alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                        
                               Estimated volume              Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                            (millions of dollars)                             (percent)
                      __________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2     Q3     Q4     Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                        
1993......    |          24       2      4      7     11      .121      .010      .018     .035     .054
1994......    |          10       1      1      3      6      .048      .003      .003     .013     .026
1995......    |          12       0      3      6      4      .055     -.001      .011     .027     .016
1996......    |           7       0      1      2      4      .031      .000      .003     .009     .017
1997......    |          16      -1      0      3     14      .064     -.003     -.001     .010     .054
1998......    |           6      -1      3      0      5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0      3      5      7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12      3      8     14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10      9      5     17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8      6      5     16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |          32       4      6      8     14      .082      .010      .015     .021     .034
2004......    |          18       1      5      2     10      .044      .003      .012     .005     .021
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1995: Q2... 100 * * 3.00 14.00 11.00 35.00 24.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 * * .01 * 1996: Q2... 100 * 14.00 14.00 19.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 3.00 1.00 .01 .01 * .01 * 1997: Q2... 100 * .01 6.00 11.00 20.00 30.00 21.00 9.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 * 1998: Q2... 100 * .01 3.00 14.00 31.00 30.00 14.00 7.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1999: Q2... 100 .01 4.00 4.00 12.00 37.00 30.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 * * 2000: Q2... 100 .01 .01 .01 4.00 19.00 36.00 27.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * * 2002: Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2003: Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * * 2004: Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * * 2005: Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * * 2006: Q2... 100 * 1.04 14.21 34.09 30.67 15.91 3.24 .56 * * * * * * 2003: Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q1... 100 43.84 22.35 17.33 11.30 3.56 1.16 .27 .05 .05 * .07 .02 * *  Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * *  Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * *  Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2005: Q1... 100 11.07 19.85 27.21 29.30 11.22 1.06 .17 .13 * * * * .00 .00  Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * *  Q3... 100 8.94 14.99 34.66 24.51 14.68 1.94 .21 .05 .02 .01 .01 * * *  Q4... 100 .68 6.95 26.62 32.48 25.80 6.63 .70 * * * * * * * 2006: Q1... 100 * 2.78 14.02 34.59 34.39 12.26 1.44 * * * * * * *  Q2... 100 * 1.04 14.21 34.09 30.67 15.91 3.24 .56 * * * * * *  Q3... 100 * * 5.27 21.96 34.82 30.67 5.70 1.12 * * * * * *  Q4... 100 * 3.32 10.48 17.65 39.46 21.03 7.27 .65 * * * * * * 2007: Q1... 100 * * 7.64 19.40 38.92 28.70 3.97 1.02 * * * * * *  Q2... 100 * 1.43 5.99 17.56 39.08 27.15 7.64 1.10 * * * * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                            1174
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2510
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,853
<PP&E>                                          21,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,486
<BONDS>                                         18,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,393
<SALES>                                          1,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,197
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,030)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,515
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,515
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
#### John F. DAVIS et al. v. LINDSAY FURNITURE CO. et al.

No. 1028.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1932.

See, also (La. App.) 126 So. 572; 14 La. App. 215, 129 So. 447.

W. A. Benton, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Breazeale & Sachse, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

ELLIOTT, J.

The facts of this case are stated in our opinion and decree herein on December 8, 1931, 19 La. App. 169, 138 So. 439, and to which we now refer. A further statement is not necessary, except to say that plaintiff’s demand was refused in the lower court, but *672when we came to act on the previous appeal it was found that Maedell Davis, wife of John Davis, had not filed an appeal bond and was therefore not a party appellant. She has timely perfected her appeal, so her claim for damages on account of personal injuries must be considered.

The evidence shows that defendant’s agent went to her house, the residence of herself and husband, on defendant’s business and in the performance of the functions for which he was employed and while so engaged he unlawfully struck and beat the plaintiff. Defendant contends that he did not do it, but we are satisfied that -he did. We do not think, however, that she was as seriously injured as she claims to have been, as a result of the blows received. She is not entitled to the amount of damages she claims.

We think $100 ample compensation for all the personal injuries which she sustained in her encounter with defendant’s agent.

For these reasons the judgment appealed from is now annulled, avoided, and set aside, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff Maedell Davis have and recover judgment against Lindsay Furniture Company and J. B. Lindsay and J. K. Lindsay in solido for $100, with 5 per cent, per annum interest thereon from June 21, 1929, until paid. Defendant and appellee to pay the cost in both courts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                      1,000
       
<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                                           15,649
<SECURITIES>                                                      2,947
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    23,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      1,135
<INVENTORY>                                                      11,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 52,760
<PP&E>                                                            6,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    3,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   58,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            21,891
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                             85
<OTHER-SE>                                                       35,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     58,324
<SALES>                                                         139,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                139,841
<CGS>                                                           119,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   119,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 15,487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   4,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      1,885
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               2,720
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      2,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       .36
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Allan Lewis

v. Civil No. 09-cv-02-JL

NH Judicial Branch et al

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arenas dated March 30, 2009.

SO ORDERED.

April 7, 2009 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Allan Lewis, Pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00002-JL Document 5 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2008 (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 780(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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  |                             
| |  | -------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
| |  |                      |  | 
| |  | Date: August 8, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS       
| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels           
| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer     
| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
1

In addition to Knox, Gadson has named the Oak Leaf Trust

and James Colburn, the Blueberry Hill Mobile Home Park onsite

manager, as defendants to this action.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Frederick Gadson

v. Civil No. 08-cv-103-PB

Peter Knox, Trustee, Castle Trust, et al.1

O R D E R

Before the Court is Frederick Gadson’s complaint (document

no. 1), filed pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601,

et seq., alleging that he has been subjected to racial

discrimination in the provision and services associated with his

rental property at the Blueberry Hill Mobile Home Park in

Charlestown, New Hampshire. The matter is before me for

preliminary review to determine whether or not the complaint

states any claim upon which relief might be granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A; United States District Court District of New

Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons explained

fully in the Report and Recommendation issued simultaneously with

this Order, I direct that the claim alleging a denial of

Case 1:08-cv-00103-PB Document 5 Filed 08/13/08 Page 1 of 3
2

telephone line maintenance services proceed against the

defendants named to this action. In my Report and

Recommendation, I recommend that the remaining claims be

dismissed from this action.

Without further comment on the merits of the complaint, I

order that the complaint be served on the defendants. As

plaintiff has provided summons forms for each defendant, the

Clerk’s office shall issue the summonses against defendants and

forward to the United States Marshal for the District of New

Hampshire (the “U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summonses and copies

of the complaint (document no. 1), the Report and Recommendation

issued simultaneously with this Order, and this Order. Upon

receipt of the necessary documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s office

shall effect service upon the defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(c)(2). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on 

Case 1:08-cv-00103-PB Document 5 Filed 08/13/08 Page 2 of 3
3

the Defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Justo Arenas _

Justo Arenas

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 13, 2008

cc: Frederick Gadson, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00103-PB Document 5 Filed 08/13/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-123-PB

Nathan Ledoux

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for December 2, 2008, citing the need for

additional time to investigate additional discovery and engage in

plea negotiations or prepare for trial. The government does 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 December 2, 2008 to February 3, 2009. In

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

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

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

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

Case 1:08-cr-00123-PB Document 10 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 19, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 21, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 17, 2008

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00123-PB Document 10 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 2
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
                                Estimated volume                 Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                              (percent)
                      _____________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
1996......    |          95      16      27      24      30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19      19      50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15      24      45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37      35      36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17      34      45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53     140      48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50      58      73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |         175      34      35      48      58      .382      .074      .080     .108      .128
2004......    |         129      28      17      46      38      .284      .062      .039     .099      .081
2005......    |          59       8      16      12      24      .124      .017      .035     .026      .048
2006......    |          73       9       7      23      34      .146      .018      .015     .045      .064
2007......    |          90       8      13      23      47      .170      .014      .025     .042      .085
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diego ORTEGA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50673.

D.C. No. CR-00-03888-JKS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 17, 2003.

*677Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Diego Ortega-Martinez appeals his 21-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.1

Ortega-Martinez contends that our recent decision in *United States v. Corona-Sanchez,*291 F.3d 1201, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc), warrants reversal of his sentence. We agree.

The district court enhanced Ortega-Martinez’s sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) (2000) on the grounds that his prior conviction under California Penal Code §§ 484, 666 was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). We have since held that a petty theft conviction under California Penal Code §§ 484, 666 does not constitute an aggravated felony for federal sentencing purposes. *See Corona-Sanchez,*291 F.3d at 1213.

Accordingly, we reverse Ortega-Martinez’s sentence and remand to the district court for re-sentencing.

We deny Ortega-Martinez’s motion for summary reversal filed July 1, 2002, as moot.

REVERSED and REMANDED for RESENTENCING.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. As the government concedes, this appeal is not moot despite Ortega-Martinez’s release from prison and deportation because Ortega-Martinez has reentered the country and thus become subject once again to the terms of supervised release.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

HealthDesk Corporation
Computation of Earnings per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended September 30,      Nine months Ended September 30,
                                                     --------------------------------      ------------------------------- 
                                                         1997               1998               1997               1998
                                                         ----               ----               ----               ----  
<S>                                                   <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>    
Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding used for both Basic and Diluted
calculations.....................................      5,392,845          5,792,845          5,151,136          5,717,570
                                                      ----------         ----------        -----------        -----------

Net Loss.........................................     $ (741,806)        $ (517,335)       $(3,024,712)       $(2,118,712)
                                                      ----------         ----------        -----------        -----------

Basic and diluted loss per share.................     $    (0.14)        $    (0.09)       $     (0.59)       $     (0.37)
                                                      ----------         ----------        -----------        -----------
</TABLE>