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

2007: Q3... 8.7 8.6 8.2

 Q4... 8.2 8.1 7.6

2008: Q1... 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q2... 6.6 6.7 6.4

 Q3... 6.7 6.8 6.5

 Q4... 6.2 6.4 6.1

2009: Q1... 6.0 6.1 5.9

 Q2... 6.0 6.2 5.9

 Q3... 6.1 6.2 5.9

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

2007: Q3... 9.0 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 8.5 8.2 7.7

2008: Q1... 7.4 7.2 6.7

 Q2... 7.1 6.9 6.6

 Q3... 7.0 6.9 6.5

 Q4... 6.7 6.7 6.4

2009: Q1... 6.5 6.5 6.2

 Q2... 6.6 6.5 6.2

 Q3... 6.6 6.6 6.2

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

2007: Q3... 9.1 8.9 8.8

 Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.4

2008: Q1... 7.5 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 6.6 6.8 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 7.3 7.1

 Q4... 5.5 5.9 5.8

2009: Q1... 5.7 6.1 6.0

 Q2... 5.9 6.5 6.5

 Q3... 5.9 6.5 6.6

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2115 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2115

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
          the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 
  Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 
  design, planning, and construction of a project to reclaim and reuse 
   wastewater within and outside of the service area of the Lakehaven 
                      Utility District, Washington.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF LAKEHAVEN, WASHINGTON, WASTEWATER 
              RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT.

    The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act 
(Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1635. LAKEHAVEN, WASHINGTON, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 
              PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
Lakehaven Utility District, Washington, is authorized to participate in 
the design, planning, and construction of, and land acquisition for, a 
project to reclaim and reuse wastewater, including degraded 
groundwaters, within and outside of the service area of the Lakehaven 
Utility District.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost of the project.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the project authorized by this section.''.

SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

    The table of sections in section 2 of such Act is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to section 1634 the following:
``Sec. 1635. Lakehaven, Washington, Water Reclamation and Reuse 
          Project.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2019

To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 2001

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

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 ‘‘Preserve Charitable

5 Giving Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROPERTY ACCESS.

7 Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act

8 is amended by adding after ‘‘section 7’’ the following:

9 ‘‘Provided, That in the case of a published, written, or

10 posted no solicitation or no access rule, an exception for
2

•HR 2019 IH

1 charitable, eleemosynary, or other beneficent purposes

2 shall not be grounds for finding an unfair labor practice’’.

Æ
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 August 11, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBank Opportunity Fund LLC                                                                                               CICNotice of Change of Control by Bank Opportunity Fund, LLC; Bank Opportunity Advisors LLC; and Bank Acquisitions LLC, Washington, D.C. to acquire up to 24.99% of Middlefield Banc Corp., Middlefield, Ohio.Newspaper: 08/16/2012Federal Register: 08/26/2012NEW RICHMOND BANCORPORATION                                                                                             CICInteragency Notice of Change in Bank Control filed by Steven A. Bartels and Deborah E. Bartels, both of Franklin, NB proposing to acquire 50.33% of the outstanding voting shares of New Richmond Bancorporation, New Richmond, OH.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableSUTTON BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                 CICThe Sutton Bank Employee Stock Ownership / 401K Plan (Sutton Bancshares, Inc.), Attica, Ohio; Co-Trustees; Eric A. Gillett,James A. Gorrell; AND The Eric A. Gillete Family Control Group  (Eric A. Gillett Revocable Trust Attica, Ohio; Denise E. Gillett Revocable Trust Attica, Ohio; Ronald L. and Jean E. Hamilton Huron, Ohio; John A. Pour Revocable Living Trust Troy, Ohio; Yvenna E. Pour Revocable Living Trust Troy, Ohio; Cheryl S. Beaver Troy, Ohio; Valeria A. Darling Attica, Ohio; Fred W. Darling, Attica, Ohio; Theresa M. Henderson Piqua, Ohio; Michelle R. Powell Troy, Ohio) AND The James A. Gorrell Family Control Group (James A. Gorrell, Tiffin, Ohio; and Barbara M. Gorrell, Dayton, Ohio), collectively, to acquire 10 percent or more of the shares and thereby control of Sutton Bancshares, Inc., Attica, Ohio and thereby indirectly control Sutton Bank, Attica, OhioNewspaper: 08/29/2012Federal Register: Not available
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Doris Balles

v. Civil No. 08-cv-502-JD

Richard Culton Sturgill

and Lisa B. Sturgill

O R D E R

Doris Balles appeals the dismissal of her adversary action

in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding of Richard C. Sturgill

and Lisa B. Sturgill. The Sturgills are Balles’s daughter and

son-in-law. Balles’s adversary action arises from a family

dispute about whether the Sturgills made false promises to Balles

in exchange for part of the purchase price of Balles’s house. 

The Sturgills move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that

Balles failed to file her appellate brief within the time

allowed.

Balles filed her appeal on December 4, 2008. Notice of

docketing the appeal was entered on December 5, 2008. Bankruptcy

Rule 8009(a)(1) requires the appellant to file and serve her

brief within fifteen days after the appeal is entered on the

docket. Balles filed and served her brief on January 27, 2009,

and then refiled her brief on January 29, 2009, due to a filing

error. The Sturgills filed their motion to dismiss on February

Case 1:08-cv-00502-JD Document 10 Filed 03/12/09 Page 1 of 3
2

11, 2009. Balles has not filed a response to the motion to

dismiss, and the deadline has passed for doing so.

Balles, who is represented by counsel, did not file her

brief within the time allowed by Rule 8009(a)(1). Local Rule

77.4(c)(3) provides: “If the appellant’s brief is not received

within the time specified by B.R. 8009, the court will dismiss

the appeal for lack of prosecution.” Local Rule 77.4(c)(2)

requires that the notice of docketing include a briefing

deadline. In this case, however, the notice of docketing did not

include a briefing deadline but instead stated: “Filing

requirements for bankruptcy appeals are outlined in Local Rule

77.4(c). Bankruptcy Appeal ready for review on 1/27/2009.” 

Although Local Rule 77.4(c)(3) refers to Bankruptcy Rule

8009, which provides the time allowed for filing an appeal, the

notice could have been understood to set January 27, 2009, as the

briefing deadline. Therefore, Balles’s late-filed brief will be

allowed. Nevertheless, Balles’s counsel is put on notice that

failure to comply with applicable rules and deadlines will result

in sanctions, which may include dismissal. In addition, parties

are well-advised to respond to motions filed by the opposing

party.

Case 1:08-cv-00502-JD Document 10 Filed 03/12/09 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the appellee’s motion to dismiss

(document no. 8) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 12, 2009

cc: Michael S. Askenaizer, Esquire

Darlene M. Daniele, Esquire

Geraldine L. Karonis, Esquire

Lawrence P. Sumski, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00502-JD Document 10 Filed 03/12/09 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-00335-JD   Document 12   Filed 10/21/08   Page 1 of 1
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*)

2008: Q1... 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q2... 6.6 6.7 6.4

 Q3... 6.7 6.8 6.5

 Q4... 6.2 6.4 6.1

2009: Q1... 6.0 6.1 5.9

 Q2... 6.0 6.2 5.9

 Q3... 6.1 6.2 5.9

 Q4... 5.9 6.1 5.9

2010: Q1... 6.0 6.1 5.8

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

2008: Q1... 7.4 7.2 6.7

 Q2... 7.1 6.9 6.6

 Q3... 7.0 6.9 6.5

 Q4... 6.7 6.7 6.4

2009: Q1... 6.5 6.5 6.2

 Q2... 6.6 6.5 6.2

 Q3... 6.6 6.6 6.2

 Q4... 6.6 6.5 6.2

2010: Q1... 6.5 6.4 6.2

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

2008: Q1... 7.5 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 6.6 6.8 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 7.3 7.1

 Q4... 5.5 5.9 5.8

2009: Q1... 5.7 6.1 6.0

 Q2... 5.9 6.5 6.5

 Q3... 5.9 6.5 6.6

 Q4... 5.9 6.3 6.2

2010: Q1... 6.0 6.3 6.2

 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02283-AP

LORRAINE B. MALDONADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the affidavit in support of the motion for

leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or security pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

The Court has granted the plaintiff(s) leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It now is

ORDERED that, if appropriate, the United States Marshal shall attempt to obtain

a waiver of service from the defendant(s). If unable to do so, the United States Marshal

shall serve a copy of the complaint, summons, order granting leave to proceed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and all other orders upon the defendant(s). If appropriate, the

Marshal shall first attempt to obtain a waiver of service of these documents pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

Dated: September 19, 2011

BY THE COURT:

S/John L. Kane 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Amendment to Supply and Distribution Agreement dated as of April 1, 2004



 Exhibit 10.24 
  
  
 Amendment to Supply and Distribution
Agreement 
  
 This Amendment to the Supply and Distribution
Agreement described below is made as of April 1, 2004, by and between AngioDynamics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“AngioDynamics”), and Biolitec, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation (“Biolitec”). 
  
  
 Preliminary Statement 
  
 AngioDynamics and
Biolitec are parties to a Supply and Distribution Agreement dated as of April 1, 2002, as amended (collectively, including all Amendments, the “Agreement”). AngioDynamics and Biolitec desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects, as
hereinafter described. 
  
 In furtherance of the foregoing and in
consideration of the mutual promises contained herein the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 1.    Definition of Terms.    All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement. 
  
 2.    Amendment of Section
3.6(c).    AngioDynamics and Biolitec acknowledge that pursuant to Section 3.6(c) of the Agreement, Biolitec had granted to AngioDynamics a license to use the “ELVeS” trademark in connection with the promotion,
marketing and sale of Products, but AngioDynamics has never used this mark. Instead AngioDynamics has been using “ELVS” trademark of Biolitec, and acknowledging Biolitec’s ownership on the Products and their literature. AngioDynamics
and Biolitec acknowledge that AngioDynamics has used and desires to continue to use in the alternative the “ELVS” trademark in connection with the promotion, marketing and sale of the Products. Accordingly, AngioDynamics and Biolitec agree
that Section 3.6(c) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in place thereof. 
  

	 	“(c)	Biolitec hereby grants to AngioDynamics a royalty free license to use the “ELVS” trademark in connection with the promotion, marketing and sale of Product, with proper
acknowledgement of ownership by Biolitec. AngioDynamics may use any other trademark or trade dress as it deems appropriate in the promotion, marketing and sale of Products. Biolitec shall have the right to preview and comment on items that
incorporate the “ELVS” trademark.” 

  
 AngioDynamics and Biolitec agree that effective as of the date of this Amendment to the Agreement, AngioDynamics shall not have any further right to utilize the trademark “ELVeS” for any purpose whatsoever. 
  
 3.    Other Terms and Conditions
Unchanged.    AngioDynamics and Biolitec agree that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect and all such other terms and conditions are hereby ratified and
confirmed. 
  
 Signed as a sealed instrument as of the date first
written above. 
  
  

			
	BIOLITEC, INC.
		
	By	 	/S/    KELLY R. MORAN
	 	 	

	 	 	Its COO


  
  

			
	ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
		
	By	 	/S/    WILLIAM APPLING
	 	 	

	 	 	 William Appling
 VP, Research
 AngioDynamics, Inc.
#### J. B. BEAIRD CORPORATION v. JOHNSON.

No. 4919.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1935

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Melvin F. Johnson, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is the second time this case has been before us. Plaintiff sued defendant, indorser on a note of the Caddo Transfer & Warehouse Company, Incorporated, of which defendant had been president. It alleged the note had been executed in renewal of and to take up a note given by the same maker, which was also indorsed by defendant. The maker is not sued, neither is the receivership im-pleaded, although it is alleged that the maker is in receivership.

An exception of no cause of action was filed, tried, and sustained by the lower court. On appeal to this court, we reversed that judgment and remanded the case' for trial on its merits. 152 So. 789.

Defendant answered denying the material allegations of plaintiff’s petition; denying that he was receiver for the maker of the note; denying there was any consideration given for the note; and further alleging there was no maker of the note, and that the receiver had already recognized plaintiff as a creditor of the receivership long prior to the giving of the second note. He further alleged that he was only an accommodation in-dorser.

 All of the principal defenses set up in the answer were urged in the trial of the ex-' ception of no cause of action and passed on adversely to defendant in our former opinion, cited supra. On the trial on the merits, plaintiff offered the note, the signature of defendant thereon not having been denied, and rested. Defendant offered the receivership record and, although allowed filed by the lower court, was not filed and is not a part of the record in this case; the said receivership record never having been placed therein. Defendant offered no other testimony. The president of the plaintiff corporation was then sworn and testified that the original note of the same amount had been exchanged by him with the defendant herein for the present note sued upon, and that the note sued on here was given to him by defendant in person. This is all the evidence that was taken on trial of the case on the merits.

The lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff as prayed for, from which judgment defendant perfected this-appeal.

It is clear from the evidence heard on the trial on the merits that defendant has offered no defense and that the judgment of the lower court is correct. It is therefore affirmed, with costs.
174 La. 86

#### Leonard WALTER v. Mary GOSS, His Wife.

No. 30579.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

P. A. Middleton, of New Orleans, for appellant.

John E. Eleury, of Gretna, for appellee.

LAND, J.

This is a suit for separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment.

Defendant denies in her answer that she abandoned petitioner, alleges that petitioner abandoned her, and, as a result of the abandonment, that she was compelled to prosecute petitioner for failing to support her, and that he pleaded guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to pay alimony to defendant at the rate of $20 per week.

Judgment was rendered in the court below for defendant, dismissing petitioner’s suit at his costs, and from this judgment petitioner has appealed. 4

The trial judge found as facts that the husband abandoned the wife, and that the wife had not abandoned the husband, and that he had pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to support his wife, and had been sentenced as alleged.

After a review of the evidence in the case, we concur in the findings of fact made by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 107




---



##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 I, Robert O. Bratton, state and attest that I am the Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of First Charter Corporation (the
Company). I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2003 containing financial statements (the periodic report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and  
    
    the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company for the periods presented. /s/ Robert O. BrattonName: Robert O. BrattonTitle: Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerDate: March 10, 2004
 108
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-100-PB

Joel Shaw

O R D E R

The defendant has moved, through counsel, to continue the

trial scheduled for November 4, 2008, citing the need for

additional time to negotiate a plea agreement or prepare for

trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from November 4, 2008 to January 6, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

Case 1:08-cr-00100-PB Document 13 Filed 10/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The October 23, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to December 22, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 22, 2008

cc: Patrick Richard, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA 

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00100-PB Document 13 Filed 10/22/08 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00510-CV

Appellants, Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr.,

W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause//Cross-Appellant,

Tracy D. Strandhagen

v.

Appellee, Tracy D. Strandhagen//Cross-Appellees, Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell,

Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and

Holly Clause

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-13-002811, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Cross-appellant Tracy D. Strandhagen has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her

cross-appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the cross-appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). 

The appeal filed by appellants Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr.,

W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause will continue. We have

amended the style of the case to reflect: Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr.,

W. Andrew Buccholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause, Appellants v. Tracy D.

Strandhagen, Appellee.

It is so ordered November 18, 2014.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin