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

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41998
          6
          -1
          3
          0
          5
          .022
          -.004
          .009
          .000
          .0161999
          15
          0
          3
          5
          7
          .051
          -.001
          .011
          .015
          .0222000
          12
          -12
          3
          8
          14
          .037
          -.037
          .009
          .022
          .0402001
          42
          10
          9
          5
          17
          .123
          .030
          .027
          .014
          .0492002
          35
          8
          6
          5
          16
          .097
          .022
          .017
          .014
          .0412003
          32
          4
          6
          8
          14
          .082
          .010
          .015
          .021
          .0342004
          18
          1
          5
          2
          10
          .044
          .003
          .012
          .005
          .0212005
          17
          2
          11
          4
          0
          .039
          .005
          .024
          .009
          .0002006
          20
          2
          6
          1
          12
          .042
          .003
          .012
          .002
          .0232007
          8
          -3
          0
          5
          6
          .015
          -.006
          .000
          .009
          .0112008
          54
          5
          8
          12
          29
          .093
          .008
          .013
          .020
          .0462009
          184
          33
          41
          34
          77
          .289
          .051
          .064
          .051
          .116 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02255-RPM

ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI,

Petitioner,

v.

BLAKE DAVIS, Warden, ADX-Florence,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

_____________________________________________________________________

On March 16, 2012, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Brief in

Support of Motion for Reconsideration [21], arguing that this Court misapprehended his

argument that the 71 months should be regarded as “credit already provided for time

served against the actual term of imprisonment of 71 months.” This Court’s ruling was

and is that the Bureau of Prisons correctly determined that in awarding good time

credits the term of imprisonment began when the sentence was imposed, October 29,

2009. The Petitioner’s motion, brief and reply brief refer to recent Supreme Court

rulings concerning the type of relief available by a unit of habeas corpus. Assuming that

this Court has equitable power to direct the Bureau of Prisons to act contrary to its

statutory duty, the request is rejected. The sentencing court has, in effect, addressed

the issue of the Petitioner’s confinement as a material witness and as an enemy

combatant in harsh conditions by its substantial departure from the Sentencing

Guidelines. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02255-RPM Document 25 Filed 05/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: May 4th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02255-RPM Document 25 Filed 05/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-44423) pertaining to the 1991 Long-term Incentive Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56403) pertaining to the 1994 Long-term
Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-36743)
pertaining to the 1997 Long-term Incentive Plan of Milacron Inc., and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70733) pertaining to the Milacron Inc.
Plan for the Deferral of Director's Compensation, of our report dated February
10, 2004, except for the "Subsequent Events" note as to which the date is March
13, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Milacron Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 15, 2004
---

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
                  Q41995
          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
          59
          8
          16
          12
          24
          .124
          .017
          .035
          .026
          .0482006
          n.a.
          9
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .018
          n.a.
          n.a.
          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: July 11, 2006
#### GLOBE INDEMNITY CO. v. ESTRADE.*

No. 16863.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 2, 1938.

For prior opinion, see 180 So. 189.

Jas. W. Hopkins, of New Orleans, for petitioner, appellant.

*839Quintero & Ritter, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Writ of certiorari denied May 30, 1938.

PER CURIAM.

In application for rehearing counsel for plaintiff refers to the fact that under the indemnity agreement plaintiff would have had the right to settle the Pittman suit and to then call upon the indemnitors for reimbursement, and that, since the Pittman suit was defended under a “non-prejudice” agreement, that right, to compromise the Pittman suit, always remained in the surety.

But the agreement to which counsel refers, while characterized as a “non-prejudice” agreement, was, in some respects, a substitute agreement, which, in certain particulars, took the place of and superseded the indemnity agreement. It very apparently contained a waiver of the right to settle or compromise at will because it provided that the^ suit should be defended, to its conclusion and that the rights of the surety and of the indemni-tors, inter se, should remain in abeyance until the termination of the suit. This portion of the agreement, -which provided that the suit should be defended, could not be carried out without the abrogation of the indemnity agreement insofar as it gave to the surety the right to compromise at will.

The rehearing applied for is refused.

Rehearing refused.
#### The State, ex rel. Bricker, Atty. Genl., *v.*The Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.

(No. 24424

— Decided April 11, 1934.)

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, *Mr. Charles G. Williams*and *Mr. Isadore Topper,*for relator.

*Messrs. Nichols, Morrill, Wood, Marx é Ginter,*for respondent.

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition, answer, supplemental answer and reply and was argued *168by counsel. It appears from the petition that the Milk Marketing Commission, under an act passed June 8, 1933, and effective immediately, declined to grant the defendant a license to sell milk under the act; that on October 6, 1933, this petition in *quo warranto*was filed seeking to oust the defendant for a misuser of its franchises and privileges because of its failure to comply with the schedules of prices adopted by the marketing commission. It further appears from the 21st paragraph of the answer filed by the defendant on the 13th day of October, 1933, that, after the Milk Marketing Commission refused to grant a license to the defendant the latter invoked the proceedings provided by Section 10 of the Milk Marketing Act, by perfecting proceedings in error to the Court of Common Pleas seeking a review of the order of the commission made on October 5, 1933. On October 7th the defendant applied for a stay and on October 11, 1933, a petition in error from the order of the commission was filed by the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county, seeking the consideration and opinion of that court in determining whether the order of the commission was unlawful or unreasonable.

In view of such error proceedings brought by the defendant this action in *quo warranto*is held to have been prematurely brought, since it seeks to oust the defendant while the latter is pursuing the remedy especially provided by the Milk Marketing Act. The petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice at the costs of the relator.

*Petition dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones,- Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Allen, J., not participating.
NO. 07-05-0442-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 28, 2005

______________________________ BRYCE MAEDA, ET AL., APPELLAN TS

V. DAVID AND RUTH TIMMONS, APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM POTTER COUNTY COURT AT LAW N O. 1; NO. 93,93 6-1; HONOR ABLE W.F . “CORKY” ROBERTS , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Following a pro se notice of appeal challenging a d efaultjudgment, appellants Bryce Maeda, et al. were notified by letter dated December 9, 2005, to pay the required filing fee of $125 within ten days, noting that failure to d o so might result in dismissal. Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the C lerk of this Court is required to collect filing fees2

set by statute or the Supreme Court when an item is prese nted for f iling. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 and 12.1(b). Although the filing of a notice of appeal invokes this Court’s jurisdiction, if a party f

ails to follow the prescribed rules of appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). To date, the fee remain s unpaid. Thus, we must dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appella te Procedu re and wi th a noti ce from th e Clerk requiring payment of the filing fee. Tex. R. A pp. P. 42 .3(c).

Don H. Reavis Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

RoseAnn Masello

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00136-JL

The Stanley Works, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

September 12, 2008, at 11 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00136-JL Document 19 Filed 09/08/08 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: September 8, 2008

cc: Daniel W. Buckley, Esq.

Francis X. Quinn, Esq.

Gerry D’Ambrosio, Esq.

Arpiar G. Saunders, Jr., Esq.

Christopher A. Duggan, Esq.

Gerard A. Butler, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00136-JL Document 19 Filed 09/08/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEL R. GILBERT & SON BLOCK 

CO., INC.

v. CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00504-PB

ALLAN BLOCK CORPORATION

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Court, having considered defendant Allan Block

Corporation’s (“Allan Block”) Motion for Temporary and

Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Memorandum of Law in Support

thereof, and Declarations submitted therewith, and based upon all

the facts and circumstances established through testimony

produced during the hearing on the motion, makes the following

preliminary findings and rulings which are more fully set out in

the transcript of the hearing on the motion:

1. Allan Block and Plaintiff Del R. Gilbert & Son Block Co.,

Inc. (“Gilbert Block”) are parties to a Production Agreement that

contains a non-compete clause (the “Non-Compete”). The NonCompete forbids Gilbert Block from manufacturing or selling any

mortarless, stackable, block retaining wall system other than

Allan Block products until December 18, 2010.

2. Gilbert Block has recently commenced the manufacture and

sale of EverLoc, which is a mortarless, stackable, block

Case 1:08-cv-00504-PB Document 138 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 2
retaining wall system. Gilbert Block’s manufacture and sale of

the EverLoc is a violation of the Non-Compete.

3. Allan Block has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed

on the merits by showing that Gilbert Block is breaching the

Production Agreement by manufacturing and selling EverLoc, a

mortarless, stackable, block retaining wall system, during the

term of the Non-Compete.

4. In the absence of injunctive relief, Allan Block will

suffer irreparable harm as set forth in the Declarations and

testimony of Robert Gravier and Michael Day.

5. The balance of hardships between the parties favors

injunctive relief.

6. A grant of Injunctive relief would not affect the public

interest. 

Based upon the forgoing preliminary findings, the Court

hereby orders as follows:

Gilbert Block, together with its officers, agents,

employees, and any person(s) acting in concert or

participation with Gilbert Block, are hereby enjoined

from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale the

EverLoc product until December 18, 2010 or until

further order of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 16, 2010

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:08-cv-00504-PB Document 138 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 2
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                         33,786,000
<SECURITIES>                                   1,339,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,722,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               451,000
<PP&E>                                         155,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (12,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,441,00O
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,787,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       283,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     38,371,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,441,000
<SALES>                                        3,196,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,196,000
<CGS>                                          116,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  116,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,966,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,114,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   453,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            661,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 4,178,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,839,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .20


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1




CD  HOLDING  LLC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          411 West Putnam Avenue
                                                            Greenwich, CT  06830
                                                                  (203) 862-7000

April  14,  2004

Sent  Via  Facsimile
(405)  848-8816
---------------

Ms.  Lisa  Holbrook
Secretary
Gulfport  Energy  Corporation
14313  N.  May  Ave.,  Suite  100
Oklahoma  City,  OK  73134

Dear  Ms.  Holbrook:

CD  Holding LLC ("CD Holding") is pleased to provide the following commitment to
Gulfport  Energy  Corporation  ("Gulfport")  regarding  its  contemplated Rights
Offering.  CD  Holding  agrees to backstop a Rights Offering under the following
conditions:  (i)  the  offering yields gross proceeds of $12.0 million; (ii) the
rights  are  offered  at $1.20 a share; (iii) the rights are registered with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission; (iv) no offer on West Cote Blanche Bay is
accepted  prior  to funding of the Rights Offering and approved by a majority of
Gulfport  shareholders;  and  (v)  a  2%  commitment  fee.

This  proposal may be accepted by signing and returning a copy of this letter to
the  undersigned so that it is received by no later then 5 pm (EST) on Thursday,
April  15, 2004.  If a countersigned copy of this proposal has not been received
by  the  undersigned  at  such time, this proposal shall be deemed withdrawn and
this  letter  shall  have  no further force or effect.  If accepted, as provided
herein,  this  letter  agreement shall constitute a binding contract enforceable
according  to  its  terms.  Although the parties contemplate that such agreement
shall  be  superseded  by  more  detailed definitive written documentation, they
agree  that  in  the  event  such  documents  are not finalized or executed this
agreement  shall  nonetheless  be  legally  binding  and  enforceable.

Sincerely,

/s/Chuck Davidson
Chuck  Davidson


ACCEPTED  &  AGREED  TO
THIS  _____  DAY  OF  APRIL,  2004.

GULFPORT  ENERGY  CORPORATION

BY:  /s/Lisa Holbrook
     ----------------------------
        Lisa  Holbrook
        Secretary
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1



                             THOUSAND TRAILS, INC.
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (DOLLARS AND COMMON SHARES IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          Three Months        Three Months
                                                              Ended               Ended
                                                          September 30,        September 30,
                                                               1998                 1997
                                                          -------------        -------------
                                                                                (Restated)

<S>                                                       <C>                 <C>
BASIC:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding            7,459               7,386
                                                            =========           =========

Net income allocable to common shareholders                 $   1,462           $   5,986
                                                            =========           =========
Net income per common share -- basic                        $    0.20           $    0.81
                                                            =========           =========
DILUTED:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding            7,459               7,386
Weighted average common stock equivalents -
  Dilutive options                                                948                 939
  Dilutive warrants                                                 6                   5
                                                            ---------           ---------
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding            8,413               8,330
                                                            =========           =========
Net income allocable to common shareholders                 $   1,462           $   5,986
                                                            =========           =========
Net income per common share -- diluted                      $    0.17           $    0.72
                                                            =========           =========
</TABLE>

Note that the calculation for the three months ended September 30, 1997, has
been restated to reflect the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 128, "Earnings per Share".