alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Brittany W., an Infant. Eileen Horn, Respondent; County of Rockland, Respondent, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Brittany W., an Infant. Cindy Conklin, Appellant; County of Rockland, Respondent, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[806 NYS2d 426]

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, Cindy Conklin appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated November 23, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied her petition and awarded Eileen Horn permanent custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, “[t]here was no evidence that the Law Guardian had a conflict of interest or had failed to diligently represent the best interests of the . . . child” *(Matter of King v King,*266 AD2d 546, 547 [1999]; *see also*Family Ct Act § 241). The Law Guardian did not show bias against the appellant during the course of the proceedings because she adopted a position favoring the child’s current and almost exclusive custodial placement with the petitioner in Proceeding No. 1, Eileen Horn. The role of the Law Guardian is to be an advocate for and represent the best interests of the child, not the parents *(see Matter of Hanehan v Hanehan,*8 AD3d 712 [2004]). Further, the Family Court’s determination that it would be in the child’s best interest that custody remain with Horn is supported by the record *(see generally Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; *Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln,*24 NY2d 270 [1969]; *Matter of Kurtis v Ballou,*33 AD2d 1034 [1970]).

Conklin’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1811

To provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 2001

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of

taxes program, 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 ‘‘PILT and Refuge Rev5 enue Sharing Permanent Funding Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT FUNDING FOR PILT AND REFUGE REV7 ENUE SHARING.

8 (a) PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.—Section 6906 of

9 title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as fol10 lows:
2

•HR 1811 IH

1 ‘‘§ 6901. Authorization of appropriations

2 ‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated such sums

3 as may be necessary to the Secretary of the Interior to

4 carry out this chapter. Beginning in fiscal year 2002 and

5 each fiscal year thereafter, amounts authorized under this

6 chapter shall be made available to the Secretary of the

7 Interior, out of any other funds in the Treasury not other8 wise appropriated and without further appropriation, for

9 obligation or expenditure in accordance with this chap10 ter.’’.

11 (b) REFUGE REVENUE SHARING.—Section 401(d) of

12 the Act of June 15, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 715s(d)), relating

13 to refuge revenue sharing, is amended by adding at the

14 end the following: ‘‘Beginning in fiscal year 2002 and each

15 fiscal year thereafter, such amount shall be made available

16 to the Secretary, out of any other funds in the Treasury

17 not otherwise appropriated and without further appropria18 tion, for obligation or expenditure in accordance with this

19 section.’’.

Æ
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 2005: Q2... 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q3... 6.7 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.9 5.8 7.7 7.6 7.1 6.3  Q4... 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.1 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  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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 25, 2016

NO. 03-15-00459-CR

George Harris, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND BOURLAND

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

 

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s judgment of conviction but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the 

Court modifies the trial court’s judgment of conviction to reflect that enhancement paragraphs 9 

and 10 of the indictment were used to enhance the offense: “Plea to 9th Enhancement 

Paragraph: True”; “Findings on 9th Enhancement Paragraph: True”; “Plea to 10th 

Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: True”; and “Findings on 10th Enhancement/Habitual 

Paragraph: True.” As so modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action: 11-cv-02241-LTB-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402

Date: May 22, 2012 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties: Counsel:

LUCIA VASCONCELLOS,

Plaintiff,

Shawn E. McDermott

v.

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants.

Jack M. Englert , Jr. 

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 2:36 p.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

The court addresses the parties regarding the plaintiff’s MOTION to Compel RESPONSE TO

INTERROGATORY #13 (Docket No. 21, filed on 4/25/2012) and the defendant’s RESPONSE

to #21 MOTION to Compel RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY #13 (Docket No. 27, filed on

5/16/2012).

Mr. McDermott presents oral argument to court. Discussion between the court and Mr.

McDermott regarding Rule 26(b), Rule 26(b)(2)(c), Rule 27(a), Scheduling Conference held on

December 16, 2011, Scheduling Order entered on December 16, 2011, Telephonic Discovery

Hearing held on April 12, 2012, and past activity in this case, regarding discovery, leading up to

today’s hearing. The court cites relevant case law. 

ORDERED: For the reasons as stated on the record, the court DENIES the plaintiff's

MOTION to Compel RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY #13 (Docket No. 21,

filed on 4/25/2012). The court advises Mr. McDermott that since the court has

entered its ruling from the bench the 14 days to file an appeal starts as of today. 

Case 1:11-cv-02241-LTB-CBS Document 28 Filed 05/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
The court addresses the parties regarding the plaintiff’s Unopposed MOTION to

Amend/Correct/Modify #10 Scheduling Order to Extend Deadline for Plaintiff's Opening Brief

(Docket No. 24, filed on 5/3/2012).

Discussion between the court and Mr. McDermott regarding this motion.

ORDERED: As outlined on the record, the court GRANTS the plaintiff’s Unopposed

MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #10 Scheduling Order to Extend Deadline

for Plaintiff's Opening Brief (Docket No. 24, filed on 5/3/2012). 

The court has set the deadline of August 15, 2012 or 45 days (whichever is later) after the

district court has made its ruling on any objections to file an opening brief with respect to the

ruling made on document number 21. Regardless of which date is used, the defendant’s

response shall be filed 30 days afterwards with the plaintiff’s reply being due 14 days after the

defendant’s response due date.

HEARING CONCLUDED.

Court in recess: 3:30 p.m.

Total time in court: 00:54

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at

(303) 825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Case 1:11-cv-02241-LTB-CBS Document 28 Filed 05/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending March 30, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodMADISON FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                           CICInteragency Notice of Change in Bank Control submitted by Michael R. Eaves, as an individual, Richmond, KY and Interagency Notice of Change in Bank Control submitted by Dr. William R. Allen and Pattris S. Allen and Dr, WIlliam R. Allen and Pattris S. Allen's IRA and/or 401K account(s); Michael R. Eaves and Ava M. Eaves and Michael R. Eaves and Ava M. Eaves' IRA and/or 401K account(s); Michael D. Eidson and Kathleen H. Eidson and Michael D. Eidson's IRA account(s); Jeffrey E. Neal and Debra G. Neal and Jeffrey E. Neal and Debra G. Neal's IRA and/or 401K account(s); Corey E. Neal; and Stuart K. Olds, all of Richmond, KY and J. Michael Burns, Nicholasville, KY to acquire 10% or more of the outstanding voting shares of Madison Financial Corporation, Richmond, KY.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/02/2013WVS FINANCIAL CORP.                                                                                                     CICInteragency Notice of Change in Bank Control submitted by WVS Financial Corp., ESOP and John W. Grace, Trustee, Pittsburgh, PA to retain 13.45% of the outstanding voting shares of WVS Financial Corp., Pittsburgh, PA and to acquire additional shares not to exceed 24.9% of WVS Financial Corp. total shares outstanding.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 03/25/2013
Label	Description
Date						monthly frequency
Country						domicile country or region of security issuer
By fund type; Total exposure; All MMFs	       	U.S. money market fund total investment holdings by all funds	millions of dollars
By fund type; Total exposure; Prime funds      	U.S. money market fund investment holdings by prime funds	millions of dollars
By fund type; Total exposure; Government funds 	U.S. money market fund investment holdings by government funds	millions of dollars
By fund type; Total exposure; Municipal funds  	U.S. money market fund investment holdings by tax-exempt funds	millions of dollars
By instrument; Direct debt; Total		U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type direct debt, total direct debt	millions of dollars
By instrument; Direct debt; CP and CDs		U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type direct debt, commercial paper and certificates of deposit	millions of dollars
By instrument; Direct debt; Other  		U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type direct debt, other direct debt	    millions of dollars
By instrument; Repo by collateral type; Total 	U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type security repurchase agreements, all collateral types	millions of dollars
By instrument; Repo by collateral type; U.S. Treasury	 U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type security repurchase agreements, U.S. Treasury securities as collateral	millions of dollars
By instrument; Repo by collateral type; U.S. Agency	 U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type security repurchase agreements, U.S. governemnt agency and government sponsored enterprise backed securities as collateral	  millions of dollars
By instrument; Repo by collateral type; Other	 U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type security repurchase agreements, other securities as collateral millions of dollars
By instrument; Asset-Backed Commercial Paper	 U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type asset-backed commercial paper   millions of dollars
By instrument; Other	    			U.S. money market fund investment holdings by instrument type other instruments	  millions of dollars
By maturity; Maturity in days; O/N     		U.S. money market fund investment holdings by maturity, overnight maturity	  millions of dollars
By maturity; Maturity in days; 2-7 days	    U.S. money market fund investment holdings by maturity, 2 to 7 days	 millions of dollars
By maturity; Maturity in days; 8-30 days    U.S. money market fund investment holdings by maturity, 8 to 30 days	 millions of dollars
By maturity; Maturity in days; >30 days	    U.S. money market fund investment holdings by maturity, greater than 30 days millions of dollars
By maturity; Weighted-average life in days  U.S. money market fund investment holdings weighted-average life in days	 days
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*)

2005: Q3... 7.7 7.7 7.2

 Q4... 8.1 8.0 7.6

2006: Q1... 8.3 8.3 7.8

 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

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

2005: Q3... 8.1 7.9 7.3

 Q4... 8.4 8.2 7.6

2006: Q1... 8.6 8.4 7.9

 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

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

2005: Q3... 7.9 8.0 7.8

 Q4... 8.8 8.8 8.5

2006: Q1... 8.9 9.0 8.6

 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

 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.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending July 20, 2019FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodANCHOR BANCORPORATION, INC.                                                                                             CICNotice by William H. Davis, Fairview Park, Ohio, individually, and acting in concert with William A. Minnich, Lakewood, Ohio, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Anchor Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby indirectly control Anchor State Bank, both of Anchor, Illinois.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 05/14/2019BRODHEAD BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                               * 18C
<PAGE>   1





              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
First Charter Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of First
Charter Corporation (the Corporation) on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-60641 and
333-71495) and the registration statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-71497,
333-54019, 333-54021, 333-54023, 333-60949, and 333-43617), of our report dated
January 13, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of First Charter
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
appears in the 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders and is incorporated by
reference in the 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Charter Corporation.


KPMG LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 19, 1999
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                          
                                Estimated volume               Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                             (millions of dollars)                              (percent)
                      ____________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2     Q3      Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                          
1994......    |          10       1      1      3        6      .048      .003      .003     .013     .026
1995......    |          12       0      3      6        4      .055     -.001      .011     .027     .016
1996......    |           7       0      1      2        4      .031      .000      .003     .009     .017
1997......    |          16      -1      0      3       14      .064     -.003     -.001     .010     .054
1998......    |           6      -1      3      0        5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0      3      5        7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12      3      8       14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10      9      5       17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8      6      5       16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |          32       4      6      8       14      .082      .010      .015     .021     .034
2004......    |          18       1      5      2       10      .044      .003      .012     .005     .021
2005......    |        n.a.       2     11      4     n.a.      n.a.      .005      .024     .009     n.a.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
# Fourth Court of A ppeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 20, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00027

- CR

IN RE Charles A. LHERAULT

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

On January 17, 2017, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The petition

complains the trial court has not ruled on a motion Relator filed with the trial court requesting

copies of records from his trial. Relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to

rule on the motion. The alleged refusal to rule occurred in 2016, when the Honorable Mary

Roman was the presiding judge of the 175th District Court of Bexar County, Texas. Relator

identifies Judge Roman as the respondent in his petition for mandamus. However, Judge Roman

is no longer the presiding judge of the 175 D istrict Court.

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we ABATE this proceeding for

thirty days from the date of this order to allow the newly elected judge of the 175th District

Court of Bexar County, Texas to consider Relator’s motion. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 7.2(b) (“If the

case is an original proceeding under Rule 52, the court must abate the proceeding to allow the

successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.”). The trial judge is directed to consider the

motion in question and determine what action, if any

, to take upon said motion.

Relator is ORDERED to file in this court either the appropriate motion to dismiss this

original proceeding or an amended petition for writ of mandamus and appendix no later than

fourteen days fol lowing the expiration of the thirty

- day abatement.

It is so ORDERED on January 20, 2017

.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013CR102 81 , styled State of Texas v. Charles A. Lherault , pending in

the 175th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl presiding.ATTESTED TO:

________________________________ _ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk
#### In the Matter of Jenelle L. Messer, Respondent-Appellant, v John P. Adams, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 891]

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered December 9, 2005 in an Election Law proceeding. The order, insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, adjudged that one of two contested absentee ballots should be counted for petitioner and another absentee ballot was void in its entirety.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.