alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19

A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters 

Percent except as noted 

 USDA Farm Production Region 

 NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA 

Proportion of farm loans

 outstanding, 2003 Q4 survey, 

 region share of national

 total 2.6 9.3 28.1 17.6 8.3 4.8 5.3 8.6 5.9 9.2 

Sample coverage, 2003 Q4 

 survey, sample share of total 

 regional loans 16.1 5.8 20.3 12.6 23.2 17.5 10.0 4.9 10.3 53.7 

Avg. loan size, 2004 Q1 survey 

(thousands of dollars) 31.5 31.3 64.0 34.1 130.5 77.6 129.2 47.9 28.9 103.0 

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week 

 1998: Q3 10.2 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.8 9.5 9.7 9.5 9.6 8.5 

 Q4 9.4 9.2 8.7 9.0 8.3 9.4 9.7 9.2 9.1 8.0 

 1999: Q1 8.4 8.9 8.9 9.1 8.2 9.0 9.6 9.1 9.0 7.5 

 Q2 9.6 9.1 8.8 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.8 9.0 8.7 8.0 

 Q3 10.2 8.9 8.7 9.3 8.2 8.9 10.0 8.8 9.0 8.5 

 Q4 9.1 9.2 8.8 9.4 8.3 8.8 9.8 9.0 9.5 8.8 

 2000: Q1 9.4 9.2 9.2 9.6 8.4 9.8 9.3 10.0 9.8 8.4 

 Q2 10.7 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.1 10.5 10.0 10.1 9.5

 Q3 10.5 10.30 10.0 10.3 9.7 9.2 10.5 10.0 10.6 9.7 

 Q4 10.7 9.3 9.9 10.1 9.2 9.4 9.2 10.3 10.3 9.8

 2001: Q1 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.7 8.4 7.8 9.5 9.0 9.8 8.8 

 Q2 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.8 7.4 8.1 8.3 9.2 8.6 7.9 

 Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2 

 Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2 

 (.23) (.78) (.38) (.29) (.36) (1.71) (.42) (.79) (.33) (.35) 

 2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9 

 (.12) (.37) (.26) (.22) (.63) (1.14) (.39) (.45) (.26) (.25) 

 Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1 

 (.14) (.29) (.27) (.21) (.48) (1.03) (.23) (.34) (.36) (.26) 

 Q3 6.0 6.9 4.8 5.6 4.4 4.9 6.6 5.3 5.6 4.3 

 (.14) (.03) (.51) (.40) (.69) (.68) (.22) (.96) (.36) (.33) 

 Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5 

 (.35) (.45) (.47) (1.01) (.56) (.62) (.68) (.35) (.47) (.62) 

 2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5 

 (.15) (.26) (.31) (.73) (.65) (.63) (.54) (.66) (.35) (.40) 

 Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2 

 (.29) (.17) (.37) (.34) (.71) (.63) (.45) (.71) (.36) (.50) 

 Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3 

 (.15) (.04) (.49) (.39) (.73) (.69) (.27) (.99) (.35) (.26) 

 Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2 

 (.59) (.22) (.30) (.71) (.54) (.83) (.54) (.58) (.39) (.42) 

 2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8 

 (.21) (.15) (.44) (.25) (.48) (.64) (.37) (.23) (.37) (.41) 

 Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is Delta 

States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. They are

calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.
#### In the Matter of Sangro Management Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and Elaine Dennis, Intervenor-Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 338]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 15, 2003, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) determination that additional respondent-intervenor has succession rights to the subject apartment, and dismissed the petition, and denied intervenor’s cross motion for attorneys’ fees under Real Property Law § 234, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Intervenor’s request for a declaration of her right to succeed to the subject apartment was denied by the Rent Administrator on the ground that a cooperative conversion caused the apartment to become destabilized upon the death of the tenant of record, intervenor’s mother (citing Rent Stabilization Code [9 *331NYCRR] § 2522.5 [h] [2]). On intervenor’s PAR, the Deputy-Commissioner ruled that since intervenor’s mother continued as a rent stabilized tenant after the cooperative conversion, her death did not result in destabilization of the apartment, and that the Rent Administrator should have decided whether intervenor had resided with her mother in the apartment for a period of no less than two years prior to the latter’s death (citing Rent Stabilization Code § 2523.5 [b] [1]). This the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to do without a hearing, on the basis of the proofs submitted by intervenor to the Rent Administrator, as well as new proofs intervenor submitted for the first time on the PAR. Such proofs were properly considered and sufficient to permit a rational finding of the requisite two-year residency without a hearing (Rent Stabilization Code § 2527.5 [h]). Landlord asserts that it first learned of intervenor’s alleged residency only when she requested a renewal lease after her mother’s death, but produced no evidence that intervenor lived elsewhere during the two-year period, and cites no law or rule that required intervenor to notify it of her residency in the apartment while her mother was alive *(compare Matter of Evans v Franco,*93 NY2d 823 [1999]). Nor does landlord argue in favor of the Rent Administrator’s order. Intervenor is not entitled to an award of legal fees under Real Property Law § 234 (see *Matter of Chessin v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.,*100 AD2d 297, 306 [1984]; *Matter of Ista Mgt. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*161 AD2d 424, 426 [1990]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2043 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 131
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2043

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2001

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                             August 2, 2001

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, as the ``Elwood Haynes 
                  `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2719 
South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis 
Post Office Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 131

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2043

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, as the ``Elwood Haynes 
                  `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 2, 2001

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### BARNES v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.

No. 6125.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 10, 1940.

Eeliearing Denied July 5, 1940..

Robt. J. Newson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Cawthorn, Golsan & Tooke, of Mansfield, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a tort action in which plaintiff claims to have been injured and thrown from the truck driven by an employee of Walter Peterson, who carried a policy of liability insurance with the defendant.

He alleged the truck driver was acting in the course and scope of his employment, and that he, the plaintiff, was riding on the truck with the consent of the said Peterson, who had agreed to send him home when he reported for work and found that his services were not needed for that day. He alleged that his destination was known to the truck driver and that he had agreed to stop and let him off. He does not allege a failure of compliance with this agreement, but did allege:

> “That upon reaching the point in the said road which was in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, where your petitioner had previously agreed with the said Peterson and/or his agents that the said truck would stop for him, that your petitioner started to get off the truck when it had almost stopped and was just about to alight from the truck but had not done so, since your petitioner was waiting for it to come to a full stop, when the said truck started up again quite suddenly and without warning; throwing your petitioner off from where he was standing at that time on the running board having got down to the running board from the truck when it slowed up and that in throwing your petitioner off the said truck, he was thrown under one of the wheels of the said truck which ran over and broke his right leg.”

Defendant filed numerous exceptions to the petition, among which were actions of vagueness, no cause of action and no right of action, all of which were sustained by the lower court, and plaintiff is now prosecuting this appeal.

The exceptions, of no right of action and no cause of action were correctly sustained and it is, therefore, not necessary to discuss the other exceptions.

It is well settled in our jurisprudence that an affirmative allegation of *640contributory negligence which is a proximate cause of an accident, made by the plaintiff, can be taken advantage of by defendant through an exception of no cause of action or no right of action.

It can not be doubted that one who attempts to alight from a moving vehicle is guilty of contributory negligence, which negligence is a proximate cause of an accident caused thereby. It is likewise true .that a passenger who leaves his seat on a moving truck and stands on the running board, preparing to alight, before the truck comes to a stop, is guilty of gross negligence.

At least one of the proximate causes of the accident was that plaintiff was riding on the running board and had left his seat. It is not alleged or urged that the sudden jerk by the truck would have dislodged plaintiff from his seat on the truck.

The judgment of the lower court, sustaining the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action, is correct and is affirmed, with costs.
Lease Amendment Entered Into Between The Registrant And Eagle Development Comp



 LEASE AMENDMENT 
 2969 PRAIRIE S.W. 
 GRANDVILLE,
MI 49418 
  
 THIS LEASE AMENDMENT (this
“Amendment”) is entered into as of the 4th day of May, 2004, by and between EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Michigan partnership, (“Landlord”) and X-RITE CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation (“Tenant”). 
  
 This amendment is to adjust the remaining balance of the “Office Lease” dated
October 2, 2000, between EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and X-RITE CORPORATION for the property located at 2969 Prairie SW, Grandville, MI, to the following payment schedule: 
  

				
	 May, 2004 – Dec, 2004
	  	$	107,097
	 Jan, 2005 – Dec, 2005
	  	$	199,992
	 Jan, 2006 – Mar, 2006
	  	$	100,322
	 	  	
	

	 	  	 	$406,603

  
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above. 
  

									
	Landlord:	 	 	 	Tenant:
	 Eagle Development Company,
a Michigan partnership
	 	 	 	 X-Rite Corporation,
a Michigan corporation

					
	 By:
	 	 s/ Stanley Cheff

	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 s/ Michael C. Ferrara


	 Its:
	 	 Partner
	 	 	 	 Its:
	 	 Chief Executive Officer

	 Date: May 4, 2004
	 	 	 	 Date: May 4, 2004
<PAGE>
 
                  VIVID TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                          ------------------
                                                             December 31,
                                                          1996          1995
                                                          ----          ---- 
<S>                                                     <C>          <C> 
PRIMARY:
 Net income...........................................    $804,200    $300,364
                                                          ========    ========

 Weighted average common stock outstanding............   2,222,281   1,675,230
 
 Conversion of Series B and Series D convertible
        preferred stock...............................   5,045,850   5,045,850
 
 Stock issued within twelve months of initial public
        offering......................................     116,159     148,419
 
 Common stock equivalents.............................     993,486     402,338
                                                           -------     -------
 Primary weighted average number of common and
        common equivalent shares outstanding..........   8,377,776   7,271,837
                                                         =========   =========

 Per share amount.....................................  $      .10  $      .04
                                                        ==========  ==========
</TABLE>
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Gilbert , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3021.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -3021
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . G ILBERT , A PPELLANT
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Gilbert , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3021.] Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Dangler and cause
remanded. (No. 2018-0461―Submitted May 13, 2020―Decided May 26, 2020.)
C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County, No. S-16-047, 2018-Ohio-879.

_________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and this caus e is
remanded to the cour t of appeals for application of State v. Dangler , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-2765, __ N.E.3d __.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Kendall Legal Services, L.L.C., and Laurel A. Kendall, for appe llant, Glen
Gilbert.

_________________
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP,
INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert F. Stoico, Chief Executive Officer, certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief, 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by
              the Report.

                                           /s/ Robert F. Stoico
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Chairman of the Board, President and
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           August 13, 2002



                                       1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22- 0060 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. ROBERT AYRES DASILVA JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 2 2022

11/02/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0060
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

               TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                 (Unaudited)
               (in thousands, except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED                          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                               -----------------------------------------  ----------------------------------------
                                               SEPTEMBER 30, 1999    SEPTEMBER 30, 1998    SEPTEMBER 30, 1999   SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                                               -------------------   -------------------  -------------------   ------------------
<S>                                            <C>                   <C>                  <C>                   <C>
Net income (loss)                                       $     149          $     (3,896)        $     (4,114)        $     (7,623)
                                               ===================   ===================  ===================   ==================

                                                                      NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE - BASIC

Weighted average common shares  - Basic                12,946,624            12,946,624           12,946,624           12,946,624
                                               ===================   ===================  ===================   ==================

Net income (loss) per share - Basic                    $     0.01          $      (0.30)        $      (0.32)        $      (0.59)
                                               ===================   ===================  ===================   ==================

                                                                      NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE - DILUTED
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares  - Basic              12,946,624            12,946,624           12,946,624           12,946,624
  Dilutive effect of shares under
    employee stock plans                                  256,506                     -                    -                    -
                                               -------------------   -------------------  -------------------   ------------------
  Weighted average common shares - Diluted             13,203,130            12,946,624           12,946,624           12,946,624
                                               ===================   ===================  ===================   ==================

Net income (loss) per share - Diluted                  $     0.01          $      (0.30)        $      (0.32)        $      (0.59)
                                               ===================   ===================  ===================   ==================
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30240 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STEVEN DUANE VUTERA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-90-A

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Steven Duane Vutera appeals the district court’s denial of his “Motion to Change ‘Crime of Violence’ Status in Defendant’s B.O.P. Records.” He argues that the district court erred in holding that his argument was foreclosed by Venegas v. Henman , 126 F.3d 760, 765 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1679 (1998). We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that Vutera’s was an unauthorized motion and the district court lacked the jurisdiction to consider it. SeeNo. 98-30240 -2- United States v. Gabor , 905 F.2d 76, 76 (5th Cir. 1990). Vutera’s motion was, in effect, a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that must be filed in the judicial district in which he is incarcerated. See Venegas . We do not suggest that Vutera refile his motion in the United States District Court in the district in which he is incarcerated as a habeas petition since the issue of custody reduction is a matter of discretion with the Bureau of Prisons. Venegas . AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>         0001023397
<NAME>        NEWRIDERS, INC.
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          56,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       15
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    722,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               799,318
<PP&E>                                       2,027,092
<DEPRECIATION>                                 149,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,925,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          766,298
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,787
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,878,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,925,250
<SALES>                                      2,426,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,426,584
<CGS>                                        1,095,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,708,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             242,341 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,524,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,524,535)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.09)
        

</TABLE>