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

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41994
          69
          10
          11
          15
          33
          .187
          .026
          .032
          .037
          .0821995
          51
          -2
          14
          13
          25
          .131
          -.004
          .039
          .032
          .0611996
          95
          16
          27
          24
          30
          .240
          .039
          .070
          .058
          .0711997
          93
          6
          19
          19
          50
          .230
          .014
          .049
          .045
          .1121998
          87
          4
          15
          24
          45
          .198
          .008
          .036
          .051
          .0951999
          126
          18
          37
          35
          36
          .280
          .040
          .086
          .078
          .0802000
          108
          11
          17
          34
          45
          .259
          .027
          .041
          .075
          .0982001
          308
          67
          53
          140
          48
          .656
          .142
          .118
          .294
          .1012002
          221
          40
          50
          58
          73
          .471
          .085
          .114
          .124
          .1572003
          175
          34
          35
          48
          58
          .382
          .074
          .080
          .108
          .1282004
          129
          28
          17
          46
          38
          .284
          .062
          .039
          .099
          .0812005
          n.a.
          8
          16
          12
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .017
          .035
          .026
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: January 25, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Saalfrank et al

v. Civil No. 08-cv-46-JL

Town of Alton et al

O R D E R

The Deputy Clerk shall schedule a hearing on all unresolved discovery disputes during the

last week of January, 2009. The parties shall jointly file a proposed protective order, with any

disputed alternative provisions set off in bold or italics to facilitate a ruling choosing one

alternative, on or before January 16, 2009. Two days before the scheduled hearing, the parties

shall jointly submit a list of still-disputed document requests, with each party's respective position

set forth after each listed request. Although the court has formed certain opinions based on the

parties' written submissions thus far, it suspends final judgment until the hearing. Counsel should

anticipate, however, that positions deemed unreasonable by the court at the hearing will result in

commensurate awards of attorneys' fees and costs. If the plaintiff is the party ordered to pay any

fees and costs, all aspects of the litigation will be stayed, and all deadlines extended, until the

order to reimburse is fully satisfied. Thus, in drafting the proposed protective order and list of

disputed requests as ordered above, the parties should earnestly endeavor to resolve as many

disputes as possible.

SO ORDERED.

December 31, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

 United States District Judge

cc: All Counsel

Case 1:08-cv-00046-JL Document 63 Filed 12/31/08 Page 1 of 1
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1885

AN ACT

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply

for adjustment of status under section 245(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline for classification petition andlabor certification filings, and for other purposes.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1885

AN ACT

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for

adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline

for classification petition and labor certification filings,

and for other purposes.
2

•HR 1885 EH

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 ‘‘Section 245(i) Exten5 sion Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

7 Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended—

9 (1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘2001;’’

10 and inserting ‘‘2001, or during the 120-day period

11 beginning on the date of the enactment of the Sec12 tion 245(i) Extension Act of 2001;’’; and

13 (2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as

14 follows:

15 ‘‘(C) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a peti16 tion for classification, or an application for labor

17 certification, described in subparagraph (B) that was

18 filed after January 14, 1998—

19 ‘‘(i) was physically present in the United

20 States on December 21, 2000; and

21 ‘‘(ii) demonstrates that the familial or em22 ployment relationship that is the basis of such

23 petition for classification or application for
3

•HR 1885 EH

1 labor certification existed on or before April 30,

2 2001;’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6951

WILMER JEROME KNIGHT,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

OFFICER SHEPPHERD; OFFICER PARKS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00687-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: November 13, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilmer Jerome Knight, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilmer Jerome Knight appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Knight v. Sheppherd, No. 7:14-cv-00687-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. 

May 22, 2015). We deny Knight’s motions for reconsideration, to 

vacate, for judgment and for appointment of counsel, and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
__________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2          Q3           Q4           Total
__________________________________________________________________________________

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              0
2007......    |             0           0           0             0              0
2008......    |             1           0           0             2              3
2009......    |             2           3           2          n.a.           n.a.
__________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
Exhibit 31.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, C.W. Gilluly, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMASYS Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and
the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
controls.

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
any other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



November 15, 2004                         /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                          Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
MARCH 31, 1997 COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ERGOBILT, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,564,255
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,266,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,042,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,129,458
<PP&E>                                       2,831,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,765,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,390,201
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           606
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,540,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,765,500
<SALES>                                      3,731,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,731,267
<CGS>                                        1,878,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,878,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                695,390
<INCOME-TAX>                                   255,133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            440,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   440,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Eveready Insurance Company, Appellant, v Joseph Modeste et al., Respondents.

[810 NYS2d 89]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.H.O.), dated May 17, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

By order dated December 19, 2003, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed arbitration of the subject uninsured motorist claim and joined Southern United Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter Southern United), the purported insurer of the offending vehicle, as a necessary party respondent. The court also referred the matter to a Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter *696the JHO) for a framed-issue hearing as to whether Southern United’s denial of coverage was legally effective. By order dated November 16, 2004, the Supreme Court properly granted Southern United’s motion to dismiss the proceeding insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction *(see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v Johnson,*260 AD2d 638 [1999]). It found that Southern United was a foreign insurer based in the State of Alabama, unauthorized to transact business in the State of New York. The Supreme Court determined that the petitioner failed to establish that Southern United had any contacts in New York sufficient for the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction. In finding that an issue existed regarding whether Southern United properly disclaimed coverage on the ground of lack of cooperation by its insured, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed arbitration for six months so that the petitioner could commence an action in Alabama to determine the issue.

The petitioner failed to commence any action or proceeding in Alabama, but instead sought to go forward with the framed-issue hearing that had been directed by the Supreme Court prior to the dismissal of the proceeding insofar as asserted against Southern United. The petitioner now appeals from the order dated May 17, 2005, which denied the petition to stay arbitration and dismissing the proceeding.

The stay of arbitration contained in the order dated November 16, 2004, was for the express purpose of affording the petitioner an opportunity to litigate, in Alabama, the propriety of Southern United’s disclaimer of coverage. The petitioner failed to do so and, in essence, failed to perform the condition precedent fixed by the court for proceeding with its petition to stay arbitration. As the petitioner chose not to commence an action or proceeding in Alabama on the coverage disclaimer issue, which was the basis for the temporary stay, it must now proceed to arbitration. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### PERRAULT v. PROFFER.

No. 18868.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 1, 1947.

Maurice B. Gatlin and Harry R. Hill, both of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Melvin P. Barre and Rene R. Nicaud, both of New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellee moves to dismiss this appeal for the reason of our lack of jurisdiction. The suit involves a demand for the sum of $2,000 with legal interest, plus attorneys’ fees in the amount of $500. The amount sued for is claimed by plaintiff as the amount due him arising out of the alleged violation by defendant of a contract involving the purchase and sale of certain real estate located near LaPlace, Louisiana. The petition alleges that under the terms of the contract plaintiff is entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees.

Appellee contends that the amount of attorneys’ fees should be added to the $2,000 claimed and that the aggregate of these amounts is in excess of our maximum jurisdictional limit under Const.1921, art. 7, §§ 10, 29.

This contention is meritorious. It is well established that an attorney’s fee fixed in a contract forms part of the demand and that it is inseparable from the main demand in determining the matter of appellate jurisdiction. See Thompson v. Jones, 200 La. 437, 438, 8 So.2d 286, and cases therein cited.

Exercising the discretion with which we are vested by Act No. 19 of 1912, we conclude that the matter should be transferred to the Supreme Court.

In his motion, appellee also contends that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the appeal bond furnished by the appellant is defective. As we have no jurisdiction of this matter we cannot pass upon this second ground of complaint

*580Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that this appeal be and it is transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana to be adjudicated according to law; the transfer is to be made within sixty days after this judgment becomes final, and if the transfer is not so made, then the ap1-peal is to be considered dismissed; plaintiff-appellant is to pay the costs of appeal in this court, and all other costs are to await the final determination of the matter.

Appeal transferred to Supreme Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Corey Stinson

v. Civil No. 08cv-00356-JL

Bessette Et Boudreau,

Inc., et al.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

April 14, 2009.

The parties have agreed that New Hampshire law applies in

this case.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 10) is approved as

submitted, with the following changes:

• “DiBenedetto” disclosure deadline -– October 1, 2009

• Close of discovery -– April 15, 2010

• Summary judgment motions -– May 1, 2010

• Trial -– September 2010

Based on the discussions between the court and

counsel/parties at the conference, the following affirmative

Case 1:08-cv-00356-JL Document 13 Filed 04/14/09 Page 1 of 2
2

defenses are stricken without prejudice to being reinstated on

request if warranted by the evidence:

• the defendant’s fourth (statute of limitations), eighth

(assumption of the risk, but stricken only to the extent that the

defense implicates a claim of release; the theories of primary

duty implied assumption of risk and secondary implied assumption

of risk, see Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 148

N.H. 407 (2002), remain asserted), and ninth (injury by fellow

servant).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: April 14, 2009

cc: Philip R. Waystack, Jr., Esq.

Jonathan S. Frizzell, Esq.

Marc R. Scheer, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00356-JL Document 13 Filed 04/14/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Del R. Gilbert & Son Block Co., Inc.

v. Case No. 08-cv-504-PB

Allan Block Corporation

O R D E R

The parties recently filed complicated summary judgment

motions that will take the court several months to resolve. It

therefore will not be possible to try the case during the June

2010 trial period. 

The case shall be removed from the trial list and

rescheduled for trial approximately 90 days after the court rules

on the pending motions.

All trial-related motions are denied without prejudice (Doc.

Nos. 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 114). 

SO ORDERED.

May 5, 2010 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq.

John L. Arnold, II, Esq.

Darren B. Schwiebert, Esq.

James R. Mayer, Esq.

Matthew R. Johnson, Esq.

Brian R. Moushegian, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00504-PB Document 116 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 1