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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
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......    |          59       8      16      12       24      .124      .017      .035     .026      .048
2006......    |        n.a.       9       7      23     n.a.      n.a.      .018      .015     .045      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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Normand Gamache

v. Civil No. 08-cv-172-JL

Amerigas Propane, Inc.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

June 26, 2008 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive, meaningful

discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. Counsel are

expected to be prepared to engage in an open, cooperative

discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of the

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

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00172-JL Document 12 Filed 06/20/08 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

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

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 19, 2008

cc: Robert W. Upton, II, Esq.

William S. Saturley, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00172-JL Document 12 Filed 06/20/08 Page 2 of 2
#### TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. FONTENBERRY.

No. 2578.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

July 28, 1943.

For former opinion, see La.App., 12 So. 2d 639.

A. Deutsche O’Neal, of Houma, for appellant.

B. E. Kemp, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Amite, and Jos. A. Sims, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Hammond, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

The facts and issue involved in this case are clearly and concisely stated in our original opinion. See 12 So.2d 659. We granted a rehearing limited to the question of considering whether or not the tax deed should be declared null and void only in so far as it may affect the property of plaintiff.

When the case was called for argument and submission, the attorney representing the plaintiff informed us that he had no objection to an amendment of the judgment to annul the tax sale only in so far as it pertained to the property of the plaintiff.

Considering the fact that the plaintiff acquired only a portion of the property for which the tax sale was held, and that the owner of the remaining portion is not a party to this suit, we find ourselves unable to enter a decree by virtue of which she would be benefited. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is erroneous in declaring the tax sale null and void affecting that portion not purchased or owned by the plaintiff, and also in ordering the plaintiff to pay the full amount of the taxes, interest and costs.

For these reasons, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby amended so as to decree the purported tax sale to be null, void and of no effect and the inscription thereof cancelled in so far only as it may affect the property of the plaintiff, conditional, however, that the plaintiff pay unto the defendant its proportionate amount of the taxes, interest and costs. The judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**September 2006**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: October 04, 2006**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD JOURDAN EVANS, a/k/a Freak, a/k/a Man-Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-163, CA-92-163-2) Submitted: March 12, 2003 Decided: May 15, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Jourdan Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Jourdan Evans appeals the district court’s order construing his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which he sought to challenge the denial of a motion for reduction of sentence, as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing the motion without prejudice. We find no error in the construction of Evans’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 112 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------

                             CRAGAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
              Schedule of Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per Share

<TABLE><CAPTION>
Earnings (Loss) Per Share
                                                 Three Months Ended              Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30,                 September 30,
                                             ---------------------------   ---------------------------
                                                 2001           2000           2001           2000
                                             ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations

Income (Loss)                                $   (112,112)  $     11,008   $    (32,627)  $  1,533,972
Less:  Preferred Stock Dividends in Arrears             -        (20,125)             -       (185,637)
                                             ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
Income available to Common Stockholders      $   (112,112)  $     (9,117)  $    (32,627)  $  1,348,335
                                             ============   ============   ============   ============

Basic EPS - Weighted Average
        Shares  Outstanding                     3,695,868      3,010,883      3,627,236      2,641,621
                                             ============   ============   ============   ============

Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share              $      (0.03)  $      (0.00)  $      (0.01)  $       0.51
                                             ============   ============   ============   ============


Basic EPS - Weighted Average
        Shares  Outstanding                     3,695,868      3,010,883      3,627,236      2,641,621

Effect of Diluted Securities:
        Stock options and Warrants (1)                  -              -              -      1,506,481
        Convertible Preferred Stock (1)                 -              -              -        336,227
                                             ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------

Diluted EPS - Weighted Average
        Shares Outstanding                      3,695,868      3,010,883      3,627,236      4,484,329
                                             ============   ============   ============   ============

Diluted Earmings (Loss) Per Share            $      (0.03)  $      (0.00)  $      (0.01)  $       0.30
                                             ============   ============   ============   ============
</TABLE>

(1) The Company's outstanding stock options, warrants, and convertible preferred
stock have antidilutive effect on loss per share for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2001 and the three moinths ended September 30, 2000. As a
result, such amounts have been excluded from the computations of diluted loss
per share for those periods.
Amendment No.2 To License No.24303 (series A 023884) dated November 11, 2002



 Exhibit 4.7.2 
  
 Ministry of the Russian Federation for Communication and Information 
  
 Amendment No. 2 
 To License No. 24303 (series A 023884) 
 dated November 11, 2002

  
 Legal address on the title page of the License shall read as follows:

  
 “127083, Moscow, Ul. Vosmogo Marta, 10, bldg. 2.” 
  

					
	 First Deputy Minister
 of the Russian
Federation for
 Communications and Information
	  	 [Signature]
	  	B.D. Antoniuk
			
	 	  	 	  	June 20, 2003
			
	 Head of the Department
 of the
Organization
 of Licensing Activity
	  	 [Signature]
 [Seal]
	  	N.M. Popov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                           5,738
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,066
<INVENTORY>                                     94,681
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,215
<PP&E>                                          31,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,955
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,318
<OTHER-SE>                                    (65,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,694
<SALES>                                        450,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               472,768
<CGS>                                          329,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,511)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,374
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,849
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,154
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,305)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (744)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 842 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 11, 2007.
Whereas on November 15, 2007, Cylcone Sidr hit the coast of southern Bangladesh 
        with 155 mile-an-hour winds that smashed tens of thousands of homes, 
        damaged roads and buildings, and caused a 15-foot tidal surge that 
        ruined thousands of hectares of crops;
Whereas early reports have branded the destruction from Cyclone Sidr as the 
        worst in Bangladesh in 16 years;
Whereas the resulting damage from the cyclone affected more than 8,000,000 
        people through loss of their homes and livelihoods;
Whereas over half of the affected internally displaced population are children;
Whereas Bangladesh's Disaster Ministry estimates that the cyclone damaged or 
        destroyed 1,500,000 houses;
Whereas the death toll from the cyclone stands at more than 3,000;
Whereas as the 4 districts in southern Bangladesh that were most drastically 
        affected by the cyclone are Patuakhali, Bagerhat, Barisal, and Pirojpur;
Whereas one relief worker commented that Bagerhat looked like a ``valley of 
        death'' in the days after the storm;
Whereas an entire island in Barisal, another district of southern Bangladesh, 
        was submerged under at least 6 feet of water and houses were blown away 
        by winds;
Whereas the capital, Dhaka, which is located over 130 miles away from the 
        devastated southern coastline, was also impacted by the storm, losing 
        access to power and water for days;
Whereas a massive tidal wave that was caused by Cyclone Sidr hit the Sunderbans, 
        the world's biggest mangrove forest that is home to the endangered Royal 
        Bengal tiger, leaving a wake of death and destruction that have caused 
        experts to declare the forest an ``ecological disaster'';
Whereas officials at the United Nations World Food Program have appealed for 
        international aid to help save lives in Bangladesh, noting that food 
        supplies have been severely disrupted by the cyclone; and
Whereas, due to the limited access to water supply and sanitation facilities 
        that millions of Bangladeshis will face, health officials have warned 
        against the possibility of cholera, dysentery, and other waterborne 
        diseases: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses its heartfelt sympathy for the victims of Cyclone 
        Sidr, which has affected southern Bangladesh;
            (2) conveys its sincere support to the people of Bangladesh;
            (3) supports the United States Government's efforts to immediately 
        make available all appropriate assistance requested by Bangladeshi 
        authorities; and
            (4) reaffirms its commitment to provide relief aid to the victims as 
        the effects of the cyclone continue to unfold.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Hentzel *v.*City of Cleveland.

(No. 24707

— Decided April 18, 1934.)

*Mr. Milton Firestone*and *Mr. Ben H. Zwich*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Ezra Z. Shapiro,*director of law, *Mr. Michael A. Picciano*and *Mr. Stephen Gobozy,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending August 20, 2011FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodATBANCORP                                                                                                               * 3A3ATBancorp, Dubuque, Iowa, to acquire up to 100 percent of the outstanding voting shares of United American Bank, San Mateo, California.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 09/19/2011C-B-G, INC.                                                                                                             * 3A3C-B-G, Inc., West Liberty, Iowa, to acquire up to 50.01 percent, in Washington Bancorp, Washington, Iowa, and thereby increase it's indirect interest in Washington Bancorp's subsidiary, Federation Bank, Washington, Iowa.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 09/12/2011COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANCORPORATION                                                                                       CICNotice by Michael L. Peterson, Cedar Falls, Iowa, to increase his ownership to more than 10 percent and become the largest shareholder of Community National Bancorporation, Waterloo, Iowa, and thereby indirectly control Community National Bank, Waterloo, Iowa, and Community Bank, Austin, Minnesota.Newspaper: 08/30/2011Federal Register: 08/26/2011EVANS BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                  CICNotice by Paul L. Martin and Pamela J. Martin, Bradenton, Florida, to gain control of Evans Bancshares, Inc., Evansdale, Iowa, and thereby indirectly control Fist Security State Bank, Evansdale, Iowa.  Paul and Pamela Martin will collectively increase their ownership from 9.63 percent to 12.43 percent with the purchase of 2000 shares.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 08/01/2011FIRST BANK OF BERNE                                                                                                     * 18C
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2169

To extend the deadline under part I of the Federal Power Act for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Nevada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 2001

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

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To extend the deadline under part I of the Federal Power

Act for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric

project in the State of Nevada.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period

6 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16

7 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to Federal Energy

8 Regulatory Commission project numbered 10756, the

9 Commission shall, at the request of the licensee for the

10 project and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the
2

•HR 2169 IH

1 good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements

2 of that section and the Commission’s procedures under

3 that section, extend the time period during which the li4 censee is required to commence the construction of the

5 project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods.

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take ef7 fect on the expiration of the extension issued by the Com8 mission for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

9 project numbered 10756.

10 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the

11 period required for commencement of construction of the

12 project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the

13 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall

14 reinstate the license effective as of the date of its expira15 tion and the first extension authorized under subsection

16 (a) shall take effect on the date of such expiration.

Æ