alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans 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-

1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2006...... 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.0 2007...... 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.5 8.5 7.6 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.0 2008...... 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.9 6.3 4.8 6.8 6.6 6.1 5.3 2005: Q4... 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.1 2006: Q1... 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 7.8  Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 8.6 8.8 8.5 7.8  Q3... 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4  Q4... 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 7.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.1 2007: Q1... 8.5 8.9 8.3 8.7 8.9 8.1 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.4  Q2... 8.6 9.0 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.4  Q3... 8.5 8.9 8.6 8.8 8.4 7.7 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.1  Q4... 7.7 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 6.9 8.6 8.5 8.3 7.4 2008: Q1... 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 5.8 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q2... 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.1 5.9 4.9 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.4  Q3... 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.5 6.3 4.7 6.6 6.6 6.1 4.9  Q4... 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.1 6.5 4.0 6.1 6.1 5.6 4.3 2009: Q1... 5.1 5.8 4.1 5.5 5.4 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.0  Q2... 4.7 5.3 4.4 5.0 6.0 3.6 5.9 5.6 5.3 4.3  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual 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.
H. R. 2048

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To require a report on the operations of the State Justice Institute.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ON STATE JUSTICE

INSTITUTE.

Section 213 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42

U.S.C. 10712) is amended by striking ‘‘On October 1, 1987’’ and

inserting ‘‘Not later than October 1, 2002’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Larry L. BUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack KAVANAUGH, Commissioner; Ronald Hutchinson, Warden; Sewall B. Smith, Warden; Bernard Ford, Captain; Jake Sutton, sergeant; r. euliss, Captain, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-6611.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 16, 2003.

Decided Aug. 12, 2003.

Larry L. Bush, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Larry L. Bush seeks to appeal an order denying the motion for recusal of the district judge. This court may exercise juris*248diction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Carp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bush seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny the motions for preparation of transcript at government expense and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT - 11

MILACRON INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE AMOUNTS)                                      2000               1999              1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                      <C>                 <C>              <C>
Net earnings....................................................         $  72,346           $ 70,080         $  41,532

Less preferred dividends........................................              (240)              (240)             (240)
                                                                         ---------           --------         ---------
   Net earnings available to common shareholders................         $  72,106           $ 69,840         $  41,292
                                                                         =========           ========         =========

Basic earnings per share
   Weighted-average common shares
     outstanding................................................            34,935             36,847            38,875
                                                                         =========           ========         =========
       Per share amount.........................................         $    2.06           $   1.90         $    1.06
                                                                         =========           ========         =========

Diluted earnings per share
   Weighted-average common shares
     outstanding................................................            34,935             36,847            38,875
   Add dilutive effect of stock options and restricted shares
     based on treasury stock method.............................               111                202               366
                                                                         ---------           --------         ---------
         Total                                                              35,046             37,049            39,241
                                                                         =========           ========         =========
           Per share amount                                              $    2.06           $   1.89         $    1.05
                                                                         =========           ========         =========

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

*************************************

George Blaisdell, *

*

Plaintiff *

*

v. * CASE NUMBER: 07-CV-390-JL

*

*

City of Rochester *

Rochester Police Department *

*

Defendants *

*************************************

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES AND CONTINUE TRIAL

NOW COME the defendants, City of Rochester and Rochester Police

Department, by and through their attorneys, Devine, Millimet & Branch, Professional

Association, and move to extend deadlines and continue trial as follows:

1. In prior correspondence regarding other litigation with the City, plaintiff

indicated that he would not be available for November and most of December of 2008

due to his health and other issues.

2. In light of the upcoming trial in the above-captioned case, on December

19, the City noticed plaintiff’s deposition to take place at the end of December on

December 30. In the accompanying letter, counsel requested that plaintiff contact her

immediately if unable to attend.

Case 1:07-cv-00390-JL Document 15 Filed 01/13/09 Page 1 of 3
3. Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition on December 30, nor has

plaintiff been in contact regarding this matter. Counsel has been unable to reach plaintiff

by telephone.

4. In light of this delay, the City requests a continuance. Given counsel’s

upcoming litigation schedule, counsel requests that the trial be scheduled for the two

week period beginning September 16, with discovery to be completed August 1, and

summary judgment motions due May 15.

5. Counsel has attempted to contact Mr. Blaisdell regarding this motion

without success.

6. No memorandum of law is required as the relief requested is within Mr.

Blaisdell’s discretion.

WHEREFORE these defendants pray that this Court:

A. Continue trial and discovery dates as set forth in paragraph 4 of this

motion; and

B. Grant such further relief as is just and necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

CITY OF ROCHESTER AND ROCHESTER

POLICE DEPARTMENT

By Their Attorneys,

DEVINE, MILLIMET & BRANCH

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

Date: January 13, 2009 By: /s/ Catherine M. Costanzo

Catherine M. Costanzo, Esquire

111 Amherst Street

Manchester, NH 03101

(603) 669-1000

Case 1:07-cv-00390-JL Document 15 Filed 01/13/09 Page 2 of 3
AFFIDAVIT

I hereby swear that the facts contained herein are true and based upon the personal

knowledge of the undersigned.

__/s/ Catherine M. Costanzo_____

Catherine M. Costanzo

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13

th

day of January, 2009.

_/s/ Diane J. Tkacz ____

Notary Public/Justice of the Peace

My Commission Expires:

11/28/2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing was served on the following persons on this

date and in the manner specified herein: via U.S. mail, postage prepaid to George

Blaisdell, 794 Portland Street, East Rochester, NH 03868.

_/s/ Catherine M. Costanzo

Catherine M. Costanzo

Case 1:07-cv-00390-JL Document 15 Filed 01/13/09 Page 3 of 3
#### YATES v. BATTEFORD.

No. 13828.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 15, 1932.

For former opinion, see 139 So. 37.

R. A. Tichenor and Alex W. Swords, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Neil A. Armstrong, Jr., and Emmett Alpha, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Due to a miscalculation on our part the decree rendered by us, among other things, condemned Batteford, defendant, to pay to Yates, plaintiff, the sum of $373.30, with interest, etc.. The amount should have been $420, with interest, etc., instead of $373.30.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree rendered by us on January 11, 1932, be and it is amended so as to correct the figures $373.30 as they appear in the original decree to read $420.00.

The rehearing requested is refused.

Rehearing refused.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133487 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133487 

 COA: 273245 

Allegan CC: 05-014041-FH 

EDDIE C. POWELL, a/k/a ELVIS LEE BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 205

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable income

tax credit for the recycling of hazardous wastes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SWEENEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a refundable income tax credit for the recycling of hazardous wastes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hazardous Waste Re5 cycling Tax Credit Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR RECYCLING HAZARDOUS

7 WASTES.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart C of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of

10 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by redes-
2

•HR 205 IH

1 ignating section 35 as section 36 and by inserting after

2 section 34 the following new section:

3 ‘‘SEC. 35. CREDIT FOR RECYCLING HAZARDOUS WASTES.

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be allowed as a cred5 it against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable

6 year an amount equal to 2 cents for each pound of quali7 fied hazardous waste recycled by the taxpayer during the

8 taxable year.

9 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED HAZARDOUS WASTE.—For purposes

10 of this section, the term ‘qualified hazardous waste’ means

11 any substance—

12 ‘‘(1) which is listed by the Environmental Pro13 tection Agency under section 3001 of the Solid

14 Waste Disposal Act, or the characteristics of which

15 are identified under such section 3001, and

16 ‘‘(2) which is a waste product generated by the

17 taxpayer in a trade or business conducted by the

18 taxpayer.’’

19 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—

20 (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title

21 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘or

22 from section 35 of such Code’’ before the period at

23 the end.
3

•HR 205 IH

1 (2) The table of sections for such subpart C is

2 amended by striking the item relating to section 35

3 and inserting the following new items:

‘‘Sec. 35. Credit for recycling hazardous wastes.

‘‘Sec. 36. Overpayment of taxes.’’

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

5 this section shall apply to substances recycled after the

6 date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending

7 after such date.

Æ
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2007   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2008   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 2  | .     |
| 2009   | 2  | .  | .  | .  | .     |
Exhibit 24

Power of Attorney

Each person below designates and appoints ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS and ANDERS
GILTVEDT, and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and
agent, with full power of substitution, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008, of West Coast Bancorp, an Oregon
corporation, and any amendments thereto, and to file said report and amendments,
with all exhibits thereto, in such form as they or either of them may approve
with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. Each person whose signature appears below also grants to these
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to perform every act and
execute any instruments that they deem necessary or desirable in connection with
said report, as fully as he or she could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that the attorneys-in-fact and agents or their substitutes may
lawfully do or cause to be done.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this power of attorney has been executed by each of
the undersigned as of the 27th day of January, 2008.

| | Signature                        | Title                                   
| | -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------
| |                                 
| | /s/Lloyd D. Ankeny               |                                         
| | Lloyd D.
      Ankeny            | Director and Chairman of
      the Board
| |                                 
| | /s/Michael J. Bragg              |                                         
| | Michael J.
      Bragg           | Director                                
| |                                 
| | /s/Duane C. McDougall            |                                         
| | Duane C.
      McDougall         | Director                                
| |                                 
| | /s/Steven J. Oliva               |                                         
| | Steven J.
      Oliva            | Director                                
| |                                 
| | /s/J.F. Ouderkirk                |                                         
| | J.F.
      Ouderkirk             | Director                                
| |                                 
| | /s/Steven N. Spence              |                                         
| | Steven N.
      Spence           | Director                                
| |                                 
| | /s/David J. Truitt               |                                         
| | David J.
      Truitt            | Director                                
| |                                 
| | /s/Nancy A. Wilgenbusch          |                                         
| | Nancy A. Wilgenbusch,
      PhD. | Director                                

---
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1579 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1579

         For the relief of Juan Gonzalez and Mayra Valenzuela.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

Mr. Gutierrez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         For the relief of Juan Gonzalez and Mayra Valenzuela.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JUAN GONZALEZ AND MAYRA 
              VALENZUELA

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Juan Gonzalez and Mayra 
Valenzuela shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or 
for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Juan Gonzalez or Mayra Valenzuela 
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Juan Gonzalez and Mayra 
Valenzuela, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Juan Gonzalez 
and Mayra Valenzuela shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

M.A. AND H.A. H/W

v.

DIOCESE OF SCRANTON, BISHOP

JAMES TIMLIN AND BISHOP JOSEPH

BAMBERA

PETITION OF: DIOCESE OF

SCRANTON AND BISHOP JOSEPH

BAMBERA :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 122 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November , 2019, the Application for Extraordinary

Relief is DENIED.
- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERIC JAEGER and 

JERRY A. SHANAHAN, 

Defendants. 

No. 01:07-00039-SM 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES T. LUX IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ERIC JAEGER’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIGHT OF NEW AUTHORITY

I, James T. Lux, Esquire, on oath, do depose and state as follows: 

1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 

in Boston, Massachusetts. I am an active member in good standing of the bar of Massachusetts 

and have been admitted pro hac vice by the Court in this case. 

2. I represent Defendant Eric Jaeger in this action. I submit this Affidavit in support 

of Mr. Jaeger’s Motion for Summary Judgment In Light of New Authority, filed herewith. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the 

transcript of the June 30, 2011 deposition of Steven Henning. 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Expert Report of 

Douglas J. Kangos. 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 302-3 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 2
 - 2 - 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: June 25, 2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ James T. Lux 

James T. Lux (admitted pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

(617) 526-6000 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 302-3 Filed 06/25/12 Page 2 of 2