alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1996...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.4 1.2 1.3 .3 1.0

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006...... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2000: Q1... 1.3 .6 .6 .2 .5 3.0 1.5 1.5 .4 1.1

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.2 .9 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 1.9 .7 1.2 .2 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .2 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007: Q1... 1.0 .6 .4 .1 .3 1.9 1.1 .8 .3 .5

 Q2... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .7 .9 .2 .7

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22
#### In the Matter of Samuel McNear, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 818]

Froceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

A correction officer observed petitioner approach another inmate and exchange punches with him. Fetitioner disregarded several direct orders from the correction officer to stop fighting, even when the other inmate attempted to comply with the orders. As a result of the incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting and refusing a direct order. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner requested no *1044witnesses and offered no defense. Petitioner was found guilty of both charges and, as modified on administrative appeal, a penalty of, among other things, six months confinement and loss of good time was imposed.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report written by the correction officer who witnessed the incident is sufficient, by itself, to constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*19 AD3d 906 [2005]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the penalty imposed and tier classification of the charges, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-90-01-SM

Dana O’Toole

O R D E R

Defendant O’Toole’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 8). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2009

trial period. Defendant O’Toole shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than November 3, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 6, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 18, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00090-SM Document 9 Filed 10/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 21, 2008

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Robert J. Veiga, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00090-SM Document 9 Filed 10/21/08 Page 2 of 2
#### Van VINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles M. POSTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 8076.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 24, 1954.

Godfrey & Edwards, Many, for appellant.

Pickett & Pickett, Many, for appellee.

GLADNEY, Judge.

This case is a companion case with that of Skinner v. Poston, La.App., 71 So.2d 702. Issues of fact and law are substantially the same in each case, and, therefore, for the reasons stated in the opinion in 71 So.2d 702, the judgment from which appealed is affirmed at appellant’s • cost.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randolph Chambers

v. Case No. 08-cv-323-PB

NH State Prison Warden

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 23, 2008, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

December 4, 2008 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Randolph Chambers, Pro Se

Case 1:08-cv-00323-PB Document 10 Filed 12/04/08 Page 1 of 1
#### Cosmo Branca, Appellant, v Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

[808 NYS2d 77]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered July 15, 2005, which, to the extent appealable, denied petitioner’s motion as one for renewal of a prior order granting respondents’ cross motion to dismiss this proceeding to challenge the termination of petitioner’s employment with the Department of Education in January 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Initially, the petition alleged that prior disciplinary charges were improperly used at the hearing on the current disciplinary charges. Following the court’s dismissal of the proceeding, petitioner moved for reargument—properly treated by the court as a motion for renewal *(Mejia v Nanni,*307 AD2d 870, 871 [2003])—on the ground that the hearing officer had denied subpoenas to petitioner’s counsel for the purpose of speaking to students in petitioner’s classroom *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).

Petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not submitting the “new” or additional facts about subpoenas on his original application to vacate the hearing officer’s decision to terminate employment *(see Matter of Creole Enters. v Giuliani,*240 AD2d 279 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 802 [1997], *and*
      *486
      *dismissed*90 NY2d 936 [1997]; *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568 [1979]). Instead, he offers the vague excuse that his failure to raise the issue of witness unavailability in the original petition was due to “inadvertence caused by a change of attorneys during hearing dates.” In any event, the new material would not have warranted a departure from the court’s initial ruling that there was a clear and rational basis for the decision to terminate employment. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 853 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 11, 2007.
Whereas the oil spill that occurred on November 7, 2007, in the San Francisco 
        Bay resulted in the discharge of between 53,570 and 58,000 gallons of 
        toxic bunker fuel, causing one of the Bay Area's worse environmental 
        disasters;
Whereas 28 beaches were closed and over 1,300 birds so far have been severely 
        impacted by the spill;
Whereas thousands of individuals throughout the San Francisco Bay Area 
        immediately volunteered to assist with the cleanup;
Whereas Bay Area community non-profit organizations, such as San Francisco 
        Connect, have also rallied to support the response and recovery work by 
        supporting these volunteer efforts;
Whereas Bay Area environmental organizations, such as Baykeeper, Save the Bay, 
        and the Bay Institute, have provided invaluable leadership in reporting, 
        assessing, and helping to remediate the damage to the Bay's ecosystem;
Whereas the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, members of the 
        San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, commercial crabbers, and 
        other Bay Area fishermen have all joined the cleanup efforts as well; 
        and
Whereas the city of San Francisco, particularly through its Department of 
        Emergency Management, has significantly contributed to the overall 
        response, bringing considerable resources to bear: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors those individuals and 
organizations who have volunteered to assist in the cleanup of the November 7, 
2007, oil spill in one of our Nation's most beloved national treasures, the San 
Francisco Bay.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Gabriela YAQUE-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70700.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided Feb. 19, 2003.

*292Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Gabriela Yaque-Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture (the “Convention”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where the BIA adopts in part the IJ’s decision, as here, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions for substantial evidence. *Kataria v. INS,*232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ correctly determined that Yaque-Martinez failed to establish an evidentiary nexus between her estranged father’s kidnaping and her fear of future persecution because she submitted no evidence indicating her father’s political views were imputed to her. *See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS,*937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991). Similarly, Yaque-Martinez did not show more than a “generalized or random” possibility of persecution because she testified that the Guatemalan guerillas never harmed or threatened to harm her, and that the guerillas did not look for her after she left Guatemala. *See Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998). Finally, Yaque-Martinez failed to demonstrate that the guerillas wanted to persecute her for an actual political opinion because although she testified that she supported the Guatemalan government, she did not indicate that anyone else knew about her political views. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Yaque-Martinez failed to establish eligibility for asylum and therefore failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See de Leon-Barrios v. INS,*116 F.3d 391, 394 (9th Cir.1997).

*293We lack jurisdiction to consider Yaque-Martinez’s contention that she would be persecuted on account of her membership in the social group of her family because she did not raise this issue before the BIA. *See Ochave v. INS,*254 F.3d 859, 867 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 23.2


           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements
 (Forms S-8 Nos.   333-89760,   333-69372, 33-64403,  333-118304,  333-11803,
 33-64405, 33-64407,   33- 55920, 33-50430,  33-42002, 33-36041 and  33-22849
 and Forms S-3 Nos. 33-60833 and 33-57360)  of our report dated February  28,
 2003,  with respect   to the   December 31,  2002 consolidated statement  of
 operations and the related  consolidated statements of shareholders'  equity
 and cash flows  for the year  then ended, and  the schedule  for the  period
 ended December 31,  2002 of Carrington  Laboratories, Inc. and  subsidiaries
 included in  their Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 Dallas, Texas
 March 3, 2005
#### In the Matter of Utica Mutual Insurance Co., Appellant, v Jose Colon, Respondent. American Independent Insurance Company, Proposed Additional Respondent, et al., Proposed Additional Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 634]

*618In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated July 30, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied the petition insofar as asserted against the proposed additional respondent American Independent Insurance Company.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition insofar as asserted against the proposed additional respondent American Independent Insurance Company is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

A party seeking a stay of arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim has the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue that would justify the stay *(see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Viera,*236 AD2d 612 [1997]). In this matter, by producing the police accident report containing the vehicle’s insurance code, the petitioner showed, prima facie, that the proposed additional respondent American Independent Insurance Company (hereinafter American Independent) insured the offending vehicle *(see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Rodriguez,*15 AD3d 399 [2005]; *Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v McDonald,*6 AD3d 614, 615 [2004]; *Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Beauvil,*297 AD2d 736 [2002]). The burden then shifted to American Independent, which denied that it insured the vehicle at the time of the accident, to establish a lack of coverage. American Independent failed to rebut the petitioner’s prima facie showing *(see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, supra).*Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the petition insofar as asserted against American Independent on the basis of lack of coverage.

During the framed issue hearing, American Independent also argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. It did not develop its argument on that point, since the Supreme Court indicated that it was unnecessary to rule on that argument, given its disposition of the coverage issue. In light of the fact that the court erred in determining the coverage issue, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination solely on the issue of whether the court has personal jurisdiction over American Independent *(see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman,*21 AD3d 489 [2005]; *Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v Johnson,*260 AD2d 638 [1999]).

*619The petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
230 La. 995

#### W. Sommer BENEDICT, Administrator, v. James L. STULB.

No. 42580.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1956.

Fred G. Veith, New Orleans, for administrator.

Robert J. Lacey, Jr., New Orleans, for intervenors.

John E. Parker, New Orleans, for appel-lee.

HAMITER, Justice.

On June 21, 1954, W. Sommer Benedict, the then Public Administrator for the Parish of Orleans who had been appointed and was acting pursuant to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 9:1581, instituted this action to annul a tax sale of a certain lot of ground in the City of New Orleans, it having occurred in 1931 for unpaid taxes *769due to such city for the year 1928. The tax debtor was William M. Donald, who died in 1932; and the purchaser was James L. Stulb, the defendant herein.

After the suit had been placed at issue by the defendant’s answer and partially tried Velma Donald Telefery and Irma Donald Nicholas filed therein a petition of intervention in which they alleged themselves to be the sole and only heirs of the tax debtor William M. Donald, deceased, and they prayed that the described tax sale be cancelled and annulled. Further trial was then had, following which the district court rendered and signed a judgment rejecting the demands of plaintiff and intervenors and quieting the tax title of the defendant.

From the judgment the persons thus ruled against appealed to this court. However, when the appeals came on for hearing, after proper assignment and due notice to all litigants, the appealing inter-venors failed to appear or file briefs. Furthermore, counsel for the appealing plaintiff (who was present in court) announced that his client was no longer Public Administrator for Orleans Parish and, therefore, had no further interest in the cause. Moreover, the successor of such plaintiff neither appeared nor filed briefs. Under these circumstances the presumption is that there has been an abandonment of the appeals. Accordingly, they will be dismissed. Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, Knights of Pythias v. Natchitoches Lodge No. 89, Knights of Pythias, 215 La. 300, 40 So.2d 472; Hayes v. Petry, 218 La. 730, 50 So.2d 821; Antoon v. Mayor and City Commissioners and Building Inspector of City of Natchitoches, 218 La. 732, 50 So.2d 822; Frey v. Ingram, 219 La. 159, 52 So.2d 531; White v. Sharp, 220 La. 928, 57 So.2d 898; Peace v. Love, 223 La. 772, 66 So.2d 803; Mendes v. Kostmayer, 226 La. 730, 77 So.2d 21; Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864.

Subsequent to the day on which the appeals were to be heard counsel for the original plaintiff sought permission to file a typewritten brief. The motion and the accompanying brief were not timely presented and, hence, cannot be considered. Hayes v. Petry, Antoon v. Mayor and City Commissioners and Building Inspector of City of Natchitoches, and White v. Sharp, all supra.

For the reasons assigned the appeals are dismissed.

VIOSCA, J. ad hoc, recused.
#### RASNAKE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02284-RPM

TAHYS ACEVEDO and

ELISIO GUZMAN,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JBS USA, LLC,

 

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on February 29, 2012, at 11:00 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 11/11). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on February 23, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: January 20th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02284-RPM Document 15 Filed 01/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of West Coast Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/ Robert D. Sznewajs                |  | /s/ Anders Giltvedt                                 
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|February 9, 2007                      |  | February 9, 2007                                    

84

---