the July 26, 2006

deposition of Curtis Corliss: 

Objection Ruling

Page Line

11 7 Sustained

11 16 Sustained

11 22 Sustained

12 6, 8 Sustained

12 23 Sustained - agreement at 13,

L21

14 8 Overruled

14 13 Overruled

14-16 Delete - question never

answered

17 9 Sustained

17 17 Sustained

Case 1:05-cv-00085-JM Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Objection Ruling

Page Line

17 22 Sustained

18 11 Sustained, strike 3-11

19 5-22 Strike - never answered

20-21 10-25, 1-25 Strike - never answered

24-25 21-25, 1-16 Overruled but strike as never

answered

25, 26 24-25, 1-6 Overruled

28 1-24 Overruled

28-29 25, 1-19 Sustained - strike

31 22-25 Sustained - strike

32-33 1-25, 1-11 Sustained - strike

34-35 25, 1-10 Overruled

37 23 Overruled

37-39 24-25, 1-25, 1-6 Delete colloquy

Sustained at 4-6

39 15-17 Sustained - delete

39 24 Overruled

40 5-8 Sustained

40 13-16 Sustained

40 20 Overruled

40-41 21-25, 1-7 Overruled - delete

Case 1:05-cv-00085-JM Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 4
3

Objection Ruling

Page Line

41-42 20-25, 1-7 Delete - never answered

42 19 Overruled

44 14 Overruled

44-45 20-25 Overruled

45 10-13 Overruled

47-48 8-25, 1-6 Sustained

48 15 Sustained

48 21 Overruled

49 10 Sustained

51-53 25, 1-25, 1-4 Sustained - strike

56 5 Overruled

56-57 6-25, 1-6 Strike

65-66 23-25, 1-4 Strike - never answered

70 19 Sustained, strike 17-20

73 1-9 Strike - not answered

74-76 19-25, 1-25, 1-3 Strike

93-94 21-25, 1-21 Sustained - strike

96 11-24 Sustained - strike

Case 1:05-cv-00085-JM Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 4
4

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 3, 2006

cc: Jean B. Weld, Esq.

 Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.

 David H. Bownes, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00085-JM Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 4 of 4
Letter agreement, dated March 31, 2004 between Autobytel Inc. & Robert S. Grimes



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

			
	March 31, 2004	 	 Jeffrey Schwartz
 President and
 Chief Executive Officer
 Direct Line: 949.225.4510
 FAX: 949.797.0488
 jeffreys@autobytel.com


  
 Robert S. Grimes 
 R.S. Grimes & Co., Inc. 
 595 Madison Ave., 39th Floor 
 New York, NY 10022 
  
 Dear Mr. Grimes: 
  

Reference is hereby made to that certain Consulting Agreement entered between Autobytel Inc. (formerly autobytel.com inc.) and Robert Grimes as of
April 1, 2000 and amended March 19, 2002 and March 10, 2003. 
  
 The parties hereby agree to extend the term of the agreement through September 30, 2004 and then on a month to month until either party notifies the other of its election to terminate the agreement which shall be effective at the end of the
month that the notice is sent. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. 
  
 Please evidence your agreement with the foregoing by signing below and returning a copy to the undersigned. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 Autobytel Inc.

		
	By:	 	 /s/    Jeffrey Schwartz

	 	 	

	 	 	Jeffrey Schwartz


  

	
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED
  
 This 31st day of March, 2004

	
	 /s/    Robert S. Grimes

	

	Robert S. Grimes
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128106 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: 128106 

 COA: 255925 

Oakland CC: 90-102799-FH 

SAAD BAHODA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-45-SM

Jose Rosario Santana

O R D E R

Defendant Jose Rosario Santana has filed a motion to continue the trial 

(document no.14). Trial has been rescheduled for the September 2008 trial

period. Defendant Santana shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than August 4, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, the 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: August 25, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: September 3, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00045-SM Document 15 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

July 31, 2008 

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00045-SM Document 15 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000716778
<NAME> UNITED DIAGNOSTIC, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,709,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,778,709
<PP&E>                                           2,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,782,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          591,388
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         28
<COMMON>                                         6,826
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,184,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,782,369
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  923,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              93,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (960,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (960,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (960,548)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.50)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States 

v. Case No. 07-cr-223-001-SM

Jerry A. Shanahan

ORDER

Re: Document No. 73, Government’s Second, and Partially

Assented to, Motion to Extend Time for Defendant to File a Motion

to Dismiss. 

Ruling: Granted. No further continuances will be granted.

The government’s bureaucratic inefficiencies cannot continue to

dictate the course of this and other litigation . . . either the

Department of Justice can learn to delegate authority to its legal

counsel in the field or it can exercise the authority it declines

to delegate in a timely fashion, but it cannot be permitted to

retard litigation throughout the country simply because it prefers

all meaningful decisions to be made in Washington on an indefinite

schedule. The pending issue can be addressed or ignored as the

government chooses, but the litigation will proceed apace from this

point forward.

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: July 22, 2009 

cc: Andrew Good, Esq. 

Peter Anderson, Esq. 

Philip Cormier, Esq. 

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

Matthew Klecka, Esq.

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 74 Filed 07/22/09 Page 1 of 1
organizations. included in the gold stock of the United States. 

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1994...... 85.7 16.8 6.4 25.4 3.2 33.9 5.8 7.4 16.5 56.0 1995...... 84.1 12.7 5.2 27.3 2.7 36.1 5.4 8.3 16.0 54.4 1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2002: Q3... 56.4 3.3 4.1 29.4 4.3 15.3 4.3 6.0 12.7 33.4  Q4... 51.9 6.9 5.9 24.0 1.3 13.7 3.5 5.4 12.9 30.0 2003: Q1... 60.8 8.8 4.5 30.0 6.1 11.4 3.1 5.6 15.3 36.9  Q2... 44.4 4.9 3.8 22.9 4.3 8.4 4.0 5.4 13.1 21.9  Q3... 43.9 6.6 3.6 20.8 3.9 9.0 3.3 4.8 11.0 24.7  Q4... 55.2 11.1 6.0 24.1 2.9 11.1 3.3 5.4 14.6 31.9 2004: Q1... 72.2 5.2 5.4 39.7 6.7 15.1 3.1 5.0 14.9 49.1  Q2... 60.2 3.8 4.7 30.2 3.9 17.6 4.0 6.5 13.0 36.7  Q3... 54.2 2.3 7.3 21.1 5.9 17.6 3.5 5.3 10.3 35.1  Q4... 71.0 12.6 9.2 28.6 7.4 13.2 2.6 4.8 14.7 48.9 2005: Q1... 55.2 5.3 5.3 34.4 2.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 13.7 34.8  Q2... 76.6 7.7 3.7 29.9 11.0 24.3 3.8 5.9 12.7 54.1  Q3... 59.1 3.4 6.1 24.4 10.1 15.2 3.2 4.7 12.6 38.7  Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2006 (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 780(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.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 10, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    RONALD J. BUSCHUR
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Ronald J. Buschur President and Chief Executive Officer Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randal Fritz

v. Civil No. 06-cv-469-PB

Kenneth Brown and

Katharine Daly

O R D E R

 Discovery is stayed until a ruling on the pending motion to

dismiss, particularly as it relates to qualified immunity. If

the motion is denied the parties should promptly file new

proposed plans. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 30, 2007

cc: Pierre C. Rumpf, Esq.

 Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

 Paula J. Werme, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 17 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 1
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2002: Q3... 6.8 6.7 6.4

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.3

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.4 6.1

 Q2... 6.3 6.2 5.9

 Q3... 6.2 6.1 5.7

 Q4... 6.1 6.1 5.7

2004: Q1... 6.3 6.3 5.8

 Q2... 6.4 6.3 6.0

 Q3... 6.6 6.5 6.2

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2002: Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 Q4... 7.2 7.0 6.6

2003: Q1... 7.0 6.9 6.4

 Q2... 6.9 6.8 6.3

 Q3... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.2

2004: Q1... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q2... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q3... 7.3 6.8 6.4

 Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2002: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2003: Q1... 5.8 6.0 6.2

 Q2... 5.2 5.3 5.2

 Q3... 5.1 5.3 5.6

 Q4... 4.6 4.9 5.7

2004: Q1... 5.8 6.2 6.3

 Q2... 6.0 6.2 6.6

 Q3... 6.2 6.6 6.8

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.