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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
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......    |          73       9       7      23       34      .146      .018      .015     .045      .064
2007......    |        n.a.       8      13      23     n.a.      n.a.      .014      .025     .042      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
# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

### N o . 1 0 - 7 1 3 8 S e p t e m b e r T e r m 2 0 1 1 1: 07-c v -004 18-RJL Filed O n: Jan uary 27, 201 2 Richard Do min guez, On be half of him self an d all oth ers similarly situate d,

App ellant
v . UAL Co rporatio n a nd United Air Line s, In c.,

App ellees
BEFORE: Hend erson , T ate l, an d Grif f ith, Circuit Ju dges O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f

the cou rt’s order t o sh ow cause f iled Ja nua ry 17 , 20 12, and the respo nses the reto, it is ORDERED tha t th e o rder to sho w cau se b e d ischarged. It is FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e se aled op inion f iled Ja nua ry 17 , 20 12, be unse aled . T he Clerk is directed to unse al th e o pinion an d rele ase it pu blicly

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Jenn ifer M. Clark Depu ty Cl erk
II

Calendar No. 177

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 182

[Report No. 107–75]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 2, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

OCTOBER 1, 2001

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate

a segment of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eightmile River Wild

5 and Scenic River Study Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—
2

HR 182 RS

1 (1) the Eightmile River in the State of Con2 necticut possesses important resource values, includ3 ing wildlife, ecological, and scenic values, and his4 toric sites and a cultural past important to Amer5 ica’s heritage;

6 (2) there is strong support among State and

7 local officials, area residents, and river users for a

8 cooperative wild and scenic river study of the area;

9 and

10 (3) there is a longstanding interest among

11 State and local officials, area residents, and river

12 users in undertaking a concerted cooperative effort

13 to manage the river in a productive and meaningful

14 way.

15 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

16 Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

17 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol18 lowing new paragraph:

19 ‘‘(138) EIGHTMILE RIVER, CONNECTICUT.—The seg20 ment from its headwaters downstream to its confluence

21 with the Connecticut River.’’.

22 SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT.

23 Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

24 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol25 lowing new paragraph:
3

HR 182 RS

1 ‘‘(18) The study of the Eightmile River, Connecticut,

2 named in paragraph (138) of subsection (a) shall be com3 pleted by the Secretary of the Interior and the report

4 thereon submitted to Congress not later than 3 years after

5 the date of the enactment of this paragraph.’’.

6 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

8 as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives May 1, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

By MARTHA C. MORRISON,

Deputy Clerk.
Calendar No. 177

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 182

[Report No. 107–75]

AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Eightmile River in the

State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

OCTOBER 1, 2001

Reported without amendment
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**June 2008**

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 CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (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: July 09, 2008**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven J. Huard

v. Civil No. 08-cv-120-PB

Essex County Correctional

Center, et al.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from this case. 

SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 4, 2008

cc: Steven J. Huard, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 14 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6104

MARCUS B. COLLINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-02-340-2)

Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 23, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus B. Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom Franklin,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus B. Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Collins that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Collins failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Collins has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1627 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1627

   To redesignate the Federal building located at 1100 Pennsylvania 
  Avenue, NW, in the District of Columbia, and known as the Old Post 
     Office Pavilion, as the ``Paul Leroy Robeson Old Post Office 
                              Pavilion''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To redesignate the Federal building located at 1100 Pennsylvania 
  Avenue, NW, in the District of Columbia, and known as the Old Post 
     Office Pavilion, as the ``Paul Leroy Robeson Old Post Office 
                              Pavilion''.

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

SECTION 1. PAUL LEROY ROBESON OLD POST OFFICE PAVILION.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Federal building located at 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in the District of Columbia, and known as the 
Old Post Office Pavilion, shall be known and designated as the ``Paul 
Leroy Robeson Old Post Office Pavilion''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, document, 
paper, map, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the Paul Leroy Robeson Old Post Office Pavilion.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-22-PB

Linda D. Bevins

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for February 3, 2009 citing the need for

additional time to undergo necessary medical treatment and

prepare for trial or other disposition. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 3, 2009 to April 7, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00022-PB Document 18 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on March 30,

2009 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 26, 2009

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00022-PB Document 18 Filed 01/30/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

EDWARD BROWN & ELAINE BROWN, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket no. 1:09-CR-30-GZS 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

Before the Court is the “Notice and Demand” filed by Defendants on March 26, 2009, 

which this Court has docketed and treated as a Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 45). The 

Government filed its Objection (Docket # 61) on April 17, 2009. On April 24, 2009, Defendants 

filed a document titled, “Affidavit of Edward-Lewis: Brown© and Elaine Alice: Brown© by 

Special Visitation, of Response to U.S. Attorney’s Objection to Creditors’ ‘Notice and 

Demand’’’ (Docket # 64). The Court treats this filing as a reply to the March 26, 2009 Motion. 

The Court reads Defendants’ Motion as seeking dismissal of all charges in this case based on 

misnomer. In short, Defendants claim that they are not properly named in the Indictment. The 

Government’s Response asserts the Court should find that it has both personal jurisdiction over 

these two individual defendants as well as subject matter jurisdiction over the offenses set forth 

in the Indictment. The Court so finds for the reasons stated in the Government’s Response and 

based on its own review of the entire docket in this matter. In the assessment of this Court, 

Defendants’ misnomer argument as well as their arguments that their names are protected by 

copyright and, thus, may not be used in court filings are meritless. Nonetheless, the arguments 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 67 Filed 04/30/09 Page 1 of 2
are hereby preserved for appeal should Defendants ultimately seek appellate court review of 

these proceedings. 

 Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 45). 

This matter remains set for jury selection on June 29, 2009 with trial set to commence on 

June 30, 2009. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George Z. Singal 

 United States District Judge 

Dated this 30th day of April, 2009. 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 67 Filed 04/30/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Alfred STONE and Lilly M. Stone, his wife, Appellants, v. William R. GALVIN, Thomas A. Horkan, Jr., and Edwin T. Jester, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Oct. 3, 1956.

Richard B. Stone, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Smathers, Thompson & Dyer, Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause' came on to be heard on the-motion of appellees to affirm the judgment appealed from pursuant to Rule 38 of the-rules of this court, 31 F.S.A., and it appearing to the court from an examination of *793the record that said motion is appropriate and seasonably made and that it is manifest that the questions raised on appeal are without substantial merit and need no further argument;

It is accordingly ordered, adjudged and -decreed that the motion to affirm the judgment appealed from be, and the same is, hereby granted, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and HOBSON, THOR-NAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Brown, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 221]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Warren County (Hall, Jr., J.), entered August 26, 2004, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

On a previous appeal (7 AD3d 831 [2004]), we reversed defendant’s classification as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C) because of our determination that it was based on unreliable hearsay consisting of an unsigned and untitled report purportedly from Colorado authorities. Upon remittal, County Court conducted another hearing and again assessed defendant as a risk level III sex offender. Defendant appeals, again arguing that his classification is based on unreliable hearsay. This time, we disagree and affirm.

At the rehearing, the People introduced into evidence a certified copy of the presentence report from Colorado which set forth, among other things, admissions by defendant and statements from the victim. This report, in our view, is “reliable *925hearsay evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Thus, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence in the record for County Court to contemplate the relevant risk factors and classify defendant as a risk level III sex offender *(see People v Ahlers,*10 AD3d 770, 771 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 704 [2005]; *see also People v Overman,*7 AD3d 596, 596-597 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 611 [2004]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs. *[See*5 Misc 3d 440 (2004).]
Case 1:09-cv-00090-JL   Document 6   Filed 07/10/09   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:09-cv-00090-JL   Document 6   Filed 07/10/09   Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 15.2**

** **

**  **

September 17, 2019

 

Office of the Chief Accountant

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We have read thestatements made by Akazoo S.A. (formerly known as Modern Media Acquisition Corp. S.A.) under Item 16F, of its Form 20-F dated September17, 2019. We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in such Form 20-F; we are not in a position to agree or disagree withother statements of Akazoo S.A. (formerly known as Modern Media Acquisition Corp. S.A.) contained therein.

 

Very truly yours,

 

/s/ WithumSmith+Brown, PC

 

Whippany, New Jersey

** **

****

 

** **

 

 

 

** **
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1886

AN ACT

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide

for appeals by third parties in certain patent reexamination proceedings.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1886

AN ACT

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third parties in certain patent reexamination

proceedings.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1886 EH

1 SECTION 1. APPEALS IN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION

2 PROCEEDINGS.

3 (a) APPEALS BY THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER IN PRO4 CEEDINGS.—Section 315(b) of title 35, United States

5 Code, is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(b) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER.—A third-party

7 requester—

8 ‘‘(1) may appeal under the provisions of section

9 134, and may appeal under the provisions of sec10 tions 141 through 144, with respect to any final de11 cision favorable to the patentability of any original

12 or proposed amended or new claim of the patent;

13 and

14 ‘‘(2) may, subject to subsection (c), be a party

15 to any appeal taken by the patent owner under the

16 provisions of section 134 or sections 141 through

17 144.’’.

18 (b) APPEAL TO BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND

19 INTERFERENCES.—Section 134(c) of title 35, United

20 States Code, is amended by striking the last sentence.

21 (c) APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FED22 ERAL CIRCUIT.—Section 141 of title 35, United States

23 Code, is amended in the third sentence by inserting ‘‘, or

24 a third-party requester in an inter partes reexamination

25 proceeding, who is’’ after ‘‘patent owner’’.
3

•HR 1886 EH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by this Act apply with respect

3 to any reexamination proceeding commenced on or after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives September 5,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
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 on Form 10-KSB of International
Electronics, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended August 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, John Waldstein, President, Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John Waldstein                                 
|John Waldstein                                     
|President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
|Officer and Treasurer                              



Dated: November 28, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-30-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-30-1994
<CASH>                                         6668006
<SECURITIES>                                  55321978
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   79601016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             145828426
<PP&E>                                       115811713
<DEPRECIATION>                              (44459195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               217862655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         56777539
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       1161338
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   158036615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 217862655
<SALES>                                      457324621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             457324621
<CGS>                                        291937984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                291937984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             141473138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               25640216
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9487000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           16153216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  16153216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
        

</TABLE>