alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Philip Swackhammer, Appellant.

[809 NYS2d 227]

Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), entered October 5, 2004, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Following defendant’s conviction of the crimes of sodomy in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child stemming from his sexual contact with his minor stepdaughter, he was sentenced to prison. Upon defendant’s release, County Court conducted a hearing and thereafter classified him as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C). Defendant now appeals.

We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erroneously calculated his risk factor score. A review of the record reveals that defendant had previously been convicted as a youthful offender of burglary in the third degree, thereby supporting the court’s assessment of points relative to his criminal history *(see People v King,*15 AD3d 693, 693 [2005]). As for defendant’s postrelease status, the record is equally as clear that he is not subject to any type of parole or probation supervision. As such, the court’s assessment of points concerning defendant’s release without supervision was also appropriate.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### MURFF v. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 4509.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 31, 1933.

Murff & Perkins, of Shreveport, for appellant.

L. L. Morgan, of Covington, A. S. Cain, Jr., of New Orleans, and D. M. Ellison, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

Plaintiff’s application and the brief in support thereof indicates that counsel misapprehends the reason why that part of his prayer, “He further prays for judgment ordering and .commanding the Louisiana Highway Commission to put in large and .adequate culverts to take off said water, which should be at least three or more times as large as they now aré,” was dismissed as of nonsuit.

Where a mandatory order issues, it should be so clear and specific as to leave nothing to the discretion of the party commanded.

In the present case a system six miles long, consisting of bridges as well as culverts, and draining a very large territory, is involved. Who is to decide what culverts are to be enlarged and to what extent to be adequate? Would it not be better to lengthen the bridges? In fact, plaintiff in his brief suggests that he thinks the lengthening of the bridges at Cross bayou alone would afford relief. Had this been alleged and supported by proof, a different situation would have been presented.

The present ease is clearly distinguishable from those cited wherein a definite obstruction was ordered removed.

A rehearing is also asked for by defendant. Both applications are refused.

Defendant, after the rendition of judgment on appeal, files a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction ratione materise. It is based upon the prayer contained in plaintiff’s petition quoted above, and is supported by affidavits of engineers that any material change in the drainage outlets tinder the road would cost at least *768$10,000, which amount of course exceeds the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Por the same reason that the nonsuit was entered, to wit, the indefiniteness of the demand, the motion is not good. If the demand is so uncertain that we can afford no relief, how is it possible to determine what that relief would cost?

Furthermore, coming after judgment, where the want of jurisdiction does not appear on the face of the record, it is urged too late. Norwood v. Wimby; 104 La. 645, 29 So. 311.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1768 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1768

                For the relief of Thomas Patrick McEvoy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

  Mr. Bonior introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Thomas Patrick McEvoy.

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

SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING 
              THE RATE OF VETERANS' NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY 
              PENSION.

    For purposes of calculating the annual rate of non-service-
connected disability pension paid to Thomas Patrick McEvoy of Macomb 
Township, Michigan, under section 1521 of title 38, United States Code, 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall exclude from the determination 
of the annual income of Thomas Patrick McEvoy under section 1503 of 
title 38, United States Code, any disability insurance benefit to which 
Thomas Patrick McEvoy is entitled for such year under section 223 of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56815-56816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22861]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER08-1558-000]

Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 23, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 19, 2008, Constellation Energy 
Commodities Group, Inc. (Constellation) filed a request for short-term 
waiver of the Commission's affiliate sales restrictions, effective 
September 19, 2008, with respect to ongoing power sales by 
Constellation to PacifiCorp under its market-based rate tariff, until a 
more detailed proposal for future sales is filed and accepted by the 
Commission, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 
824d (2006) and Part 35 of the Rules and Procedures of the Commission, 
18 CFR Part 35 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 56816]]

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 26, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22861 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
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 April 1, 2007 (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: May 11, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR                
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Ronald J. Buschur                    
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








Pursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Natural Blue Solutions, Inc.
(formerly known as Datameg Corporation) (the "Company") does hereby certify, to
the best of such officer's knowledge, that:





1.      The
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





2.      The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  December
      24, 2009/s/  Toney
      AnayaToney
      Anaya,Chief
      Executive Officer





The
certifications set forth above are being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, nor shall they be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Natural Blue Solutions, Inc. and will be
retained by Natural Blue Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CINCINNATI MILACRON INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS


(In thousands, except per-share amounts)

                              1997        1996      1995
                          --------    --------  --------

Net earnings              $ 80,589    $ 66,301  $105,644

Less preferred dividends       240         240       240
                          --------    --------  --------
 Net earnings available
  to common shareholders  $ 80,349    $ 66,061  $105,404
                          ========    ========  ========

Basic Earnings Per Share

 Weighted-average common
  shares outstanding        39,583      37,667    33,908
                          ========    ========  ========

     Per share amount     $   2.03    $   1.75  $   3.11
                          ========    ========  ========

Diluted Earnings Per Share

 Weighted-average common
  shares outstanding        39,583      37,667    33,908
 Add dilutive effect of
  stock options and
  restricted shares
  based on treasury
  stock method                 373         276       401
                          --------    --------  --------

   Total                    39,956      37,943    34,309
                          ========    ========  ========

     Per share amount     $   2.01    $   1.74  $   3.07
                          ========    ========  ========
#### Robert M. Richter, Respondent, v Davidson & Cohen, P.C., et al., Appellants.

[807 NYS2d 637]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated May 26, 2004, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice against the defendants who represented him in an underlying personal injury action, and settled the case for $800,000. The plaintiff had refused to execute a general release and stipulation of discontinuance in the underlying action, and the defendants therein moved to compel the plaintiff to execute it. A hearing was conducted before Justice Ambrosio in the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding whether the settlement in the underlying action was authorized. Upon the completion of the hearing, the court found that the defendants in the underlying action entered into the stipulation of settlement with “both apparent and real authority to settle this case for the amount indicated.”

In the instant action, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff was not collaterally estopped from raising the issue of whether the defendants had actual authority to settle his case *(see Buechel v Bain,*97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], *cert denied*535 US 1096 [2002]; *Church v New York State Thruway Auth.,*16 AD3d 808, 810 [2005]). This Court cannot say that the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of actual authority, since that issue was never identified as the issue to be determined at the hearing before Justice Ambrosio *(see Church v New York State Thruway Auth., id.; cf. Malloy v Trombley,*50 NY2d 46 [1980]; *see also Hallock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224 [1984]). Therefore, the Supreme Court was correct in denying that branch of the motion which was to *596dismiss the first cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice on the ground that the defendants entered into a settlement agreement without the plaintiff’s actual authority *(see Patco Homes v Boyle,*260 AD2d 455, 456 [1999]; *Church v New York State Thruway Auth., supra).*

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11.
 
                         FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC.
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
                        THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
                (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               JUNE 30, 1997
                                                             ------------------
<S>                                                          <C>
Net Income..................................................     $    1.647
                                                                 ==========
Weighted average shares outstanding:
  Weighted average shares issued............................      8,707,152
  Less: Unallocated shares held by the ESOP.................       (607,045)
  Plus: ESOP shares released or committed to be released
   during the fiscal year...................................          9,760
                                                                 ----------
    Weighted average shares outstanding.....................      8,109,867
                                                                 ==========
Earnings per share..........................................     $      .20
                                                                 ==========
</TABLE>

                                      15
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006...... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007...... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2000: Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 1.9 .7 1.2 .2 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .2 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007: Q1... 1.0 .6 .4 .1 .3 1.9 1.1 .8 .3 .5

 Q2... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .7 .9 .2 .7

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22
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 Quarterly  Report of Manchester  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal  quarter ended January 31, 2004, as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Barry R. Steinberg,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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.


Date: March 11, 2004                 /S/ Barry R. Steinberg
                                        -----------------------------------

                                     Barry R. Steinberg
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1-3 Filed 10/20/08 Page 18 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-119-02-SM

Carlos Marsach

O R D E R

Defendant's motion to continue the trial for 30 days (document no. 50) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the March trial period. Defendant shall file

a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than January 22, 2010. On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00119-SM Document 51 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: March 9, 2010 at 2:00 PM 

Jury Selection: March 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

January 12, 2010 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00119-SM Document 51 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 2
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*)

2006: Q2... 8.7 8.7 8.2

 Q3... 8.9 8.8 8.3

 Q4... 9.0 8.8 8.3

2007: Q1... 8.9 8.8 8.2

 Q2... 8.8 8.7 8.2

 Q3... 8.7 8.6 8.2

 Q4... 8.2 8.1 7.6

2008: Q1... 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q2... 6.6 6.7 6.4

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

2006: Q2... 9.0 8.8 8.2

 Q3... 9.1 8.9 8.4

 Q4... 9.2 8.9 8.3

2007: Q1... 9.1 8.8 8.3

 Q2... 9.1 8.8 8.2

 Q3... 9.0 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 8.5 8.2 7.7

2008: Q1... 7.4 7.2 6.7

 Q2... 7.1 6.9 6.6

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

2006: Q2... 9.1 9.1 8.7

 Q3... 9.3 9.3 8.8

 Q4... 9.4 9.4 8.8

2007: Q1... 9.2 9.3 8.6

 Q2... 9.4 9.5 9.3

 Q3... 9.1 8.9 8.8

 Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.4

2008: Q1... 7.5 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 6.6 6.8 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.