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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                             21,321,866
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                       3,562,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                         6,221,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   32,150,555
<PP&E>                              2,352,887
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,309,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     33,296,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               6,051,516
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               92,833
<OTHER-SE>                         27,152,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       33,296,366
<SALES>                            13,623,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   13,623,673
<CGS>                               5,687,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      10,861,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     3,080,575
<INCOME-TAX>                          968,203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 2,112,372
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                        2,112,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .23
        

</TABLE>
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: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending August 23, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

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

2005: Q1... 17 34 48 5 53 42 16 3

 Q2... 17 58 25 5 62 33 8 5 Q3... 33 61 6 9 68 23 28 6 Q4... 26 32 42 4 55 41 18 52006: Q1... 37 38 25 6 62 32 22 5 Q2... 40 47 13 9 59 32 27 5 Q3... 52 41 7 20 59 21 47 4 Q4... 35 27 38 17 54 29 34 42007: Q1... 21 29 50 11 50 38 19 4

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

2005: Q1... 12 48 40 5 59 36 12 5

 Q2... 15 59 26 5 64 31 14 6 Q3... 35 52 14 15 54 31 34 5 Q4... 30 49 21 13 58 30 27 52006: Q1... 31 52 16 13 58 29 27 5 Q2... 37 57 6 15 60 25 37 5 Q3... 42 48 10 15 54 31 31 5 Q4... 25 43 32 8 62 29 18 62007: Q1... 18 38 44 5 59 36 14 5

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

2005: Q1... 27 55 18 14 68 18 23 5

 Q2... 13 50 38 8 58 33 8 5 Q3... 24 38 38 19 62 19 29 5 Q4... 24 29 48 14 62 24 24 42006: Q1... 36 45 18 18 68 14 27 5 Q2... 35 48 17 17 65 17 32 5 Q3... 23 55 23 5 86 9 23 5 Q4... 22 44 33 11 72 17 17 62007: Q1... 20 30 50 0 75 25 5 5 * 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF EARNINGS AS OF JUNE 28, 1996 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND THE NOTES
THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FILED IN THE 1996 JEFFERIES GROUP, INC. SECOND QUARTER 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1996
<CASH>                                         122,088
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,060
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          737,430
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            176,128
<PP&E>                                          27,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,296,379
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                     168,539
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            637,750
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              86,333
<LONG-TERM>                                     56,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           187
<OTHER-SE>                                     188,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,296,379
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               67,647
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            24,968
<COMMISSIONS>                                  110,390
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   37,856
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,512
<COMPENSATION>                                 123,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,135
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      38,135
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
        

</TABLE>
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

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...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2005...... 77.1 62.7 71.4 73.0 83.9 90.6 67.6 62.9 65.4 83.2 2006...... 75.3 56.9 68.0 70.4 84.1 91.8 68.7 66.1 65.5 79.8 2007...... 69.6 62.0 62.0 63.5 68.8 88.1 64.3 63.3 66.1 72.0 2008...... 75.9 69.0 71.2 72.1 59.2 90.2 66.2 63.3 68.7 79.7 2009...... 73.3 66.7 83.3 69.1 58.2 88.8 72.0 70.9 68.7 75.1 2006: Q3... 78.3 43.0 64.3 81.2 78.5 96.6 76.9 72.9 62.9 83.5  Q4... 76.6 62.7 67.4 74.9 91.4 87.1 65.4 62.3 65.3 82.9 2007: Q1... 64.6 71.8 68.1 55.8 50.0 87.4 62.6 64.9 70.9 62.9  Q2... 71.4 55.6 75.2 65.5 70.8 90.0 63.9 65.3 71.3 73.3  Q3... 74.8 41.5 75.5 71.7 70.2 89.8 66.2 64.0 61.1 82.8  Q4... 69.1 65.5 43.5 64.6 77.1 86.1 64.6 59.1 61.3 73.1 2008: Q1... 68.7 71.7 48.9 62.6 47.5 91.4 56.9 53.5 64.3 71.5  Q2... 74.7 70.5 56.6 72.5 69.0 86.7 65.2 68.7 71.2 76.9  Q3... 82.1 57.8 81.5 82.6 54.6 91.3 70.2 63.9 70.8 87.7  Q4... 79.4 70.4 86.3 73.8 58.9 91.2 71.7 66.9 68.4 84.5 2009: Q1... 61.1 63.8 83.6 52.8 45.6 89.4 71.9 69.4 64.7 59.4  Q2... 77.8 49.0 84.1 77.2 39.6 94.5 68.8 71.4 70.4 82.2  Q3... 76.6 67.1 87.2 76.2 52.6 81.7 77.0 73.3 70.9 79.3  Q4... 83.8 74.7 77.9 85.6 79.0 89.4 69.7 69.4 69.4 90.6 2010: Q1... 71.4 67.6 70.1 70.3 57.5 82.2 70.3 66.8 71.2 72.0  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.
EXHIBIT 99.2



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and 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 March 30, 2003 (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:
|     



1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,168
<PP&E>                                          21,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,713
<BONDS>                                         10,978
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,149
<SALES>                                          2,893
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,113
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,301
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,184
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,739)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,445
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,445
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
#### Marion Sakow, Appellant, v 633 Seafood Restaurant, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[808 NYS2d 192]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe III, J.), entered March 8, 2005, granting the motion of defendants 633 Seafood Restaurant, Inc. (633), 2427-2429 Seafood Restaurant Corp., Barry Corwin and Howard Levine for summary judgment, and dismissing the complaint as against all defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, in this derivative action commenced in 1997, alleges that the individual defendants at a corporate board meeting held in 1989 voted to compensate themselves excessively for services purportedly rendered on 633’s behalf. Inasmuch as plaintiff, who attended the 1989 board meeting, inexplicably waited some eight years to commence this litigation, and defendants would be prejudiced if they were at this late date required to account for or return the compensation they *419received without objection during the lengthy period over which the propriety of the 1989 board compensation determination went unchallenged *(cf. Reynolds v Snow,*10 AD2d 101, 111 [1960], *affd*8 NY2d 899 [1960]), the action was properly dismissed as barred by laches. Plaintiffs contention that the motion court granted relief on the basis of an argument which she never had the opportunity to address is unfounded, since the record reflects that defendants did indeed assert in their moving papers that laches was one of the equitable principles warranting dismissal of the action. Nor is there merit to plaintiffs assertion that her action is one at law to which laches is not a proper defense. Plaintiffs claims, brought in her capacity as a 633 shareholder, are derivative and therefore equitable in nature *(see Koral v Savory, Inc.,*276 NY 215, 218 [1937]; *Potter v Walker,*276 NY 15, 25-26 [1937]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including those challenging the dismissal of her claims to recoup, on 633’s behalf, legal fees paid by the corporation in defending itself and its principals against various actions brought by plaintiff, the earliest of which dates from 1990, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2196 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2196

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Michler's ethyl ketone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2001

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Michler's ethyl ketone.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON MICHLER'S ETHYL KETONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.30.21    4,4-Bis           Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     (diethylamino)                                                          31/2004          ''
                     benzophenon                                                                               .
                     (CAS No. 90-93-
                     7) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2922.30.45)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
*Release Date: June 30, 2008*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 8.3     | 8.3                    | 7.8                                |
| 8.7     | 8.7                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.9     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.0     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 8.9     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.8     | 8.7                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.7     | 8.6                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.2     | 8.1                    | 7.6                                |
| 6.9     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
||
| 8.6     | 8.4                    | 7.9                                |
| 9.0     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 9.1     | 8.9                    | 8.4                                |
| 9.2     | 8.9                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 9.0     | 8.7                    | 8.1                                |
| 8.5     | 8.2                    | 7.7                                |
| 7.4     | 7.2                    | 6.7                                |
||
| 8.9     | 9.0                    | 8.6                                |
| 9.1     | 9.1                    | 8.7                                |
| 9.3     | 9.3                    | 8.8                                |
| 9.4     | 9.4                    | 8.8                                |
| 9.2     | 9.3                    | 8.6                                |
| 9.4     | 9.5                    | 9.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.9                    | 8.8                                |
| 8.3     | 8.4                    | 8.4                                |
| 7.5     | 7.6                    | 7.7                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * 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.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22604]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special 
Emphasis Panel, October 17, 2008, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., National 
Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on 
September 11, 2008, 73 FR 0177.
    This meeting will be held October 22, 2008 instead of October 17, 
2008. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-22604 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### DOSKEY v. UNITED THEATRES, Inc.

No. 17852.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 1, 1943.

For prior opinion see 11 So.2d 276.

Rosen, Kammer, Wolff & Hopkins, of New Orleans, for appellants.

H. W. & H. M. Robinson, of New Orleans, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The application for rehearing is not considered having been filed too late. Valmont Service Sta. v. Avegno, 3 La.App. 335; O. K. Realty Co. v. John A. Juliani, Inc., 157 La. 277, 102 So. 399; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. A. Marx & Sons, 17 La.App. 172, 135 So. 64, 675; Claude Neon Federal Co., Inc., v. Meyer Brothers, Inc., La.App., 151 So. 139; Frey v. Manhattan Life Insurance Company of New York, 182 La. 821, 162 So. 633.

Rehearing not considered.
#### Stephanie ROBERSON Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Labor FINDERS Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-60985

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 2003.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberson challenges the district court’s order dismissing her suit without prejudice.

Stephanie Roberson filed a complaint seeking recovery for personal injuries she sustained when a forklift struck her apparently during the course of her employment. The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned was unable to determine

from the pleadings the basis for the court’s jurisdiction or the nature of the claim, that is whether it was a contract suit, a tort suit or a worker’s compensation suit. The magistrate judge directed Ms. Roberson to amend her petition to state with specificity the legal claims presented and the facts she relied on in support thereof. When the plaintiff did not respond, the magistrate judge recommended that the case be dismissed for two reasons: (1) the complaint did not demonstrate that the claim was within the court’s jurisdiction and (2) the plaintiff failed to amend her complaint as directed by the court.

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings, accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Unfortunately, Ms. Roberson, who filed this appeal *pro se,*addressed neither ground upon which the court dismissed her suit. Her brief is limited to a discussion of the facts surrounding her accident.

When an appellant fails to address the merits of an opinion or fails to identify any error, the practical effect “is the same as if [she] had not appealed that judgment.” *Brinkmann v. Dallas County,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987) Because the appellant failed to address the grounds for the district court’s ruling, we consider her claims abandoned.1

Appeal DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Roberson also filed a motion to add another party to this suit. The motion is denied.
#### Mrs. Ezella Rachal DESADIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS *&*PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 7844.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1952.

Russell E. Gahagan, G. F. Thomas, Jr., Natchitoches, for appellant.

Frank H. Peterman, J. Charles Burden, Jr., Alexandria, for appellee.

Richard B. Williams, Natchitoches, for intervenor.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit for damages as the result of a railway crossing accident which caused the death of plaintiff’s husband. This is a companion case to Rachal v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, Pa.App., 61 So. 2d 525 with which it was consolidated for trial and for purposes of appeal, which has this day been decided by this court. The facts and the reasons for judgment are fully set forth in our opinion in said case.

For the reasons assigned it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment be and it is hereby affirmed at appellant’s cost.