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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1934 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1934

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify 
    the depreciable life of printed wiring board and printed wiring 
                          assembly equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2001

Mr. Crane (for himself, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Deal of 
   Georgia, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
 Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
 Gordon, Mr. Berman, Mr. Paul, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Udall of Colorado, 
  Mr. Cox, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Ehrlich, Mrs. 
Thurman, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify 
    the depreciable life of printed wiring board and printed wiring 
                          assembly equipment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Printed Circuit Investment Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIABLE LIFE FOR PRINTED WIRING BOARD AND PRINTED 
              WIRING ASSEMBLY EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 168(e)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to classification of property) 
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking 
the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
                            ``(iv) any printed wiring board or printed 
                        wiring assembly equipment.''
    (b) 3-Year Class Life.--Subparagraph (B) of section 168(g)(3) of 
such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
subparagraph (A)(iii) the following new item:

  ``(A)(iv)..........................................        3''.      

    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to equipment placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
22

- 1737 Lodi v. Int’l Bus. Machs

. Corp.


## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NO TATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 2 New York, on the 4 t h da y of A u g u s t , two thousand twenty

- three

. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 ROSEMARY S. PO OLER , 6 RICHARD C. WESLEY , 7 MICHAEL H. PARK , 8 Circuit Judges. 9

_____________________________________ 10 11 Patricia Lodi , 12 13 Plaintiff

- Appellant, 14 15

v. 16 17 International Business Machines Corporation, 22

- 1737 18 19 Defendant

- Appellee

. 20

_____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT : S HANNON L ISS

- R IORDAN ( Thomas Fowler
, 23 on the brief ) , Lichten & Liss

- Riordan, P.C., 24 Boston, MA

. 25 26 FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELL EE : T RACI L. L OVITT , Jones Day ( Anthony J. 27 Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC; Matthew 28 W. Lampe, Erika D. Cagney, Jones Day, 29 New York, NY; J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, 30 Jones Day, Dallas, TX
, on the brief )
, New 31 York, NY

. 322 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern Di strict of 1
New York ( Koeltl
, J

. ). 2

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 3

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s motion to unseal 4

is DENIED

. 5

Plaintiff is a former employee of International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”)
, 6

who sued to invalidat e provisions in the arbitration agreement she signed when she was terminated

. 7
On appeal, Plaintiff raises substantially the same issues as the plaintiffs in several related appeals

. 1 8
We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its decision
, see Lodi v. 9

Int ’ l Bus. Machs

. Corp. , No. 21

- CV

- 6336, 2022 WL 2669199 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2022) , and for 10

the reasons stated in our opinion in the related appeal, I n re IBM Arb

. Agreement Litig

. , No. 22

- 11
1728 (2d Cir. Aug. 4 , 2023). 12

We have considered all of Plaintiff ’ s arguments and find them to be without merit. For 13
the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Plaintiff ’ s motion to 14

unseal is DENIED as moot

. 15

FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 17 18

1 See In re IBM Arb

. Agreement Litig

. , No. 22

- 1728; Chandler v. Int’l Bus. Machs

. Corp. , No. 22

- 1733 ; Tavenner v. Int’l Bus. Machs

. Corp. , No. 22

- 2318.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12

- 40387 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE MONTOYA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11

- CR

- 920

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The retained counsel representing Jose Montoya has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United Stat es v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Montoya h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and supplemental brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 10, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 12-40387 Document: 00512466944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2013No. 12

- 40387

presen ts no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-40387 Document: 00512466944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2013
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: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending August 9, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFIFTH THIRD BANK                                                                                                        * BranchFifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 8013 West Florissant Avenue, Jennings, MO.Newspaper: 08/05/2008Federal Register: Not applicable
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Patrick Walsh

v. Civil No. 08-cv-211-JL

State of New Hampshire

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 17, 2008, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

November 17, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Patrick Walsh, Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00211-JL Document 8 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-210-PB

Hugo Martir

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 6, 2008 trial in the above case, citing a scheduling conflict

and the need for additional time to finalize plea negotiations 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 May 6, 2008 to July 8, 2008. 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 1:07-cr-00210-PB Document 27 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 28, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

June 24, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 25, 2008

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00210-PB Document 27 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

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

Alnardo Suarez 

Re: Document No. 51, Motion for Modification of Imposed Term 

of Imprisonment Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Ruling: Denied. The motion is not treated as one filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. Neither the Fair Sentencing 

Act of 2010, nor the Temporary Emergency Amendment to the 

Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, 75 Fed. Reg. 66, 188 (Oct. 

2 7, 2010), effective November 1, 2010, are retroactively applicable 

to prisoners sentenced before the Act and Guidelines amendment 

became effective. See United States v. Douglas, ___ F.Supp. 2d___, 

2010 WL 4260221, at * 3 (D. Me. 2010) (“Another subject of debate 

was whether the new penalties should apply retroactively to those 

already sentenced and in prison, as the Commission’s 2007 

amendments had done. The decision was no.” (citing United States 

v. Bell, No. 09-3908, 2010 WL 4103700, at * 10 (7th Cir. Oct. 20, 

2010) (Fair Sentencing Act is not retroactive); United States v. 

Brown, No. 10-1791, 2010 WL 3958760, at *1 (8th Cir.2010) (same); 

United States v. Carradine, No. 08-3220, 2010 WL 3619799, at *5 

(6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2010) (Fair Sentencing Act “contains no 

express statement that it is retroactive nor can we infer any such 

express intent from its plain language”). Defendant was sentenced, 

and his sentence was affirmed on appeal, well before the Act and 

implementing temporary Guidelines amendment became effective. 

Date: November 4, 2010 

Chief Judge 

cc: Alnardo Suarez, pro se 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM Document 54 Filed 11/04/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF EARNINGS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND THE NOTES
THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FILED IN THE 1996 JEFFERIES GROUP, INC. 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         114,142
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,881
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          919,616
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            197,770
<PP&E>                                          30,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,568,087
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                     188,775
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            787,322
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             124,315
<LONG-TERM>                                     52,987
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                     195,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,568,087
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              143,912
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            47,803
<COMMISSIONS>                                  239,771
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  104,309
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,852
<COMPENSATION>                                 264,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,187
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      83,187
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.66
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-210-PB

Hugo Martir, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

February 5, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to review discovery and engage in plea

negotiations in advance of trial. The government and codefendant do not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 5, 2008 to May 6, 2008. 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 defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00210-PB Document 24 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 30, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 28, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 29, 2008

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00210-PB Document 24 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2027

To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to extend for the 2001

and 2002 crop years the temporary eligibility of producers for loan

deficiency payments when the producers, although not eligible to obtain

a marketing assistance loan, produce a contract commodity.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 2001

Mr. MORAN of Kansas (for himself, Mrs. EMERSON, and Mr. BERRY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to extend

for the 2001 and 2002 crop years the temporary eligibility of producers for loan deficiency payments when

the producers, although not eligible to obtain a marketing assistance loan, produce a contract commodity.

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

3 SECTION 1. LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT

4 COMMODITY PRODUCERS INELIGIBLE FOR

5 MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

6 Section 135(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market Transi7 tion Act (7 U.S.C. 7235(a)(2)) is amended by striking
2

•HR 2027 IH

1 ‘‘only for the 2000 crop year’’ and inserting ‘‘for the 2000

2 through 2002 crop years’’.

Æ
#### In re ESTATE of W. J. OVERMAN, Deceased.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Oct. 3, 1956.

David L. Shannon, New Smyrna Beach, for appellant.

Carey & Harrison, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the motion of Jack S. Carey, Administrator c. t. a. of the Estate of W. J. Overman, Deceased, to affirm the judgment appealed from pursuant to Rule 38 of the rules of this court, 31 F.S.A., and it appearing to the court from an examination of the record that said motion is appropriate and seasonably made and that it is manifest that the questions raised on appeal are without substantial merit and need no further argument;

It is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to affirm the judgment appealed from be, and the same is, hereby granted, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and HOBSON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs ·
   Contact Us |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 Current Release  (272 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 8 Industrial Capacity  Item
Average annual rate
Fourth quarter to fourth quarter
Annual rate
Monthly rate2016Sept.1972-79
1980-88
1989-94
1995-2016




2015Q4
20162013
2014
2015
2016
Q1
Q2
Q3Total industry
3.0
1.9
2.3
2.2
1.0
1.8
2.0
.4
.9
.3
.1
.3
.0Manufacturing[1]
3.2
2.2
2.6
2.1
.4
.2
.8
.7
.8
.7
.7
.8
.1Mining
.7
.1
-.6
1.2
6.7
8.3
5.6
-3.4
.8
-2.2
-3.9
-4.2
-.3Utilities
4.4
2.2
1.8
1.7
.0
.9
.7
.8
.6
.6
.7
.8
.1Selected high-technology industries
18.6
16.8
15.7
18.4
15.4
.2
-.4
4.0
3.8
3.4
4.1
4.4
.4Manufacturing[1] ex. selectedhigh-technology industries
2.6
1.3
1.6
.8
-.1
.2
.9
.6
.7
.6
.5
.6
.1Stage-of-process groupsCrude
1.5
.4
-.5
1.2
4.9
6.5
4.8
-2.5
.5
-1.8
-3.0
-3.0
-.2Primary and semifinished
3.0
1.3
2.5
2.3
.7
.1
.6
1.0
.7
.8
.9
1.1
.1Finished
3.9
3.3
2.8
1.9
-.2
.5
1.2
.7
1.0
.8
.6
.6
.1   Return to table    Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

EDWIN BAEZ, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 91 EM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 193 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 193

              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Stump introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to estates of decedents dying, and transfers made, after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, May 3-7, 201Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,106,110 35,245 70,062 91,353 123,373 235,9Number of loans 17,824 6,387 4,583 2,701 1,850 1,54Weighted average maturity (months)1 20.10 9.90 11.68 13.88 14.36 16.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 5.71 2.17 3.05 4.83 4.64 5.4

Weighted average risk rating3 3.50 3.12 3.21 3.25 3.37 3.

Weighted average interest rate4 4.89 5.68 5.42 5.39 5.06 4.7 Standard error5 .25 .13 .18 .18 .19 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.25 6.35 6.18 6.45 6.18 6.0 25th percentile 3.43 5.06 4.59 4.59 4.06 3.4 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.87 5.50 5.57 5.43 4.93 4. Other livestock 4.50 5.81 5.48 5.36 4.58 4. Other current operating expenses7 5.09 5.71 5.50 5.63 5.29 5.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.85 6.88 6.14 6.00 6.08 4.7 Farm real estate 6.35 6.80 6.15 6.63 6.16 6. Other8 4.23 4.75 4.55 4.16 4.06 3.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 82.25 83.36 83.61 80.61 80.13 81. Under commitment 79.43 87.34 81.43 74.51 73.46 72. Callable 19.96 33.90 25.86 27.80 25.46 13. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.46 5.10 5.70 8.69 14.30 6.4 Other livestock 5.28 5.58 7.92 7.19 5.61 6.4 Other current operating expenses7 42.01 75.76 64.19 57.34 53.43 51. Farm machinery and equipment 6.84 3.85 6.16 6.20 4.21 5. Farm real estate 6.52 1.02 2.22 3.34 5.03 5. Other8 33.89 8.69 13.81 17.25 17.41 25.4

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 12.98 7.43 9.19 11.96 9.23 12. Other 84.90 87.86 85.99 85.05 85.02 84. Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.