alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, November 2-6, 2009Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,528,063 110,090 150,791 481,854 407,947 119,024 21,3Number of loans 25,414 1,554 3,891 10,323 4,817 1,037 1Weighted average maturity (months)1 15.33 12.91 20.37 15.69 16.84 9.60 11.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 5.24 4.43 16.70 5.87 2.54 1.14 10.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.22 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 4.63 3.82 5.97 4.48 4.03 4.24 5. Standard error5 .24 .54 .22 .43 .58 .67 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.11 5.33 6.97 5.60 5.10 4.59 5. 25th percentile 3.29 1.40 5.35 3.29 3.04 3.30 5. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.54 2.04 5.77 5.69 5.11 4.37 5. Other livestock 4.68 7.15 6.47 5.40 3.95 3.81 6. Other current operating expenses7 5.06 5.30 6.06 4.84 4.16 4.79 6.

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.43 6.62 7.23 3.96 4.54 9.94 7. Farm real estate 6.02 4.28 5.89 6.24 6.45 n.a. 5. Other8 3.41 5.92 4.03 3.00 3.50 3.76 3.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 79.43 77.31 34.80 81.52 92.87 88.11 13. Under commitment 77.84 57.71 53.11 87.42 92.53 98.58 13. Callable 15.95 11.40 16.43 18.42 9.05 4.08 84. Subject to prepayment penalty 26.56 42.87 8.27 23.11 45.02 43.05 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 14.45 49.48 31.87 11.95 3.16 6.97 7. Other livestock 5.99 4.34 5.49 1.88 11.21 15.20 . Other current operating expenses7 45.55 38.43 38.78 43.12 44.21 41.44 1. Farm machinery and equipment 8.19 3.83 3.90 19.47 2.86 .05 . Farm real estate 5.55 1.08 18.13 4.28 3.44 n.a. 82. Other8 20.26 2.85 1.83 19.30 35.12 36.34 7.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 13.00 1.49 30.07 12.05 8.39 7.50 89. Other 83.98 97.30 65.65 85.97 86.12 92.44 10. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                        
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......    |          17       2     11      4      0      .039      .005      .024     .009     .000
2006......    |          20       2      6      1     12      .042      .003      .012     .002     .023
2007......    |           8      -3      0      5      6      .015     -.006      .000     .009     .011
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
#### ROBERTS et ux. v. CALVERT LAND CO.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

Sept. 21, 1936.

W. W. Whitehurst, of Wa.u'chula, for appellants.

C. V. McClurg and E. C. McClurg, both of Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal before us brings for review final decree of foreclosure of tax lien under the provisions of chapter 14572, Acts 1929 (Ex.Sess.).

The record sho-ws that the lands involved were not returned for taxation by the owner; that the owner deliberately stopped paying taxes on the said land because he considered the assessment too high, although he had for several years prior, without making any record of complaint, paid the taxes based on the identical valuation and took no steps to force a reduction in valuation.

*750The defense was that the tax certificate was invalid because of excessive valuation of the lands for tax assessment.

The decree should be affirmed on authority of Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 So. 136; Tax Securities Corp. v. Borland, 103 Fla. 63, 137 So. 151; and Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee Co., 115 Fla. 655, 155 So. 742.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur _ in the opinion and judgment.
Case 1:05-cv-00079-SM   Document 43   Filed 09/01/06   Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00450-SM Document 6 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2079

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profits

tax on electric generating facilities having excess profits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 6, 2001

Mr. MCDERMOTT 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 impose

a windfall profits tax on electric generating facilities

having excess profits.

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

3 SECTION 1. WINDFALL PROFITS TAX ON ELECTRIC GENER4 ATING FACILITIES HAVING EXCESS PROFITS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle E of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to alcohol, tobacco, and cer7 tain other excise taxes) is amended by adding at the end

8 thereof the following new chapter:
2

•HR 2079 IH

1 ‘‘CHAPTER 55—WINDFALL PROFITS TAX

2 ON ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILI3 TIES HAVING EXCESS PROFITS

‘‘Sec. 5886. Imposition of tax.

4 ‘‘SEC. 5886. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any other tax im6 posed under this title, there is hereby imposed an excise

7 tax equal to the windfall profit on the sale of electricity

8 by the person producing such electricity.

9 ‘‘(b) WINDFALL PROFIT.—For purposes of this sec10 tion, the term ‘windfall profit’ means, with respect to any

11 sale, so much of the profit on such sale as exceeds a 15

12 percent pretax rate of return.

13 ‘‘(c) LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF TAX.—The tax im14 posed by subsection (a) shall be paid by the seller.

15 ‘‘(d) EXEMPTION FOR ELECTRICITY GENERATED

16 USING RENEWABLE ENERGY.—This section shall not

17 apply to electricity produced from renewable sources. For

18 purposes of the preceding sentence, renewable sources are

19 wind, sun, or water power.

20 ‘‘(e) SALES TO RELATED PERSONS.—If a sale of elec21 tricity is to a related person (within the meaning of section

22 482), the sale shall be treated for purposes of this section

23 as being made at the price at which the electricity is first
3

•HR 2079 IH

1 sold to a person who is not a related person (as so de2 fined), minus transmission costs.’’

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters

4 for subtitle E of such Code is amended by adding at the

5 end the following new item:

‘‘Chapter 55. Windfall profits tax on electric generating facilities

having excess profits.’’

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

7 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

8 of this Act.

9 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

10 It is the sense of the Congress that revenues from

11 the tax imposed by chapter 55 of the Internal Revenue

12 Code of 1986, as added by this Act, should be used—

13 (1) to provide an income tax reduction for con14 sumers that would help moderate the impact of high

15 prices on the poor or small businessmen, and

16 (2) to encourage the development of alternative

17 energy sources through tax credits for research in

18 renewable energy.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CALTON, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

        In connection with the annual report of Calton, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
J. Caldarone, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  February 24, 2006           By:  /s/ Anthony J. Caldarone
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Anthony J. Caldarone
                                         Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                         and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven P. Lemay

v. Case No. 08-cv-195-SM

State of New Hampshire, et al. 

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 16, 2008, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

set forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

November 18, 2008 ___________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Steven P. Lemay, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00195-SM Document 4 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


September 12, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 444 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on September 11, 2019, in
accordance with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We
consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the
Registration Statement (No. 333-232116) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the
sale of the Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
1 “[#9]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02253-REB-MJW

MELISSA CRAFT,

EMILY PELLIGRINI,

AUBREY DEMPSEY,

DEBRALYNN DEMPSEY,

MARK REYNA,

NICHOLAS HAMRA,

JESSICA MUTSCHLER,

GERARDO IVAN RANERO, a minor by his next friend MARIA WARD,

KENNETH KELLY,

SANDRA KELLY,

LEAH KELLY,

KRISTINA BEAGLE,

DANIEL TAKAMI,

GLORIA SANCHEZ,

ALEXANDER GORHAM,

JAMES E. McLEAN,

THERESA McLEAN,

JACLYN McLEAN,

JOSEF McLEAN, and

JAMES E. McLEAN, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is Defendant United States of America’s Motion To

Consolidate Case and Certificate of Compliance With D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 [#9]1

Case 1:11-cv-02253-REB-MJW Document 10 Filed 09/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

 I note that defendant has filed identical motions in two other pending cases as well. (See

Defendant United States of America’s Motion To Consolidate Case and Certificate of Compliance

With D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 [#9] filed September 8, 2011, Contag et al. v. United States, Civil Case No.

11-cv-01832-MSK-MJW; Defendant United States of America’s Motion To Consolidate Case and

Certificate of Compliance With D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 [#9] filed September 8, 2011, Global Aerospace,

Inc. v. United States, Civil Case No. 11-cv-01874-WYD-KMT.) 

filed September 8, 2011. I deny the motion. 

Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado-Civil, “[a] motion to consolidate shall be decided by the district judge

to whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation is assigned

for trial” and, if consolidation is found to be warranted, the consolidated case is

assigned to the docket in the lowest numbered case. D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. In this

matter, the lowest numbered case is Ressler, et al. v. United States, Civil Action No.

10-cv-03050-REB-BNB.2

 Although I am the district judge assigned to both cases,

resolution of the motion for consolidation must be decided in the lowest numbered case.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant United States of America’s

Motion To Consolidate Case and Certificate of Compliance With D.C.COLO.LCivR

7.1 [#9], filed September 8, 2011, is DENIED.

Dated September 9, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02253-REB-MJW Document 10 Filed 09/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2284]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 4, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Mills Financial Services, Inc., Brainerd, Minnesota; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of First Security Bank - 
Sanborn, Sanborn, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 4, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-2284 Filed 2-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-161-01/02-SM

Alan Houghton and

Alnardo Suarez,

 Defendants

O R D E R

Defendant Suarez’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

10). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of May 2009. Defendant Suarez

shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than February 17, 2009. 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-00161-SM Document 11 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for May 8, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. 

Jury selection will take place on May 19, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 4, 2009

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Michael Zaino, SAUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM Document 11 Filed 02/05/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-112-01-SM

Joseph Allen

O R D E R

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

is granted (document 9). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2009 trial

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

December 8, 2008. 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: March 6, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 17, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00112-SM Document 10 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

November 21, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00112-SM Document 10 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Phillip Scott Scherrer

v. Case No. 08-cv-2-SM

United States of America

ORDER

Re: Document No. 27, Objection to Assented to Motion for

Hearing

Ruling: Objection overruled. The government apparently

contests the factual premise underlying the petition, i.e. that

drugs administered before the plea hearing rendered petitioner

incapable of entering a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea to

any criminal charge. An evidentiary hearing is necessary,

assuming, as the government suggests, that evidence beyond the

contents of the psychological reports will be offered. Counsel

may, but are not required, to stipulate to the contents of the

psychological reports as fairly setting out what the live testimony

of the authors would be. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: November 9, 2009 

cc: Liam D. Scully, Esq. 

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, AUSA

Case 1:08-cv-00002-SM Document 29 Filed 11/09/09 Page 1 of 1
STATE OF DELAWARE
                    CERTIFICATION OF AMENDMENT
                 OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                OF
                   M POWER ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

A corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:   That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of M Power
Entertainment, Inc. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed
amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring
said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of
said corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the
proposed amendment is as follows:

         RESOLVED, that the Certificate if Incorporation of this corporation
         be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered "Fourth" so
         that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:

         The total number of shares of stock which the corporation shall have
         authority to issue is one billion (1,000,000,000) shares. The par
         value of each of such shares is one one-tenth of one cent ($0.001)
         dollars. The board of Directors is expressly vested with the
         authority to fix the voting powers, full or limited, or no voting
         powers, and such designations, preferences and relative,
         participating, optional or other special rights, and qualifications,
         limitations or restrictions on any shares issued by the corporation.

     SECOND:   That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of
Directors, a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly
called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number
of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

     THIRD:   That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     FOURTH:   That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under
or by reason of said amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said M Power Entertainment, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be signed by Gary F. Kimmons, an Authorized Officer, this 26
day of June, 2006.


                                 By: /s/ Gary F. Kimmons
                                     Authorized Officer
                                     Title: President
                                     Name: Gary F. Kimmons
                                     Print or type

State of Delaware
Secretary of State
Division of Corporations
Delivered 01:04: PM 06/27/2006
FILED 01:04 PM 06/27/2006
SRV 060615787 - 2153177 FILE