alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7461

WALTER ALBERT YOUNIE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; WARDEN, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99- 2956-AMD) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Albert Younie, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Walter Albert Younie appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Younie v. Maryland Parole Commission , No. CA-99-2956-AMD (Oct. 7, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, August 1-5, 2Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 997,615 38,049 61,624 70,408 103,321 159,37Number of loans 19,594 9,988 4,145 2,116 1,601 1,09Weighted average maturity (months)1 16.47 8.53 10.50 12.56 12.56 18.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 5.57 1.97 3.34 4.96 5.28 5.7

Weighted average risk rating3 3.21 3.21 3.22 3.20 2.99 3.2

Weighted average interest rate4 6.49 7.60 7.53 7.32 6.77 6.6

 Standard error5 .21 .12 .14 .16 .17 .1

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.23 8.35 8.27 8.24 7.50 7.1 25th percentile 5.90 6.88 6.86 6.43 6.18 6.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.34 7.32 7.24 6.90 6.02 6.6 Other livestock 6.69 7.67 7.63 7.11 7.00 5.8 Other current operating expenses7 6.82 7.65 7.60 7.47 6.78 6.7

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.79 7.67 7.33 6.91 7.06 6.7 Farm real estate 7.07 7.12 7.70 7.47 6.89 7.1 Other8 5.66 7.26 7.26 7.12 6.44 6.3

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 80.14 78.02 78.77 73.01 69.75 80.9 Under commitment 84.29 89.76 83.69 80.49 81.45 85.8 Callable 22.84 30.80 31.75 31.79 32.18 23.2 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 3.61 3.02 4.88 4.97 3.28 6.4 Other livestock 10.41 5.39 6.48 5.93 10.49 5.9 Other current operating expenses7 36.31 76.68 66.44 63.72 53.20 42.5

 Farm machinery and equipment 17.14 4.60 10.49 11.28 12.85 13.0 Farm real estate 6.13 1.67 1.88 2.45 5.38 8.6 Other8 26.40 8.65 9.83 11.66 14.80 23.3

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 6.89 2.26 3.71 4.56 8.49 12.7 Other 88.32 89.43 89.06 86.06 86.67 82.4 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1366 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1366

  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3101 
  West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ``Hector G. 
                    Godinez Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

 Ms. Sanchez (for herself, Mr. Lewis of California, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. 
  Condit, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Baca, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cox, Mr. 
 Waxman, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Berman, Mr. Filner, Ms. 
Solis, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Honda) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3101 
  West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ``Hector G. 
                    Godinez Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HECTOR G. GODINEZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    The United States Post Office building located at 3101 West 
Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Mitchell Kalwasinski, Appellant, v George Pataki, as Governor and Chief Executive Officer of the State of New York, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 860]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered August 11, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Since the February 2003 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in March 2005, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Ayala v New York State Bd. of Parole,*17 AD3d 946 [2005]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
EXHIBIT32.1

|   |           (1)    The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |           (2)    The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      David R. Jaffe                              |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David      R. Jaffe                                  |
| President,      Chief Executive Officer and Director |
| November      10, 2010                               |
Exhibit 11.1

          Computation of Historical Net Income (loss) Per Common Share
                                  (Unaudited)

                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          JULY 31,
                                                     1996            1997
                                                  -----------    -----------
   Net income                                     $   202,346    $    46,441
                                                  ===========    ===========
   Weighted average number of shares
   outstanding                                      4,000,000      7,319,875
   Add:
       Shares issuable upon conversion of
        Series A Redeemable Convertible
        Preferred Stock                               992,061
       Shares issuable from the assumed exercise
         of options as determined by the
         application of the treasury stock method     611,144        673,731
                                                  -----------    -----------
                                                    5,603,205      7,993,606
                                                  -----------    -----------
   Net income per common share                    $      0.04    $      0.01
                                                  ===========    ============

The above computations include all common equivalent shares issued within the 12
months preceding the filing date as if they were outstanding for all periods
presented (using the treasury stock method) and the as if converted method with
regards to the Series A redeemable convertible preferred stock.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory Alan Gaylor

v. Civil No. 08-284-JD

NH State Prison, Warden, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed a motion requesting a certificate

of appealability (document no. 16). The court declines to issue

a certificate of appealability on the ground that the petitioner

has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 9, 2009

cc: Gregory Alan Gaylor, pro se

Susan P. McGinnis, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00284-JD Document 20 Filed 03/09/09 Page 1 of 1
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1986
          14
          14
          21
          16
          651987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12004
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12005
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02006
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02007
          0
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 22, 2007
| *Release Date: August 17, 2010* |
|---------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Case No. 09-cv-91-PB

Northern NH Correctional

Facility, Warden

O R D E R

William Carey presents two claims in his current habeas

corpus petition. He first argues that the Parole Board violated

his right to equal protection by paroling other inmates without

paroling him. Next he claims that the state superior court

violated his right to due process by dismissing his state court

habeas corpus petition without a hearing. The warden has

challenged both claims with a motion for summary judgment. 

Carey is barred from raising his equal protection claim

because he failed to present the claim in the notice of

discretionary appeal he filed with the state supreme court. 

Under state law, an appellant forfeits his right to further

litigate an issue that he fails without justification to present

in a notice of appeal. Carey has not even attempted to avoid the

procedural bar that ordinarily results when an appellant fails to

raise a potential claim in a notice of appeal. He has not

Case 1:09-cv-00091-PB Document 15 Filed 10/14/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

established either cause or prejudice for his procedural default. 

Nor has he otherwise explained how applying the procedural bar

rule here would result in manifest injustice.

Carey’s due process claim fails on the merits. Although he

alleges judicial bias, he produces no evidence to support his

claim. Nor has he explained how the court’s failure to hold a

hearing on his petition violates his right to due process. 

The respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12)

is granted. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 14, 2009

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-00091-PB Document 15 Filed 10/14/09 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Catherine Greene et al., Appellants, v Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 880]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip dated July 9, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a certificate of nonconforming use, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated August 6, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A court will apply the zoning ordinance currently in existence at the time a decision is rendered unless “special facts” are present to demonstrate that the municipality acted in bad faith and unduly delayed acting upon an application while the zoning law was being changed *(Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf,*40 NY2d *613769 [1976]; *see Matter of Sexton v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Oyster Bay,*300 AD2d 494, 496 [2002]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, there are no special facts in this case that would warrant an exception to the general rule *(see Matter of Lucrezia v Board of Appeals of Town of Haverstraw,*2 AD3d 861 [2003]; *Matter of Home Depot U.S.A. v Village of Rockville Ctr.,*295 AD2d 426, 428 [2002]).

Accordingly, the respondents’ determination that the appellants failed to establish a nonconforming use was rational and not arbitrary and capricious. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sherrill L. White

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00206-JL

Mark L. Sisti

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

March 12, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all matters

(unless the party appears pro se).

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00206-JL Document 18 Filed 03/06/09 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 6, 2009

cc: Sherrill L. White, pro se

Christopher D. Hawkins, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00206-JL Document 18 Filed 03/06/09 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH SEPTEMBER 1998 10Q
</LEGEND> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          54,851
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    532,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               881,104
<PP&E>                                      25,720,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 502,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,100,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,245,893
<BONDS>                                      4,416,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    22,039,780
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,282,119)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,100,363
<SALES>                                        805,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               532,414
<CGS>                                          602,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,358,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             264,947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (790,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   284,658
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (506,058)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (312,089)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
SEC Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial 
statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          37,406
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             105
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    128,172
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         128,020
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           130,214
<LOANS>                                        362,728
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 678,102
<DEPOSITS>                                     555,086
<SHORT-TERM>                                    64,202
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,052
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,067
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 678,102
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 32,287
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               14,953
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,032
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                48,272
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              19,609
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,796
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,476
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,050
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 127
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 19,994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,688
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,688
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,692
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.95
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.54
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       104
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,859
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,112
<RECOVERIES>                                       135
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,932
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,932
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1443

T. M. VISWANATHAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH

CAROLINA; C. D. SPANGLER, JR., in his official

capacity; FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD

OF TRUSTEES; JESSEE WILLIAMS, DR., in his

official and individual capacity; LLOYD V.

HACKLEY, DR., in his official and individual

capacity; LEO EDWARDS, DR., in his official

and individual capacity; JON YOUNG, DR., in

his official and individual capacity; MORRIS

BLOUNT, DR., in his official and individual

capacity; JOSEPH MONROE, DR., in his official

and individual capacity; CLARENCE WHITE, DR.,

in his official and individual capacity; KAYE

WEBB, in her official and individual capacity;

FELTON THOMAS, DR., in his individual and

official capacity; ALL DEFENDANTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Hiram H. Ward, Senior District

Judge. (CA-94-528-1)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

T. M. Viswanathan, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas J. Ziko, Celia Grasty

Jones, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting

Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Appellant's motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Viswanathan v. Board

of Governors, No. CA-94-528-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 1 & Apr. 24, 1996). In

light of the disposition of the appeal, we deny Appellant's motion

to vacate order. 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