alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000717238
<NAME> MACNEAL SCHWENDLER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,880
<SECURITIES>                                    10,546
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,573
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,840
<PP&E>                                          35,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,582
<BONDS>                                         56,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,045
<OTHER-SE>                                       (992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,876
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,561
<CGS>                                            6,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (526)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   236
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 22, 2006
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 18 , 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00950

- CV

IN RE SOMAIAH KHOLA IF , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Probate Court No . 2 Harris County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 449677



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 30, 2018, relator Somaiah Kholaif filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App.
P. 52. In her petition, relator ask ed this c ourt to comp el the Honorable Rory R. Olsen, former presiding judge of the Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County, to vacate his order quashing her request for discovery. On January 1, 2019, Judge Olsen ceased to hold office as judge of the Probate Court No. 3. Judge Ols en’s2 successor is the Honorable Jason Cox. We abated this original proceeding to afford Judge Cox an opportunity to consider the order quashing discovery. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b). On February 22, 2019, Judge Cox recused himself from this case.
The case was randomly reassigned to Probate Court No. 2. Presiding Judge of Probate Court No. 2, the Honorable Michael Newman confirmed Judge Olsen’s prior order. We reinstated this appeal after receiving notice that the order subject of this proceeding was confirm ed.
With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (ori g. proceeding). Relator has not shown that she is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief J ustice Frost and Justices Bourliot and Spain.
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

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

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006...... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007...... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2000: 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

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .2 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007: Q1... 1.0 .6 .4 .1 .3 1.9 1.1 .8 .3 .5

 Q2... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .7 .9 .2 .7

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2008: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.7 1.0 .7 .2 .5

 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL MANLEY
, § § No. 344
, 2014 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below

— S uperior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee

. §

Submitted: October 18 , 2017 Decided: October 20 , 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VA LIHURA and SEITZ
, Justices

.
O R D E R

This 20 th day of October 2017, it appears to the Court that the judgment of
the Superior Court should be affirmed largely on the basis of and for the reasons
assigned in its decision dated May 29, 2014. 1 In particular, we agree with the
Superior Court that the claims i n this repetitive Rule 61 petition were procedurally

barred.

In addition, a s to the Strickland claims, l ike the Superior Court, we cannot
conclude that any of the supposedly deficient actions of trial counsel, had they been
done differently, would have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome,

1 State v. Manley , 2014 WL 2621317 (Del. Super. May 29, 2014).2

whether taken individually or collectively

. Although Manley takes issue with
aspects of counsel’s performance, as a general matter, t rial counsel had a reasonable
strategy and aggressively tried to create reasonable doubt about the state’s case
against Manley. But, as the Superior Court found, no prejudice within the me aning

of Strickland was shown because the reality was that Manley was captured shortly
after the murder while fleeing a vehicle with the benef iciary of the witness

- murder.
Given this evidence and the other evidence in the case, the marginalia Manley now

contends would have been admitted if counsel had acted differently does not, as the
Superior Court found, come cl ose to creating a reasonable probability of a different

outco me

. None of that marginalia would have meaningfully changed the mix of
evidence, and most importantly, none of it would have explained how Manley came
to be riding in and fleeing from a vehicle with Stevenson within a short period after

the murder.
The pa rties and this Court are in agree ment that under this Court’s decisions

of Rauf v. State 2 and Powell v. State
, 3 Manley’s death sentence must be vacated and
he must be sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without
benefit of probat ion, parole, or any other reduction

. 4

2 Rauf v. State
, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016). 3 Powell v. State
, 2016 WL 7243546 (Del. Dec. 15, 2016).
4 11 Del. C. § 4209(d)(2)

.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED. The matter is REMANDED to the Su perior Court for
resentencing.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 14 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 14 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 14 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 14 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 14 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 14 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 14 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 165

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the exclusion amount

on the gain from the sale of a principal residence for inflation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. ROYCE 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 adjust

the exclusion amount on the gain from the sale of a

principal residence for inflation.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF EXCLUSION AMOUNT ON GAIN

4 FROM SALE OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE FOR

5 INFLATION.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 121(b) of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations on exclusion

8 of gain from sale of principal residence) is amended—

9 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘$250,000’’

10 and inserting ‘‘the limitation amount’’, and
2

•HR 165 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2) by amending so much of

2 subparagraph (A) as precedes clause (i) to read as

3 follows:

4 ‘‘(A) INCREASED LIMITATION AMOUNT FOR

5 CERTAIN JOINT RETURNS.—Paragraph (1) shall

6 be applied by substituting ‘twice the limitation

7 amount’ for ‘limitation amount’ if—’’.

8 (b) LIMITATION AMOUNT.—Subsection (b) of section

9 121 of such Code (relating to limitations on exclusion of

10 gain from sale of principal residence) is amended by add11 ing at the end the following:

12 ‘‘(4) LIMITATION AMOUNT.—

13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this

14 subsection, the limitation amount is $250,000.

15 ‘‘(B) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—

16 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a

17 taxable year beginning after December 31,

18 2001, the $250,000 amount in subpara19 graph (A) shall be increased by an amount

20 equal to—

21 ‘‘(I) such dollar amount, multi22 plied by

23 ‘‘(II) the cost-of-living adjust24 ment determined under section 1(f)(3)

25 for the calendar year in which the tax-
3

•HR 165 IH

1 able year begins, determined by sub2 stituting ‘calendar year 2000’ for ‘cal3 endar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B)

4 thereof.

5 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any amount as ad6 justed under clause (i) is not a multiple of $100

7 such amount shall be rounded to the next low8 est multiple of $100.’’.

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

11 December 31, 2000.

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: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending March 19, 2016FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCARLILE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                CICLee Equity Partners, LLC, et al., New York, New York; AlpInvest Partners B.V., et al., Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and HarbourVest Partners, LLC, et al., Boston, Massachusetts;  to control directly or indirectly Carlile Bancshares, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, and therefore, indirectly, NorthStar Bank of Texas, Denton, Texas, and NorthStar Bank of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 03/07/2016MENARD BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                 CICNotice by Elizabeth Ann McDonald, Austin, Texas, and Wade Compton McDonald, Plano, Texas, to join the Compton/McDonald Family Group, a group acting in concert approved on August 7, 2008, to retain control of Menard Bancshares, Inc., Menard, Texas, and thereby indirectly control, Menard Bank, Menard, Texas.Newspaper: 03/30/2016Federal Register: 03/30/2016SLHC TRUST, THE                                                                                                         * SLHC FormationThe SLHC Trust, Raleigh, North Carolina, to become a savings and loan holding company through the acquisition of 64.21 percent of NexBank Capital, Inc., and therefore, indirectly, NexBank, SSB, both of Dallas, Texas.Newspaper: 04/04/2016Federal Register: 04/01/2016TEXAS BRAND BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                            CICNotice by Edward B. Tomlinson, II, Rowlett, Texas, individually; and the "Leis Family Group" comprised of The Revocable Trust of Dorvin D. Leis, Garland, Texas, Charles S. Leis, Eagle, Idaho, Stephen T. Leis, Kihie, Hawaii, and Edward B. Tomlinson, II, Rowlett, Texas, as trustees and in individual capacity; and Stanley B. Leis, Eagle, Idaho, collectively, to control and retain 25 percent or more of Texas Brand Bancshares, Inc., and therefore indirectly, Texas Brand Bank, both of Garland, Texas. Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 03/25/2016
| *Release Date: July 15, 2005* |
|-------------------------------|
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: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending July 30, 2011FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodEVANS BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                  CICNotice by Paul L. Martin and Pamela J. Martin, Bradenton, Florida, to gain control of Evans Bancshares, Inc., Evansdale, Iowa, and thereby indirectly control Fist Security State Bank, Evansdale, Iowa.  Paul and Pamela Martin will collectively increase their ownership from 9.63 percent to 12.43 percent with the purchase of 2000 shares.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 08/01/2011NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, THE                                                                                             * 18C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few

v. Case No. 06-cv-427-SM

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objections filed, I herewith approve the

Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated May 16, 2007,

recommending dismissal of the FOIA, age discrimination, race discrimination,

Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and miscellaneous federal

constitutional claims as well as State law claims. While defendants make lucid

points, they are better made in a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, 

rather than in an objection to the magistrate judge's preliminary (and necessarily

deferential) review.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 38 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

July 24, 2007 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Sharon Few, Pro Se

Jeffrey Brody, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 38 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 2
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00215

- CR

Paul L. Harris

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1436006R)

August 18, 2016

Opinion by Just ice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
8

A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMonths

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1998...... 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.9 27.5 6.8 8.8 11.3 12.5 8.7 1999...... 11.5 8.0 11.0 11.3 20.1 10.5 9.8 11.2 12.4 11.4 2000...... 11.2 8.0 10.8 9.5 22.4 13.2 9.7 11.5 11.1 11.4 2001...... 13.2 8.5 14.0 10.3 24.3 15.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 14.1 2002...... 11.2 8.6 11.5 10.2 23.3 11.7 9.4 10.9 12.5 10.8 2003...... 12.5 8.5 9.4 11.1 26.5 14.4 9.5 11.2 12.7 12.9 2004...... 11.9 9.2 11.9 10.0 23.3 12.0 9.6 11.8 12.9 11.7 2005...... 12.9 9.4 10.0 9.9 18.9 18.3 9.3 11.4 13.5 13.1 2006...... 12.7 8.7 12.9 10.0 15.9 18.3 9.6 11.7 12.6 13.1 2007...... 13.3 9.9 15.1 9.7 21.4 18.5 9.8 11.8 11.6 14.3 2008...... 13.8 9.5 12.3 9.1 30.6 21.7 9.2 11.1 12.6 14.6 2009...... 11.0 9.6 8.4 8.5 27.9 14.3 9.1 10.7 11.8 10.9 2006: Q2... 11.6 8.2 10.1 10.4 12.1 15.0 11.0 12.1 13.2 11.1  Q3... 13.9 9.4 9.3 9.3 24.6 20.2 8.5 11.2 11.3 15.3  Q4... 12.5 9.0 11.4 9.0 14.3 20.6 7.9 9.9 11.4 13.4 2007: Q1... 13.5 10.3 16.5 10.8 33.0 16.3 9.6 14.2 12.5 13.8  Q2... 12.8 10.3 9.8 10.6 21.6 16.5 10.4 12.2 11.3 13.8  Q3... 13.9 6.8 23.9 8.1 20.5 18.3 10.5 10.7 10.1 16.2  Q4... 13.1 10.6 11.6 8.6 15.0 21.7 8.3 10.0 12.4 14.0 2008: Q1... 13.9 10.7 15.9 9.7 38.0 20.2 9.1 12.2 13.6 14.3  Q2... 14.8 8.2 8.9 9.7 24.4 25.7 10.7 11.7 11.9 16.3  Q3... 14.8 8.6 13.2 9.2 34.6 22.5 9.0 11.1 13.9 15.6  Q4... 12.0 9.7 11.7 7.6 29.2 18.7 7.9 9.5 11.5 12.5 2009: Q1... 10.8 9.7 9.6 8.3 36.8 14.0 9.6 12.5 14.6 9.9  Q2... 11.8 12.6 7.5 9.8 31.7 14.6 10.0 11.9 12.6 11.7  Q3... 11.7 7.0 7.7 8.8 35.0 15.8 8.7 9.7 10.8 12.5  Q4... 9.8 9.5 8.8 7.4 15.9 13.2 8.0 8.7 8.9 10.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.