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

1995...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 2.1 .9 1.1 .3 .9

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

1999: Q1... 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .4 3.7 2.1 1.5 .5 1.0

 Q2... 1.3 .5 .7 .2 .5 2.8 1.2 1.6 .5 1.1

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .5 2.2 .8 1.4 .4 1.0

 Q4... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

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

 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
08- c',vt- 004 .2-,.#I. Ckc

, cu ' i e],C 5, ~ I ; C M29,12008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randolph L . Chambers

V .

NH State Prison, Warden et al

Civil No . 08-cv-442-JL

O R D E R

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows : the sum of $13 .00 is due no later than

November 28, 2008 . In addition, 20% of each preceding month's

income credited to plaintiff's account is to be remitted by the

New Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10 .00 until the sum of $350 .00 has been paid . Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice . In all other respects plaintiff's request for in

forma pauperis has been granted .

SO ORDERED .

Date : October 29, 200 8

cc : Randolph L . Chamber s

Bonnie S . Reed, Financial Administrator

New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:09-cv-00092-PB Document 4 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   600
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,985,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,295,200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               245,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             255,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (501,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (501,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (501,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .008
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .008
        



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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
1ST QUARTER ENDED APRIL 30, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                              59
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                       641
<INVENTORY>                                    247,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               296,259
<PP&E>                                          49,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          229,614
<BONDS>                                         23,515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,612
<SALES>                                        125,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,794
<CGS>                                          102,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,097
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,456
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Palermo

v . Civil No. 08-cv-109-JL

Robe Soucy

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated December 2, 2008, no objection having been filed .

SO ORDERED.

December 23, 2008 /s/Joseph N. Laplante

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Christopher Palermo, pro se

Jonathan Lax, Esq .

Case 1:08-cv-00109-JL Document 42 Filed 12/23/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-235-01-SM

Kelly Vietze

O R D E R

Defendant Vietze’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 28). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2008

trial period. Defendant Vietze shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than April 4, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, her 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: May 20, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: June 3, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00235-SM Document 29 Filed 03/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 21, 2008

cc: James W. Dennehy, Esq.

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00235-SM Document 29 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lawrence Learner

Marilyn Learner

v. Civil No. 08-cv-177-JL

Marvin Lumber & Cedar Company

A.W. Hastings & Co., LLC

O R D E R

Having reviewed the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, the

defendants’ objection, and the plaintiffs’ reply, the court is

unlikely to remand the case on the grounds asserted by the

plaintiff. The defendants have not asserted that the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over the case in general. Rather,

they argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars (and thus, that

this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over) the

plaintiffs’ due process claim. 

Still, “where federal jurisdiction is lacking, a federal

court may remand a matter on its own motion.” Miara v. First

Allmerica Financial Life Ins. Co., 379 F. Supp. 2nd 20, 26

(citing Wisconsin Dept. of Corr. v. Schacht, 544 U.S. 381, 392

Case 1:08-cv-00177-JL Document 16 Filed 07/02/08 Page 1 of 3
2

(1998)). “Conscious that the issue of subject matter

jurisdiction may not be waived or forfeited by the parties and

that a federal court has a duty to inquire, sua sponte,into its

jurisdiction, In re: Sheridan, 362 F.3rd 96, 100 (1st Cir.

2004),” this court requests briefing on the issue of the

jurisdictional minimum under 28 U.S.C. §1332. The court’s view

is that without the statutory treble-damages claim, the case

would not likely involve the jurisdictional minimum, and may not

involve the jurisdictional minimum even if treble damages are

awarded. 

Within ten days from the date of this order, the defendants

shall file a memorandum, no longer than five pages in length in

satisfaction of its burden to establish that “the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Within five days of

the filing of the defendants’ memorandum, the plaintiffs shall

file a responsive memorandum with the same page limitation. 

Attached exhibits shall not count against the page limitation.

Should the parties wish to stipulate either that (a) the

matter in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, or (b)

the matter in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional 

Case 1:08-cv-00177-JL Document 16 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 3
3

minimum, the court will accept such a stipulation in lieu of the

memoranda requested by this order. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Joseph N. Laplante

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Date: July 2, 2008

cc: John R. Harrington, Esq.

 Beth G. Catenza, Esq.

 Donald J. Brown, Esq.

 Emily G. Rice, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00177-JL Document 16 Filed 07/02/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tony L. Ellison

v. Case No. 07-cv-131-SM

N.H. Department of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 9, 2007, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

set forth therein. The complaint shall proceed on endangerment and failure to

protect claims against defendants Biledeau, McGrath, Marquis, Whittan,

Cunningham, Cattell, Crompton and Wrenn. All other claims and defendants are

hereby dismissed from this action. 

SO ORDERED.

January 2, 2008 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Tony L. Ellison, pro se.

Danielle Pacik, Esq. 

Case 1:07-cv-00131-JL Document 35 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-144-01-SM

Richard Ellison

O R D E R

Defendant Ellison’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2008 

trial period. Defendant Ellison shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than November 9, 2007. 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: December 17, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00144-SM Document 18 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 29, 2007

cc: Michael R. Smith, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00144-SM Document 18 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 2
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2007...... 64.8 5.6 5.6 32.5 5.5 15.6 2.7 5.7 14.8 41.6 2005: Q1... 55.2 5.3 5.3 34.4 2.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 13.7 34.8  Q2... 76.6 7.7 3.7 29.9 11.0 24.3 3.8 5.9 12.7 54.1  Q3... 59.1 3.4 6.1 24.4 10.1 15.2 3.2 4.7 12.6 38.7  Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Q3... 53.6 3.3 4.9 23.9 7.5 14.1 2.6 5.4 13.1 32.4  Q4... 74.4 9.3 8.3 31.2 5.5 20.1 2.7 5.7 16.3 49.7 2008: Q1... 83.7 6.6 5.9 47.7 3.2 20.3 2.3 5.6 14.0 61.9  Q2... 76.7 4.5 6.3 39.4 5.8 20.7 2.9 5.6 16.5 51.6  Q3... 69.1 3.3 7.6 35.3 3.9 19.0 2.4 5.3 12.8 48.5  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual 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.
No. 72-5973.

#### Halverson *v.*Cady, Warden.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



 


 

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,040
<PP&E>                                         491,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                 464,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          371,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,327,359
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,464
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,710
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,291,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             139,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,276,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,276,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)
        

</TABLE>
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 327,516 32,194 86,118 130,201 11,223 1,730 10,100 Number of loans 16,722 2,064 5,116 4,186 625 133 841 Weighted average maturity (months)1 21.64 15.23 22.59 20.02 36.73 8.03 15.74 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 11.09 9.40 13.77 11.17 2.36 1.79 15.12 

Weighted average risk rating3 2.48 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate4 6.51 6.61 6.74 6.11 6.46 7.30 7.15 

 Standard error5 .17 .24 .19 .36 .34 .10 .32  Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.38 7.20 7.79 7.02 6.90 9.19 8.06  25th percentile 5.90 6.18 6.00 5.38 5.90 5.56 6.34  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.34 6.61 5.82 5.86 6.59 n.a. 6.02  Other livestock 6.99 6.25 n.a. 6.23 6.23 n.a. 7.90  Other current operating expenses7 6.71 6.88 6.82 6.41 6.36 7.30 6.76 

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.70 5.44 6.59 6.96 7.16 n.a. 7.91  Farm real estate 5.24 6.00 5.43 4.78 7.02 n.a. n.a Other8 5.28 n.a. 4.33 4.92 n.a. n.a. 8.25 

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 42.45 36.53 56.92 37.15 82.07 72.71 1.28  Under commitment 55.49 40.79 44.96 70.40 61.81 66.45 3.40  Callable 21.26 10.98 10.43 26.05 38.76 n.a. 3.89  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 3.26 .41 2.44 2.99 4.53 n.a. 4.51  Other livestock 14.35 2.80 15.09 15.90 8.27 n.a. 9.01  Other current operating expenses7 53.59 77.11 61.42 43.51 72.81 100.00 60.30 

 Farm machinery and equipment 13.36 13.44 3.71 15.53 6.78 n.a. 21.44  Farm real estate 10.16 6.23 16.83 11.68 7.61 n.a. n.a Other8 5.29 n.a. .50 10.40 n.a. n.a. 4.75 

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 17.05 4.33 25.59 16.53 48.98 5.16 8.84  Other 77.28 95.14 72.71 73.70 50.79 94.84 83.87  Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Consent of Commerce & Finance Law Office.



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 [Letterhead of Commerce & Finance Law Offices] 
  
 April 29, 2004 
  
 Ctrip.com International, Ltd. 
 3F, Building 63-64 
 No. 421 Hong Cao Road 
 Shanghai 200233, People’s Republic of China

  
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
  
 We consent to the reference to our firm under the headings “Chinese
Government Regulations,” “Arrangements with Affiliated Chinese Entities” and “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities” in the annual report of Ctrip.com International, Ltd. on Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof. 
  
 Very truly yours, 
  
 /s/    Commerce & Finance Law
Offices
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Sergio NAVARRO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50213.

D.C. No. CR-01-03335-JTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided March 12, 2003.

Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Navarro appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, for importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.

Navarro’s contention that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is facially unconstitutional following *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that *United States v. Harris,*536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overrules *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002), and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. ---, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed.2d 459 (2002), is foreclosed by *United States v. Hernandez,*322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003). Navarro’s conviction is

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Veronica Wilding-White and

Blye Farm Condominium

v. Case No. 08-cv-141-SM

Stanley Convergent Security

Solutions, Inc.

O R D E R

I hereby recuse myself from this case as a person on my

recusal list resides at Blye Farm Condominiums, and his spouse is

a member of the Blye Farm Condominium Association's board of

directors. 

SO ORDERED.

June 5, 2008 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

cc: Gary M. Burt, Esq.

Gerard A. Butler, Jr., Esq. 

Christopher A. Duggan, Esq. 

Arpiar G. Saunders, Jr., Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00141-JL Document 11 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 1