alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 200

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction

for host families of foreign exchange and other students from $50 per

month to $200 per month.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the deduction for host families of foreign exchange and

other students from $50 per month to $200 per month.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR

4 AMOUNTS PAID TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN STU5 DENTS AS MEMBERS OF TAXPAYER’S HOUSE6 HOLD.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section

8 170(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

9 to amounts paid to maintain certain students as members
2

•HR 200 IH

1 of taxpayer’s household) is amended by striking ‘‘$50’’

2 and inserting ‘‘$200’’.

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 170(g)

4 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(5) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any

8 taxable year beginning in a calendar year after

9 2001, the $200 amount contained in paragraph

10 (2)(A) shall be increased by an amount equal

11 to—

12 ‘‘(i) $200, multiplied by

13 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de14 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal15 endar year in which the taxable year be16 gins by substituting ‘calendar year 2000’

17 for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph

18 (B) thereof.

19 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any increase deter20 mined under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of

21 $10, such increase shall be rounded to the next

22 highest multiple of $10.’’.
3

•HR 200 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this Act shall apply to taxable years beginning after De3 cember 31, 2000.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-217-01/02-SM

William L. Twining and

Shirley Bruce

O R D E R

Defendant Bruce’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 23). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2008 trial

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

May 5, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, her 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: May 30, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

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

Case 1:07-cr-00217-SM Document 24 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 25 , 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq. 

Peter Papps, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00217-SM Document 24 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60351 Summary Calendar

ORLANDO Y. SAY, also known as Orlando Yobani Say-Tuch, also known as Orlando Yobani Tuch,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A76 428 121

-------------------- March 25, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Orlando Y. Say, a cit izen of Guatemala, petitions this

court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision

denying his application for political a sylum and his request for

withholding of removal. Say asserts that he has suffered past

persecution and fears future persecution because of a statutorily

protected ground and that a reasonable fact-finder would have beenNo. 02-60351 -2-

compelled to conclude that he has a well-founded fear of

persecution in Guatemala.

The BIA based its denial of Say’s application for

pol itical asylum and his request for withholding of removal upon

the Immigration Judge’s finding that Say was not a credible witness

and that his claims of persecution were unbelievable. This court

does not review BIA decisions based purely on the Immigration

Judge’s assessment of the alien’s credibility. C hun v. INS , 40

F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).

Moreover, even taking Say’s testimony as true, this does

not establish a case for asylum. His testimony does not establish

a particularized connection between his political activity and his

current fear of persecution. S ee Faddoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188

(5th Cir. 1994). Say’s petition for review of the BIA decision is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-cr-39-01-SM

Salvador Williams

ORDER

Re: Document No. 50, Motion to Suppress Evidence

Ruling: Denied. Having reviewed defendant’s pro se motion to

suppress evidence, it appears that defendant claims, essentially,

that evidence seized by state police pursuant to a state-issued

warrant should be suppressed in this court because the time for

executing the warrant and/or filing a return expired before this

federal prosecution was initiated, and before the seized evidence

was transferred from state authorities to federal authorities. Of

course, the controlling legal question is whether evidence the

government proposes to introduce at trial was seized in violation

of defendant’s constitutional rights. Nothing in the motion

suggests that it was. It matters not whether the state seized the

evidence and handed it to federal authorities, or vice-versa. In

Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223-224 (1960), the Supreme

Court abandoned the so-called “silver-platter doctrine” and held

that in determining whether there had been an unreasonable search

and seizure by state officers, a federal court must make an

independent inquiry into the lawfulness of the search and seizure.

If lawful under federal constitutional standards, seized evidence

is admissible, if not lawful, the seized evidence is inadmissable.

No legal issue arises from the transfer of evidence from one

sovereign to another, so long as the seizing authority did so in

accordance with the constitution. 

Defendant also seems to claim that some evidence the

government intends to introduce is not the evidence actually seized

(i.e. different serial numbered laptop computer and components).

While that may or may not be so, defendant can, if appropriate,

object to evidence offered at trial on grounds that it is not

Case 1:09-cr-00039-SM Document 52 Filed 07/29/09 Page 1 of 2
relevant (i.e. was not associated with him), or that it is not that

which was properly seized. 

Finally, defendant seems to seek suppression of statements

taken from him in violation of his Miranda rights, claiming that

police were obliged to read him the Miranda warnings before

arresting him (which is not so) and before taking a statement from

him (which is so, assuming he was in custody), but, he does not

identify any statements he made while in custody and before being

properly warned - to the contrary he says he told the officer at

his arrest that he did not have anything to say. While lengthy and

sincere, the motion is without legal merit, as counsel has no doubt

advised defendant. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: July 29, 2009

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:09-cr-00039-SM Document 52 Filed 07/29/09 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1801 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1801

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 West 10th 
  Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Eldon B. Mahon United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2001

 Ms. Granger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 West 10th 
  Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Eldon B. Mahon United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 501 West 10th Street in 
Fort Worth, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Eldon B. 
Mahon United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Eldon B. Mahon 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

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

1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2006...... 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.0 2007...... 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.5 8.5 7.6 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.0 2008...... 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.9 6.3 4.8 6.8 6.6 6.1 5.3 2006: Q1... 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 7.8  Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 8.6 8.8 8.5 7.8  Q3... 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4  Q4... 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 7.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.1 2007: Q1... 8.5 8.9 8.3 8.7 8.9 8.1 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.4  Q2... 8.6 9.0 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.4  Q3... 8.5 8.9 8.6 8.8 8.4 7.7 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.1  Q4... 7.7 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 6.9 8.6 8.5 8.3 7.4 2008: Q1... 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 5.8 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q2... 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.1 5.9 4.9 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.4  Q3... 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.5 6.3 4.7 6.6 6.6 6.1 4.9  Q4... 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.1 6.5 4.0 6.1 6.1 5.6 4.3 2009: Q1... 5.1 5.8 4.1 5.5 5.4 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.0  Q2... 4.7 5.3 4.4 5.0 6.0 3.6 5.9 5.6 5.3 4.3  Q3... 4.7 5.0 3.9 5.0 5.8 3.8 5.8 5.7 5.4 4.1  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual 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.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711



### . ..QFFIGIALSUSINESS • m&m>w® <T > PENALTY FOR FRBVATEUSE •BC SSSffiP PITNEV BOWES .

76127 U 

### 4/8/2015 PRIVATE USE • g| 

## DELBOSQUE, GRISELDA Tr. Ct.cN&. flS^/St^Af0FROMZWf2^13°61-01 The Court has dismissed your application for writ of habeascorpus without written 

### order; the sentence hasbeen discharged. See ExparteHarrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 02 1R 0002003152 APR09 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk GRISELDA DELBOSQUE^ U'TF 

### iH,'lihHi,liiM,nlll'll'iiM'HM»Hiil^ii»ii,H,1i''l^li
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Parks

v. 07-cv-173-PB

Hampton Falls, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 17, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

December 10, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: William Parks, Pro se

Michael Ricker, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00173-JL Document 9 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LARSCOM INCORPORATED FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,592
<SECURITIES>                                     7,303
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                       649
<INVENTORY>                                      5,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,631
<PP&E>                                          19,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,257
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           183
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   665,935
<SALES>                                         25,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,444
<CGS>                                           13,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (519)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,868)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,147)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH SEPTEMBER 1998 10Q
</LEGEND> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         226,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    604,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,282,996
<PP&E>                                      25,619,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                 447,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,189,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,079,245
<BONDS>                                      5,102,810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,426,630
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,088,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,189,672
<SALES>                                        579,276
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               579,276
<CGS>                                          408,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  902,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (487,952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   175,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (312,289)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (312,289)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, May 7-11, 2007Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,362,503 74,773 162,181 581,402 240,463 66,284 34,89Number of loans 32,477 2,590 5,150 12,931 4,966 890 7Weighted average maturity (months)1 21.02 14.42 19.20 19.85 22.69 13.11 35.7

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 8.92 6.99 8.05 8.55 2.84 5.66 16.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.05 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 8.62 8.56 8.52 8.65 8.55 8.78 9. Standard error5 .07 .13 .20 .14 .21 .33 .2

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.40 9.07 9.42 9.35 9.38 9.14 9.9 25th percentile 8.00 8.25 7.76 8.03 7.50 8.24 8.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.91 9.03 9.42 8.54 9.30 9.70 9.9 Other livestock 8.61 9.44 9.17 9.18 7.61 7.61 9.4 Other current operating expenses7 8.92 8.47 8.87 9.00 8.92 8.84 10.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.67 7.98 8.28 8.53 9.23 10.58 8.5 Farm real estate 8.11 8.62 7.89 8.08 8.76 n.a. 8.9 Other8 7.97 8.72 6.99 7.82 8.27 8.91 8.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 67.72 29.42 61.30 67.75 92.44 61.75 65.4 Under commitment 71.71 83.62 67.76 74.72 92.81 87.03 66. Callable 21.50 23.93 24.82 27.25 13.02 6.04 24.7 Subject to prepayment penalty 2.30 1.61 .18 4.21 2.00 .12 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.63 9.87 10.56 4.46 3.00 .57 11.4 Other livestock 6.04 2.90 11.57 3.71 9.88 6.53 11.0 Other current operating expenses7 52.58 78.19 48.04 54.89 35.91 79.62 27.9 Farm machinery and equipment 7.77 2.24 4.20 10.48 7.42 .24 4. Farm real estate 7.41 2.37 7.58 9.67 2.73 n.a. 8. Other8 20.57 4.43 18.05 16.79 41.06 13.03 36.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 13.26 8.61 11.62 13.64 10.55 18.43 17. Other 82.92 88.73 86.22 81.89 88.10 79.69 80. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

****************************************** 

GMAC Mortgage, LLC (f/k/a GMAC Mortgage * 

Corporation), * 

 Plaintiff * 

 * 

v. * 

 * Civil Action No. 

 * 1:08-CV-00428-PB 

Schaefer Mortgage Corporation, Timothy * 

Amsden, Timothy Beaudoin, Rich Boisvert, * 

John Gaglia, Denise Johnson, Jake * 

Pelletier and Sam Pirri, * 

 Defendants * 

 * 

****************************************** 

DEFENDANT DENISE JOHNSON’S ASSENTED-TO MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME II

 NOW COMES the Defendant, Denise Johnson (“Johnson”), by and 

through her counsel, Wilson, Bush, Durkin & Keefe, and 

respectfully requests to extend time for filing an Objection to 

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and, 

in support thereof states as follows: 

 1. On October 27, 2008, the Plaintiff filed its Amended 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendant’s Objection to 

this motion is due on or about November 13, 2008. 

 2. On October 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed its Amended 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendant’s Objection 

to this Motion is due on or about November 13, 2008. 

Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 35 Filed 11/13/08 Page 1 of 3
2

 3. The parties have notified the Court that this matter 

has settled. The parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal is due on or 

before December 12, 2008. 

 4. Accordingly, Johnson respectfully requests that the 

deadline for filing her Objections to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order be 

extended until December 12, 2008, should it become necessary to 

file these responsive pleadings. 

 5. All counsel in this case assent to the relief sought 

herein. 

 6. Due to the nature of this Motion, no memorandum of law 

is necessary. 

 WHEREFORE, Denise Johnson requests that this Court: 

 A. Extend the time for Johnson to file her Objection to 

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 

 B. Extend the time for Johnson to file her Objection to 

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion Temporary Restraining Order; 

 C. Grant such further relief as this Court deems 

necessary and just. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 DENISE JOHNSON 

 By Her Attorneys, 

 WILSON, BUSH, DURKIN & KEEFE 

Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 35 Filed 11/13/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Dated: November 13, 2008 By: /s/ Charles J. Keefe___ 

 Charles J. Keefe, # 14209 

 184 Main Street, Suite 222 

 Nashua, New Hampshire 03060 

 (603) 595-0007 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendant 

Denise Johnson’s Assented-to Motion to Extend Time to File 

Answer was this day forwarded to John A. Houlihan, Esq., Robert 

G. Young, II, Esq., William E. Christie, Esq., James D. 

Rosenberg, Esq., Brian Quirk, Esq. and Marc W. McDonald, Esq. 

opposing counsel. 

 Dated: November 13, 2008 /s/ Charles J. Keefe___ 

Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 35 Filed 11/13/08 Page 3 of 3
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2007   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2008   | 1  | 0  | .  | .  | .     |