alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 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-

1992...... 71.7 78.5 63.5 66.3 47.8 75.3 57.3 59.1 61.2 78.6 

1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 

1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 

1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 

1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 

1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 

1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 

1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 

2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 

2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 

2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 

2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 

2000: Q2... 68.3 51.0 57.8 69.7 57.6 78.4 53.0 54.7 61.8 78.0 

 Q3... 71.0 60.0 59.5 78.9 38.6 72.9 57.3 57.9 67.8 79.2 

 Q4... 66.5 66.8 56.2 62.8 51.0 81.6 51.6 53.2 65.7 73.1 

2001: Q1... 67.7 64.7 73.7 73.4 50.8 63.9 60.0 60.4 66.4 70.4 

 Q2... 76.1 77.5 56.8 73.8 79.0 85.1 57.3 57.4 69.0 86.2 

 Q3... 76.5 72.5 72.6 75.5 54.9 86.9 58.0 63.5 70.7 86.6 

 Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 

2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5 

 Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3 

 Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8 

 Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 

2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8 

 Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9 

 Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1 

 Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 

 Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual 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.
V

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1386

For the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir

Malofienko.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and

their son, Vladimir Malofienko.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR

4 ALEXANDRE MALOFIENKO, OLGA MATSKO,

5 AND THEIR SON, VLADIMIR MALOFIENKO.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

7 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

8 Act, Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son,

9 Vladimir Malofienko shall each be eligible for issuance of

10 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of
2

•HR 1386 IH

1 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon

2 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa

3 under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status

4 to lawful permanent resident.

5 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Alexandre

6 Malofienko, Olga Matsko, or their son, Vladimir

7 Malofienko enters the United States before the filing dead8 line specified in subsection (c), he or she shall be consid9 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if

10 otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status

11 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

12 as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

14 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap15 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica16 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

17 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

18 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

19 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res20 idence to Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their

21 son, Vladimir Malofienko, the Secretary of State shall in22 struct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the current

23 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi24 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun25 try of the aliens’ birth under section 203(a) of the Immi-
3

•HR 1386 IH

1 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total

2 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na3 tives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section

4 202(e) of such Act.

5 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

6 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural

7 parents, brothers, and sisters of Alexandre Malofienko,

8 Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko shall

9 not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right,

10 privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality

11 Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael C. Dillon

Jennifer Kresge

v. Civil No. 07-cv-70-SM

Select Portfolio 

Servicing, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant seeks to compel further document production and to

compel answers to interrogatories (Document no. 49).

Requests to Produce

Request Nos. 23, 26, 27, 28, 69, 70, 71 and 93

All responsive documents (except IRS returns which have been

ordered and X-rays which are being copied) have been produced. 

The motion as to these requests is denied.

Items “alluded to during the depositions”

These items for the most part are a rehash of the requests

above. The “Allstate claim” spreadsheet has been supplied. 

Medical bills have no relevance. The $15,000 parental loan has

not been memorialized. The legal bills, redacted, are being

produced. In short, defendants have the majority of the

documents and are about to receive additional less significant

documents. As to these items, the motion is denied.

Case 1:07-cv-00070-JL Document 60 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 2
1 The scheduling order provides that to be timely, discovery

must be served 30 days before October 31st. Doc no. 12.

2

Interrogatories

Defendants served ten sets of interrogatories on October 9,

2007 and two more sets on October 30, 2007. Plaintiffs also

served discovery on the last day.1 Defendants have refused to

respond to plaintiffs’ discovery as untimely while seeking to

compel their own untimely discovery. The court is not going to

play that unfair game and local counsel should have known enough

to tell that to out-of-state counsel. The motion is denied but

all parties are ordered to comply with all discovery requested on

or before November 15, 2007 by January 31, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 16, 2008

cc: All counsel of record

Case 1:07-cv-00070-JL Document 60 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2182 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2182

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the computation of 
 retirement annuities for part-time employment by persons employed by 
          the Department of Veterans Affairs under that title.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2001

  Mr. Doyle (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Baldacci, and Mr. 
    Coyne) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the computation of 
 retirement annuities for part-time employment by persons employed by 
          the Department of Veterans Affairs under that title.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Veterans Affairs 
Employee Retirement Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. RETIREMENT ANNUITIES FOR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT.

    (a) Title 38 Employees.--Section 7426 of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), 
        persons'' and inserting ``Persons''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (b).
    (b) Adjustment of Existing Annuities.--In the case of an individual 
who was employed by the Veterans Health Administration of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (or a predecessor entity) and who 
retired under chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, 
during the period beginning on September 20, 1986, and ending on the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the annuity of such individual shall 
be adjusted (effective as of the first day of the first month beginning 
after the date of the enactment of this Act) so as to be the amount 
that such annuity would have been if the provisions of section 4109(b) 
of title 38, United States Code, had not been revived by section 7003 
of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509; 100 Stat. 
1949) (and subsequently recodified as section 7426(b) of such title).
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-142-PB

Kyle Kimball

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 to complete discovery, engage in plea negotiations and 

prepare for trial. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 5, 2009 to July 7, 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-00142-PB Document 16 Filed 05/01/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on June 29,

2009 at 3:30 p.m.

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 1, 2009

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Kenneth Perkes, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00142-PB Document 16 Filed 05/01/09 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John J. Rafferty, Appellant, v Four Corners, LLC, et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 786]

Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 1, 2004, which, inter alia, ruled that apportionment applied to claimant’s workers’ compensation award.

Claimant suffered a work-related injury to his lower back in 1996 and was found to be permanently partially disabled. Claimant settled that workers’ compensation claim pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 and received Social Security disability benefits for approximately five years before he returned to work part time as a general helper in the employer’s custom *841wood shop. In February 2003, claimant sustained an injury to his back and neck as he and a coworker lifted a table off a conveyor belt. Claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits and, following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that claimant had a marked partial disability (attributable in large measure to the injuries sustained to claimant’s lower back), apportioned that disability equally between the 1996 and 2003 work-related accidents and awarded benefits accordingly.* A panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, prompting this appeal by claimant.

Apportionment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and is appropriate where the medical evidence establishes that the claimant’s current disability is at least partially attributable to a prior compensable injury *(see Matter of Moore v St. Peter's Hosp.,*18 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2005]). Despite claimant’s protestations to the contrary, the record before us contains ample proof that claimant indeed sustained a disabling condition prior to his 2003 compensable accident. While it is true that claimant had been employed part time for approximately 18 months prior to the 2003 accident, the record also reflects that he was unable to work for approximately five years following his 1996 accident. Additionally, both claimant’s treating physician and the employer’s medical consultant testified that they would attribute a portion of claimant’s present disability to his 1996 work-related accident—based in large measure upon the fact that claimant gave them a history of continuing back pain and radiating pain in his left leg following the 1996 incident *(see Matter of Cunningham v Wessanen USA, Inc., 20*AD3d 651 [2005]; *compare Matter of Johnson v Feinherg-Smith Assoc.,*305 AD2d 826 [2003]). In short, claimant’s statements to such physicians, coupled with his documented work history (or lack thereof), negate his present claim that he was under no continuing disability following the 1996 accident. As the Board’s decision regarding apportionment is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, it is affirmed.

Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

*

 The finding of apportionment did not apply to the medical treatment claimant received for his neck and upper right extremity.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.3


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Inland Resources Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc MacAluso,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:


         (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 result of operations of the
Company.







/s/ Marc MacAluso



Marc MacAluso,
Chief Executive Officer

February 3, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2175 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2175

                      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 protect infants who are born alive.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 
2002''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as 
            including born-alive infant

    ``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human 
being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of 
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    ``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect 
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion 
or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of 
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a 
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of 
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a 
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced 
abortion.
    ``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, 
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any 
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born 
alive' as defined in this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:
``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including 
          born-alive infant.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Case 1:08-mc-00047-T-DLM Document 1 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 1 of 3 Case 1:08-cv-00169-MML Document 12 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:08-mc-00047-T-DLM Document 1 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:08-cv-00169-MML Document 12 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:08-mc-00047-T-DLM Document 1 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 3 of 3 Case 1:08-cv-00169-MML Document 12 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of The Dress Barn, Inc. (“the Company”) on
      Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended July 26, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Armand Correia,
      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                and




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





The
      foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the
      provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
      to be used for any other purpose.














/s/
      Armand Correia


Armand
      Correia


Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


December
      4, 2008
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 3930

- 19

BRIAN BUTCH,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

RICK CUT T RELL, Custodian

of Records for the Township of Neptune

,

Defendant,

and

TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

__________________________

Submitted January 5, 2022

– Decided January 12

, 2022

Before Judges Gilson and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L

- 1109

- 18.

Marmero Law, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Michael
R. Burns, on the brief s ).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 3930

- 19 Law Office of Donald F. Burke, attorneys for respondent (Dona ld F. Burke and Donald F. Burke Jr.

, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

We have been advised that this matter has been amicably resolved and the

parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal

is dismissed with prejudice and witho ut costs.

Dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41339

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-64-2

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Alberto 

Hernandez-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Garcia has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41339 Document: 00514122598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-41339

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41339 Document: 00514122598 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

 *

v. * No. 09-CR-0030-GZS

*

EDWARD BROWN, Defendant *

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

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE (ASSENT) TO MOTION FOR INTERVIEW

The Defendant EDWARD BROWN, has advised undersigned counsel that he

does not object to the relief requested in the Motion to Intervene/for Interview by Kristen

Senz (Document No. 179).

Date: August 3, 2009 Respectfully submitted

EDWARD BROWN by his counsel,

Brennan Caron Lenehan & Iacopino

/s/Michael J. Iacopino

By: Michael J. Iacopino Esq. (NH 1233)

Brennan Caron Lenehan & Iacopino

85 Brook Street

Manchester N.H. 03104

(603) 668-8300

Miacopino@bclilaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 3, 2009, the above document was served

electronically via ECF on all counsel of record, including Assistant Federal Defender,

Bjorn Lange, Assistant United States Attorney, Arnold Huftalen, Assistant United States

Attorney, Terry Ollila and to Kristen Senz at P.O. Box 554, Newbury, N.H. 03255.

s/Michael J. Iacopino

By: Michael J. Iacopino Esq. (NH 1233)

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 184 Filed 08/03/09 Page 1 of 1