alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
1994......    |          69      10      11      15       33      .187      .026      .032     .037      .082
1995......    |          51      -2      14      13       25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
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......    |        n.a.       8      16      12     n.a.      n.a.      .017      .035     .026      n.a.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

This document contains summary financial information extracted from the attached
quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the six months  ended  March 31,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         893
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  79,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,422
<INVENTORY>                                    98,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,560
<PP&E>                                         57,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,228
<BONDS>                                        174,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0     
<COMMON>                                       143
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,162
<SALES>                                        235,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,238
<CGS>                                          186,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               428  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                18,376 
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7,442 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            10,934 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,934
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.77
        


</TABLE>
#### Lester Daniel BRYSON; John Frank Bowen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; Forrest D. Bridges, State Superior Court Judge; Graham C. Mullen, Federal District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-6070.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 16, 2003.

Decided Aug. 6, 2003.

Lester Daniel Bryson, John Frank Bowen, Appellants Pro Se. Gerald Patrick Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Paul Bradford Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Lester Daniel Bryson and John Frank Bowen appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Bryson v. Johnston,*No. CA-02-252-1-2 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 22, 2002 & entered Nov. 25, 2002). We deny Appellants’ motions for appointment of counsel, for oral argument, and to dismiss as untimely the informal brief of Appellees Johnston and Bridges. We further deny as moot Appellants’ motion to extend time to file PLRA documents and their informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.35.1

                                 AMENDMENT TO
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into by and
between Inland Resources Inc. ("Employer") and John E. Dyer ("Employee") and
amends that certain Employment Agreement between Employer and Employee dated
effective June 1, 1996.

     Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to provide that
the "Base Salary" shall be One Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and
No/100 Dollars ($137,500.00) per year, effective as of January 1, 1997.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective
the first day of January, 1997.

                                        EMPLOYER:

                                        INLAND RESOURCES INC.



                                        By:     /s/ Kyle R. Miller
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                Kyle R. Miller, President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                        EMPLOYEE:



                                                /s/ John E. Dyer
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                JOHN E. DYER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 09/30/97 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE 9-MONTHS ENDED 09/30/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,305
<SECURITIES>                                    25,794
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                       302
<INVENTORY>                                      7,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,318
<PP&E>                                          16,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,894
<BONDS>                                            112
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,864
<SALES>                                         38,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,748
<CGS>                                           27,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                       221
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,095
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### CURRY U-DRIVE IT, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Alvin ROSS, trading and doing business as Ross Photo Offset Printers, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Oct. 5, 1956.

*797George Gilbert, Miami Beach, for appellant.

James Pilafian, Miami for appellee.

O’CONNELL, Justice.

Appellant, Curry U-Drive It, Inc., brought an action in the Civil Court of Record, Dade County, against appellee, Alvin Ross, trading and doing business as Ross Photo Offset Printers. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant Ross in the civil court of record, whereupon plaintiff appealed to the circuit court which subsequently granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The plaintiff thereupon filed its Notice of Appeal to this Court. Defendant moves this Court to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 29 of the Supreme Court, 31 F.S.A., concerning the payment of taxed costs, and with Rules 31 and 36, concerning the preparation in the brief of an appendix.

It is well settled that an appeal may not be taken to the Supreme Court from a judgment of a circuit court rendered in a case appealed to the circuit court from a civil court of record. Leslie v. Maurer Construction Co., Fla., 67 So.2d 426. F.S.A. Sections 33.11, 33.12. Such a cause may only be brought to this Court by common law certiorari, which writ does not authorize a review of the circuit court’s judgment as on appeal, since the Constitution gave the circuit court final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in courts inferior to it. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n v. Bunting, 133 Fla. 646, 183 So. 321. Consequently, the plaintiff in this cause misconceived his remedy.

Nor can it be successfully contended that F.S. Section 59.45, F.S.A. may be utilized to “save” this appeal by allowing it to be regarded as a petition for certiorari. Such a contention may have prevailed had the attempted appeal shown sufficient grounds to invoke this Court’s organic power to issue the common-law writ of certiorari to review proceedings at law below. Hensley v. Palmer, Fla., 59 So.2d 851. In the instant case there was no such showing.

Inasmuch as we feel that the appeal' should be dismissed for the reasons cited’ herein and not for those raised by the ap-pellee, we must dismiss the appeal on our own motion.

It is so ordered.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02230-BNB

TRACY WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAULA J. FRANTZ, MD, 

BETH DALLAS, Over Medical, 

CHAMJOCK/NURSE PRACTITIONER, 

WEEDER LT./Supervisor Intake, 

JOHN DOE/Nurse over Appliance, 

CHRISTIANS/SGT., Over Intake, and 

JOHN DOE/COLORADO DEPARTMENT CORRECTION[sic], 

Defendants. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Tracy Williamson, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado

Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the correctional facility in

Sterling, Colorado. Mr. Williamson filed pro se a prisoner complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages. He was granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915 without payment of an initial partial filing fee. 

On November 9, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered Mr. Williamson

to file within thirty days an amended complaint that asserted the personal participation

of each named defendant and complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The November 9 order warned Mr. Williamson that, if

he failed to file an amended complaint as directed within the time allowed, the complaint

and the action would be dismissed. Mr. Williamson has failed, within the time allowed,

Case 1:11-cv-02230-LTB Document 12 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

to file an amended complaint as directed or otherwise to communicate with the Court in

any way. Therefore, the complaint and the action will be dismissed. 

Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal

from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status

will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438 (1962). If Mr. Williamson files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455

appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App.

P. 24. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff,

Tracy Williamson, to file within the time allowed an amended complaint that complies

with the directives of the order of November 9, 2011, and for his failure to prosecute. It

is

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

denied. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge 

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02230-LTB Document 12 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
36

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1estate loans estate loans

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2008: Q1... 6.9 6.7 n.a. 6.4

 Q2... 6.8 7.1 n.a. 6.5

 Q3... 6.8 6.7 n.a. 6.6

 Q4... 6.3 6.2 n.a. 6.2

2009: Q1... 6.3 6.2 n.a. 6.1

 Q2... 6.4 6.2 n.a. 6.2

 Q3... 6.4 6.2 n.a. 6.1

 Q4... 6.4 6.2 n.a. 6.1

2010: Q1... 6.2 6.1 n.a. 6.0

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2008: Q1... 7.8 8.0 7.7 7.2

 Q2... 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.2

 Q3... 7.4 7.6 7.5 6.9

 Q4... 6.9 6.9 7.2 6.8

2009: Q1... 6.9 7.2 7.2 6.8

 Q2... 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.7

 Q3... 6.9 7.2 7.2 6.9

 Q4... 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.8

2010: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 

2008: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2

 Q3... 6.9 6.7 6.9 7.1

 Q4... 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.9

2009: Q1... 6.9 6.7 6.9 7.1

 Q2... 6.9 6.6 6.6 6.9

 Q3... 6.7 6.4 6.7 7.1

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

2010: Q1... 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.9
37

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans (continued)

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1-estate loans estate loans

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2008: Q1... n.a. 7.5 7.4 7.0

 Q2... n.a. 7.4 7.3 7.0

 Q3... n.a. 7.4 7.3 7.0

 Q4... n.a. 7.0 7.1 6.8

2009: Q1... n.a. 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q2... n.a. 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q3... n.a. 7.0 7.0 6.7

 Q4... n.a. 6.9 7.0 6.7

2010: Q1... n.a. 6.9 7.0 6.6

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2008: Q1... n.a. 7.2 7.1 6.8

 Q2... n.a. 6.9 7.0 6.8

 Q3... n.a. 7.0 7.1 6.8

 Q4... n.a. 6.7 6.8 6.6

2009: Q1... n.a. 6.4 6.6 6.5

 Q2... n.a. 6.4 6.6 6.5

 Q3... n.a. 6.4 6.6 6.5

 Q4... n.a. 6.4 6.6 6.5

2010: Q1... n.a. 6.4 6.6 6.4

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA) 

2008: Q1... n.a. 7.2 7.4 7.2

 Q2... n.a. 7.3 7.4 7.2

 Q3... n.a. 7.1 7.6 7.4

 Q4... n.a. 6.7 7.0 6.8

2009: Q1... n.a. 6.4 6.8 6.9

 Q2... n.a. 6.5 7.2 7.2

 Q3... n.a. 6.7 7.2 7.1

 Q4... n.a. 6.9 7.2 7.0

2010: Q1... n.a. 7.0 7.2 7.1

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of

livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 18-1045

_________________

JAMES R. ADAMS

v.

GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE,

Appellant

_________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. No. 17-cv-00181)

Honorable Mary Pat Thynge, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Before: MCKEE, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

_________________

ORDER

_________________

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the opinion filed on February 5, 2019 in the above 

captioned case be amended as follows:

On page 11, the text of footnote 16 shall be replaced by the following:

See Joel Edan Friedlander, Is Delaware’s ‘Other Major Political Party’ 

Really Entitled to Half of Delaware’s Judiciary?, 58 Ariz. L. Rev. 1139, 1154 

(2016).

An amended precedential opinion is being filed concurrently with this Order. The 

amendment does not substantively change the Opinion, therefore, the filing date of the 

Opinion will not be modified nor the judgment.

By the Court:

s/ Julio M. Fuentes 

Circuit Judge

Dated: February 13, 2019
1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 -44 9- CV K E VI N W OM AC K AP P E L L ANT V . SPH ERI O N A TLA N TI C ENT ERPRI SES, LL C A PPELL EE

----- ----- FR O M THE 1 58TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h a vec on s i de r e d “ Appe l l a ntKe vi n W om a c k ’ sUno pp os e d M ot i on To D i sm i ss. ” I t i s t he court ’ s opi ni on t hat t he m ot i on s hou l d be gr ant ed; t her ef or e, w e d i s m i s sth e a p p e a l . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .1 (a )(1 ), 4 3 .2 (f). C os t s oft he app ea l s hal l bepa i d byt he part y i ncu r r i ng t he sa m e, f or w h i c h l e t e x e c u ti o n i s s u e . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .1 (d ).
P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M C C O Y, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d M EI ER, J. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 2, 2009