alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1998: Q2... 100 * .01 3.00 14.00 31.00 30.00 14.00 7.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1999: Q2... 100 .01 4.00 4.00 12.00 37.00 30.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 * * 2000: Q2... 100 .01 .01 .01 4.00 19.00 36.00 27.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * * 2002: Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2003: Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * * 2004: Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * * 2005: Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * * 2006: Q2... 100 * 1.04 14.21 34.09 30.67 15.91 3.24 .56 * * * * * * 2007: Q2... 100 * 1.43 5.99 17.56 39.08 27.15 7.64 1.10 * * * * * * 2008: Q2... 100 25.50 26.97 29.46 12.17 4.47 .87 .56 * * * * * * * 2009: Q2... 100 47.26 23.81 20.08 5.22 2.50 .67 * * * * * * * * 2006: Q4... 100 * 3.32 10.48 17.65 39.46 21.03 7.27 .65 * * * * * * 2007: Q1... 100 * * 7.64 19.40 38.92 28.70 3.97 1.02 * * * * * *  Q2... 100 * 1.43 5.99 17.56 39.08 27.15 7.64 1.10 * * * * * *  Q3... 100 * .71 5.44 30.65 35.13 19.80 6.25 1.48 * * * * * *  Q4... 100 * 7.53 22.95 27.42 25.90 14.22 1.65 * * * * * * * 2008: Q1... 100 9.82 19.42 36.70 20.50 9.19 4.03 * * * * * * * *  Q2... 100 25.50 26.97 29.46 12.17 4.47 .87 .56 * * * * * * *  Q3... 100 42.96 22.94 21.11 8.58 2.62 1.52 * * * * * * * *  Q4... 100 52.53 18.20 16.11 8.68 3.71 .65 * * * * * * * * 2009: Q1... 100 39.51 21.84 28.68 5.44 3.88 * * * * * * * * *  Q2... 100 47.26 23.81 20.08 5.22 2.50 .67 * * * * * * * *  Q3... 100 47.01 22.06 20.03 8.04 1.70 .56 .58 * * * * * * *  Q4... 100 52.92 18.49 20.52 6.08 1.47 * * * * * * * * * 2010: Q1... 100 37.01 30.51 19.83 9.88 2.15 * * * * * * * * *  Q2... 100 37.08 20.21 29.21 11.28 1.58 * * * * * * * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-96-PB

Anthony Sawyer

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for May 5, 2009, citing the need for additional

time so that defendant may undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior

to trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 5, 2009 to August 18, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 27 Filed 04/22/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 21, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued to

July 27, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 21, 2009

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 27 Filed 04/22/09 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2048 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2048

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require a report on the operations of the State Justice Institute.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2048

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 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''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 5, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1393

To amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974

to provide financial assistance for the prevention of juvenile crime.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Act of 1974 to provide financial assistance for the prevention of juvenile crime.

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 ‘‘Juvenile Crime Preven5 tion Assistance Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. GRANTS TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES.

7 Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre8 vention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is

9 amended—
2

•HR 1393 IH

1 (1) by redesignating the second part designated

2 as part I as part K; and

3 (2) by inserting after the first part designated

4 as part I the following:

5 ‘‘PART J—AFTER SCHOOL CRIME PREVENTION

6 ‘‘SEC. 292. GRANTS TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES

7 FOR EFFECTIVE AFTER SCHOOL CRIME PRE8 VENTION PROGRAMS.

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of ap10 propriations, the Administrator shall make grants in ac11 cordance with this section to public and private agencies

12 to fund effective after school juvenile crime prevention

13 programs.

14 ‘‘(b) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—The Administrator

15 may not make a grant to a public or private agency under

16 this section unless that agency agrees that, with respect

17 to the costs to be incurred by the agency in carrying out

18 the program for which the grant is to be awarded, the

19 agency will make available non-Federal contributions in

20 an amount that is not less than a specific percentage of

21 Federal funds provided under the grant, as determined by

22 the Administrator.

23 ‘‘(c) PRIORITY.—In making grants under this sec24 tion, the Administrator shall give priority to funding pro25 grams that—
3

•HR 1393 IH

1 ‘‘(1) are targeted to high crime neighborhoods

2 or at-risk juveniles;

3 ‘‘(2) operate during the period immediately fol4 lowing normal school hours;

5 ‘‘(3) provide educational or recreational activi6 ties designed to encourage law-abiding conduct, re7 duce the incidence of criminal activity, and teach ju8 veniles alternatives to crime; and

9 ‘‘(4) coordinate with State or local juvenile

10 crime control and juvenile offender accountability

11 programs.

12 ‘‘(d) FUNDING.—There are authorized to be appro13 priated for grants under this section $250,000,000 for

14 each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Steven Kern, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Meditech
     Pharmaceuticals, Inc;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;


3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

     a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants' disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c.   Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants' internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants'
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants' internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrants' other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

     b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrants' internal
          control over financial reporting.


By:  /s/  Steven Kern
  --------------------------------
          Steven Kern
          Director


August 27, 2004
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2003: Q2... 18 65 18 17 78 6 19 75 6 23 71 5 9 63 

 Q3... 17 61 22 22 65 13 17 78 5 21 71 8 11 60  Q4... 15 58 27 31 59 10 13 80 7 17 76 8 11 54 2004: Q1... 13 56 31 20 71 10 15 73 12 11 71 18 16 50  Q2... 17 60 22 26 64 10 18 73 9 12 74 14 15 63  Q3... 13 60 27 27 64 9 15 79 6 12 66 22 11 58  Q4... 9 58 33 14 75 10 12 81 7 10 77 13 10 50 2005: Q1... 9 61 30 16 72 12 11 80 9 12 78 9 9 52  Q2... 14 62 24 21 70 9 12 82 7 18 68 15 9 58 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2003: Q2... 16 66 18 17 70 13 16 79 6 19 75 6 15 69 

 Q3... 17 72 12 16 65 19 14 81 6 12 85 3 11 76  Q4... 18 68 13 22 62 16 17 80 3 14 84 2 10 76 2004: Q1... 11 70 19 13 75 12 11 83 6 11 86 3 11 72  Q2... 16 68 16 27 60 13 15 81 4 11 85 4 15 70  Q3... 16 61 23 23 61 16 11 84 4 7 83 10 9 64  Q4... 12 71 17 13 72 15 11 89 0 9 84 7 7 74 2005: Q1... 12 69 19 19 66 15 16 80 4 11 84 5 11 68  Q2... 15 69 15 15 74 12 13 80 2 8 82 5 10 72 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2003: Q2... 25 60 15 24 71 6 31 63 6 6 78 17 19 71 

 Q3... 14 71 14 7 80 13 33 60 7 11 74 16 10 81  Q4... 21 74 5 12 82 6 17 78 6 15 75 10 14 82 2004: Q1... 10 81 10 17 61 22 24 71 6 23 68 9 12 76  Q2... 4 92 4 0 89 11 0 94 6 9 86 5 8 84  Q3... 30 61 9 22 67 11 32 63 5 39 57 4 23 69  Q4... 22 65 13 18 71 12 17 72 11 13 78 9 20 60 2005: Q1... 18 73 9 19 71 10 14 81 5 4 96 0 16 68  Q2... 11 67 22 7 87 7 27 73 0 19 81 0 11 67  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
GK INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary F. Kimmons, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.ss. 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.



Dated: May 5, 2003                      /S/ Gary F. Kimmons
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        By: Gary F. Kimmons
                                        Its: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Chief Financial Officer
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending April 22, 2006FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### In the Matter of Derek G., Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 721]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated January 18, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 15, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which constituted the crime of unlawful possession of weapons by persons under sixteen (two counts) and an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation under the supervision of the Probation Department of the County of Kings for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 15, 2004, and the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the appellant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the suppression hearing, Police Officer Darryl Fisher testified that, upon receiving information from a fellow officer that a *554“two shot” pistol had been recovered from a bookbag which had been lying at the appellant’s feet in a classroom, he decided to arrest the appellant, who was being detained in the office of the school’s principal. The officer testified that he conducted a search of the appellant’s person and discovered two live rounds of ammunition in the appellant’s right-hand pants pocket. The appellant never challenged the recovery of the pistol, but sought only to suppress the introduction of the ammunition.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s suppression motion. Although hearsay, Officer Fisher’s unchallenged account of the discovery of the pistol, derived from presumptively reliable information provided by fellow officers, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the appellant’s arrest *(see e.g., People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416 [1999]; *compare People v Gonzalez,*80 NY2d 883 [1992] [hearsay information insufficient when disputed by the defendant and obtained fortuitously by the testifying officer who never relied on it in taking police action]). The Family Court therefore properly declined to suppress the ammunition found on the appellant’s person pursuant to a search incidental to his arrest *(see e.g., People v Tratch,*104 AD2d 503, 504 [1984]). Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### Succession of FORESTIER.

No. 17867.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 1, 1943.

*617For former opinion, see 11 So.2d 253.

J. S. Derbes, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Gauche, Zengel & Wegener, of New Orleans, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

On application for rehearing council makes the following statement:

> “The Court erred in overlooking in its opinion the • answer filed by petitioners Misses Emilie and Marie Hoa LeBlanc, to plaintiffs’ original petition attacking the judgment of possession rendered by the lower court; that said answer reads as follows-:

> “ ‘Defendants, Emilie Hoa LeBlanc and Marie Hoa LeBlanc, admit the recitals in the petition of Mrs. Delphine LeBlanc, wife of William Tobin, Marion LeBlanc, Peter LeBlanc, Edward LeBlanc and Miss Fabiola LeBlanc, filed on January-, 1940, and agree that judgment be rendered in accordance with the prayer of their petition.

> “ ‘In the alternative, -and in the event only that such relief is denied by the Court, defendants, Emilie Hoa LeBlanc and Marie Hoa LeBlanc, pray that they, as universal legatees, be recognized as entitled to the sum of $656.94 claimed by petitioners.’ ”

This point is made now for the first time in this court on application for rehearing and is inconsistent with the following statement in the original brief of counsel: “The Misses LeBlanc were made defendants in plaintiffs’ petition attacking the judgment, and have filed a pleading herein admitting the recitals of the petition and agreeing that judgment should be rendered in accordance with the prayer thereof. Consequently they as the other conjoint legatees have been removed from the present picture, and only the rights of the testatrix’s collateral heirs as contrasted with those of Dr. LeBlanc’s children are now before this honorable Court.”

However, the heirs of Dr. Pierre Hoa LeBlanc are without interest in the matter for if the LeBlanc legacy is conjoint the accretion resulting from its failure would inure to the' other residuary legatees, Emilie and Marie Hoa LeBlanc, and not to the heirs of Dr. LeBlanc. The Misses LeBlanc have not attacked the judgment placing the legal heirs in possession and are not before this court. They appear in this record merely as parties defendant in the proceeding in which the heirs of Dr. LeBlanc attacked the judgment placing the legal heirs of decedent in possession.

Rehearing refused.
#### Lonnie COBBS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William DUNCAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-16338.

D.C. No. CV-01-20251-JF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 13, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lonnie Cobbs, Jr. appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus as second or successive. Cobbs seeks to challenge his 1998 California sentence and conviction for robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the district court’s ruling de novo, *see Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The district court found that the instant petition challenged the same conviction and sentence as his previous § 2254 petition. The record supports this conclusion. Because the instant petition “raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in [the first] petition,” the district court properly dismissed the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). *See Cooper v. Calderon,*274 F.3d 1270, 1272-73 (9th Cir.2001).

To the extent that Cobbs seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U. S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court, that request is denied. Cobbs has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). No petition for rehearing of this denial of authorization to file a second or successive petition shall be filed or entertained. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

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.