alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul Berry

v. Civil No. 07-cv-178-PB

Larry Blaisdell, Warden, Northern

New Hampshire Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Paul Berry has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality

of his state criminal conviction (document no. 1). The petition

is before me for preliminary review. See Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“§

2254 Rules”) (requiring initial review to determine whether the

petition is facially valid); see also United States District

Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”)

4.3(d)(2) (authorizing the magistrate judge to preliminarily

review pro se pleadings). As fully explained in the Report and

Recommendation issued simultaneously with this Order, I direct

Berry to amend his second and third claims for relief, both

alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, to include

the following specific information:

Case 1:07-cv-00178-JL Document 6 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 2
2

a) The circumstances under which the 1994 DCYF summary and

diaries were provided to defense counsel;

b) An explanation of why petitioner was unable to review 

the DCYF summary and diaries at the time defense 

counsel obtained knowledge of them;

c) When, exactly, petitioner received the 1994 DCYF 

summary and diaries, and under what circumstances he 

received them;

d) A complete description, accompanied by documentation, 

if any, of any and all requests made by petitioner to 

his trial attorney for the information in question, 

including general requests that he be provided with 

copies of all of the information in his criminal case;

e) A complete description, accompanied by documentation, 

if any, of any and all responses that Berry’s trial 

counsel made to him regarding the information in 

question.

Berry is directed to amend his petition within thirty (30)

days of the date of this Order. Failure to amend the petition as

directed may result in the dismissal of this action.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 19, 2007

cc: Paul Berry, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00178-JL Document 6 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1942 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1942

    To amend title 49, United States Code, to require the National 
  Transportation Safety Board to investigate all fatal railroad grade 
                          crossing accidents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2001

  Mr. Peterson of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 49, United States Code, to require the National 
  Transportation Safety Board to investigate all fatal railroad grade 
                          crossing accidents.

    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 ``Fatal Grade Crossing Accident 
Investigations Act''.

SEC. 2. GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS.

    That section 1131(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended:
            (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``including a railroad 
        grade crossing accident''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C) by inserting ``, including a 
        railroad grade crossing accident,'' after ``railroad 
        accident''.
                                 <all>
```
1 Defendant has already demonstrated his indigent status.

2 28 U.S.C. §1821 provides for payment of costs of travel.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-189-3-GZS

Cirino Gonzalez

O R D E R

Defendant Gonzalez filed a preliminary witness list

identifying thirty-one potential witnesses. (Document no. 180). 

Defendant now moves for additional subpoenas beyond the five

permitted by L. Cr. R. 17.1(G), presumably for the list of 31,

and for an authorization of travel expenses. (Document no. 187).

Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(G), however, requires defendant, in an

ex parte application, to show “the necessity of the witness’s

presence for an adequate defense...”1 Defendant has not complied

with the rule. The motion (Document no. 187) is denied without

prejudice to re-file an ex parte motion or motions articulating

specific facts that show the relevancy and necessity of the named

witnesses testimony.2

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 232 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 1, 2008

cc: David H. Bownes, Esq.

Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

Robert M. Kinsella, Esq.

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 232 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1748 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1748

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Tom Bliley Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

 Mr. Cantor (for himself, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
 Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Goode, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Schrock, 
  Mr. Boucher, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Tom Bliley Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TOM BLILEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Tom Bliley Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Tom Bliley 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                             HEALTH CARE REIT, INC.
                      STOCK PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


Health Care REIT, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby amends
the Health Care REIT, Inc. Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the "Plan") in
the manner set forth in the terms of this Amendment (the "Amendment").
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have
the definitions set forth in the Plan.

1. PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT. The purpose of this Amendment is to increase the
number of shares of the Company's common stock reserved for issuance to eligible
non-employee directors under the Plan, so as to provide for annual grants to
non-employee directors and to project the increased needs for grants under the
Plan as current directors retire or otherwise leave the Board.

2. AUTHORITY FOR THE AMENDMENT. Section 13 of the Plan provides the Board of
Directors of the Company with the authority to amend or modify the Plan in such
respects as it shall deem advisable.

3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3. The first two sentences of Section 3 of the Plan
shall be amended, to read as follows:

Subject to the provisions of Section 12 hereof, the number of shares of Common
Stock which may be issued upon exercise of Options or as Awards of Restricted
Stock under the Plan shall be 192,000 shares. On January 1 of each year
subsequent to the Effective Date, the aggregate number of shares of common stock
available for issuance under the Plan shall be increased by an additional number
of shares calculated by multiplying the number of non-employee directors serving
on the Board each January 1, by 6,000 shares (not to exceed 90,000 shares).

The effectiveness of this Amendment to Section 3 set forth in this Paragraph 3
shall be conditioned upon its approval by the Company's shareholders at the next
Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

4. RATIFICATION OF THE PLAN. In all other respects, the Plan, as amended to
date, is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being a duly authorized officer of the
Company, hereby executes this Amendment to the Plan on behalf of the Company, as
directed and approved by the Board of Directors of Health Care REIT, Inc.

                                     HEALTH CARE REIT, INC.

                                     By
                                       --------------------------------
                                     Title
                                          -----------------------------
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Annual Report of Lafarge North America Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Larry J. Waisanen, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. March 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Larry J. Waisanen
Larry J. Waisanen
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934



I, Nirajkumar Patel, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Kaival Brands Innovations
Group, Inc.; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Date: February 25, 2022 | By: | /s/ Nirajkumar Patel                 
|----------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                        |     | Nirajkumar Patel                     
|                        |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00098

- CV
Hudson Insurance Company

v. Bruce Gamble Farms, Jim Gamble Farms, Brian Jones Farms, & Crop Guard Group, Inc.
On Appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2014

- DCL

- 03489

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 5, 2015
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Annual Report of Lafarge North America Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Philippe R. Rollier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. March 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Philippe R. Rollier
Philippe R. Rollier
President and Chief Executive
Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John J. Brady

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00235-JL

Applebee’s Northeast, Inc.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

August 4, 2008 at 11:00 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-00235-JL Document 6 Filed 07/29/08 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: July 29, 2008

cc: H. Jonathan Meyer, Esq.

Martha Van Oot, Esq.

Jill K. Blackmer, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00235-JL Document 6 Filed 07/29/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Richard L. Duncan

v. Civil No. 08-cv-244-JL

Lakes Region Facility, Warden

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff has a motion for immediate injunctive relief in

his habeas corpus petition case. None of the issues raised are

remotely related to the habeas issues and he has not alleged that

the acts complained of are retaliatory for having brought the

habeas petition. It is also apparent that he has not exhausted

administrative remedies. In short, the motion is premature and

it must be filed as a separate §1983 case. I recommend that the

motion (Document No. 3) be denied without prejudice to refiling

in a §1983 case after exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

Case 1:08-cv-00244-JL Document 6 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 2986).

____________________

James Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 19, 2008

cc: Richard L. Duncan, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00244-JL Document 6 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1873

To reauthorize the funding for the Native American Housing and SelfDetermination Act of 1996.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2001

Mr. HAYWORTH (for himself and Mr. KILDEE) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To reauthorize the funding for the Native American Housing

and Self-Determination Act of 1996.

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 ‘‘Native American

5 Housing and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of

6 2001’’.

7 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF BLOCK GRANT ASSISTANCE.

8 Section 108 of the Native American Housing and

9 Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4117) is

10 amended to read as follows:
2

•HR 1873 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated for grants

3 under this title such sums as may be necessary for each

4 of fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.’’.

5 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF GUARANTEES FOR TRIBAL

6 HOUSING ACTIVITIES LOANS.

7 (a) AGGREGATE FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION.—Section

8 605(a) of the Native American Housing and Self-Deter9 mination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4195(a)) is amended by

10 striking ‘‘1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001’’ and insert11 ing ‘‘2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.’’.

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CRED13 IT SUBSIDY.—Section 605(b) of the Native American

14 Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C.

15 4195(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘1997, 1998, 1999,

16 2000, and 2001’’ and inserting ‘‘2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,

17 and 2006.’’.

18 SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF TRAINING AND TECHNICAL

19 ASSISTANCE.

20 Section 703 of the Native American Housing and

21 Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4212) is

22 amended by striking ‘‘1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001’’

23 and inserting ‘‘2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-59-01-SM

Dominic Pace

ORDER

Re: Document No. 27, MOTION to Appoint New Counsel

Ruling: Denied, but without prejudice to refiling a motion to

appoint counsel supported by an affidavit establishing indigency

and entitlement to counsel at government expense. The motion is

unclear in that defendant states in his motion that current counsel

is privately retained, suggesting that he can afford counsel. In

that event, he is free to retain substitute counsel as he wishes.

If he is seeking new counsel because he can no longer afford

counsel, then he must establish his entitlement to court appointed

counsel. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: March 19, 2009

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:08-cr-00059-SM Document 28 Filed 03/19/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 07-cr-79-01-JD

Anthony Yarbrough

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

11) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 31, 2007

cc: Peter Papps, AUSA

Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00079-JD Document 12 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel J. Rynne

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00283-JL

NH State Prison, Warden

 PROCEDURAL ORDER

While not technically establishing the right to

reconsideration of the court's order for an evidentiary hearing,

the motion for reconsideration's recitation of the record

(including the family court and parole hearings) does

persuasively advance an argument that such an evidentiary hearing

is unnecessary, and that no recantation occurred. Further, the

court respectfully notes that it has great difficulty following

the arguments advanced in the objection.

The clerk shall schedule further oral argument, either in

court or through a telephone conference with a record (Attorney

McLetchie's choice), at which the petitioner shall either dispute

the state of the record as set forth in the motion for

reconsideration, or demonstrate why the record establishes a

recantation by the victim. 

Case 1:08-cv-00283-JL Document 37 Filed 11/19/10 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: November 19, 2010

cc: Erland C.L. McLetchie, Esq.

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esq.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00283-JL Document 37 Filed 11/19/10 Page 2 of 2
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1994...... .8 .3 .4 .1 .3 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1995...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 2.1 .9 1.1 .3 .9

1996...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.4 1.2 1.3 .3 1.0

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

1998: Q1... 1.3 .8 .6 .2 .4 3.2 1.8 1.3 .4 .9

 Q2... 1.1 .5 .6 .2 .4 2.4 1.1 1.3 .5 .8

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.1 .8 1.3 .4 .9

 Q4... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999: Q1... 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .4 3.7 2.1 1.5 .5 1.0

 Q2... 1.3 .5 .7 .2 .5 2.8 1.2 1.6 .5 1.1

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .5 2.2 .8 1.4 .4 1.0

 Q4... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000: Q1... 1.3 .6 .6 .2 .5 3.0 1.5 1.5 .4 1.1

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.2 .9 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 1.9 .7 1.2 .2 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22