alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1


                                                    Contact:
                                                    Richard J. Moen
                                                    701/297-4288
                                                    invest@rdoequipment.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                 RDO EQUIPMENT TO EXPLORE STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES
                 FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUSINESS

Fargo, N.D. - (Business Wire) - August 4, 1999 - RDO Equipment Co. (NYSE: RDO)
today announced that it has engaged the investment banking firm of Deutsche Banc
Alex. Brown to explore strategic alternatives for its construction equipment
rental operations including a possible joint venture or sale of its 80%-owned
subsidiary RDO Rental Co.

"We believe that this is an opportune time to assess various alternatives in the
construction equipment rental industry," said Ronald D. Offutt, Chairman and CEO
of RDO Equipment. "The current business environment has produced opportunities
that could increase shareholder value."

"Any net proceeds would be used to strengthen the Company's liquidity position
by immediately reducing interest-bearing debt. We also believe opportunities
exist to acquire truck dealerships, as well as construction and agricultural
equipment dealerships, which would increase earnings per share and generate a
higher return on investment than our existing construction equipment rental
operations."

Offutt concluded by stating that no particular strategic alternative has been
embraced by the Company, and gave no assurance that any transaction would result
from this exploratory process which will take several months to complete.

Since its acquisition by RDO Equipment in February 1997, RDO Rental has grown
from five locations to 12 locations in Arizona, southern California and southern
Nevada. Its revenues for the fiscal year ended January 31, 1999 were
approximately $24 million compared to $578.6 million for RDO Equipment.
Additional information about RDO Rental is available at its website -
www.rdorental.com.

RDO Equipment Co. is one of the leading and fastest growing companies engaged in
the restructuring and consolidation of the equipment and truck retail industries
in the United States. It operates 65 retail stores with operations in 11 states,
specializing in the distribution, sale, service, rental and finance of equipment
and trucks to the agricultural, construction, manufacturing, transportation and
warehousing industries, as well as to public service entities, government
agencies and utilities. Information about the Company, including recent news and
product information, is available at its web site - www.rdoequipment.com.


                                      # # #
B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks

Loan volume Percent change from Percent change from

(billions of dollars) previous quarter previous year

Real Non-real- Real Non-real- Real Non-realTotal estate estate Total estate estate Total estate estate

Quarter loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans

1992: Q3... 56.2 19.9 36.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 4.2 8.6 1.9

 Q4... 54.5 19.9 34.7 -2.9 -.2 -4.4 2.9 7.8 .2

1993: Q1... 52.8 20.0 32.8 -3.2 .5 -5.3 1.7 5.6 -.5

 Q2... 56.0 20.6 35.4 6.0 3.1 7.8 1.6 5.4 -.6

 Q3... 58.0 20.8 37.1 3.5 1.2 4.9 3.2 4.7 2.4

 Q4... 57.7 20.9 36.8 -.5 .1 -.8 5.8 5.0 6.2

1994: Q1... 56.8 21.2 35.5 -1.5 1.8 -3.4 7.6 6.4 8.3

 Q2... 61.1 21.9 39.2 7.6 3.2 10.2 9.1 6.4 10.7

 Q3... 63.0 22.4 40.6 3.1 2.2 3.6 8.7 7.5 9.3

 Q4... 61.3 22.6 38.7 -2.7 .7 -4.6 6.2 8.2 5.2

1995: Q1... 59.9 22.9 36.9 -2.3 1.6 -4.6 5.4 8.0 3.9

 Q2... 63.5 23.6 40.0 6.1 2.7 8.2 4.0 7.5 2.0

 Q3... 65.3 23.8 41.5 2.9 1.1 3.9 3.7 6.3 2.3

 Q4... 63.7 23.9 39.8 -2.5 .4 -4.1 3.9 5.9 2.8

1996: Q1... 61.7 24.0 37.7 -3.1 .5 -5.3 3.1 4.8 2.0

 Q2... 65.7 24.7 41.0 6.5 2.7 8.9 3.4 4.7 2.7

 Q3... 66.6 24.9 41.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.9 4.7 .3

 Q4... 65.5 25.0 40.5 -1.6 .3 -2.8 2.8 4.6 1.8

1997: Q1... 63.8 25.4 38.4 -2.6 1.4 -5.1 3.4 5.5 2.0

 Q2... 69.0 26.2 42.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 5.1 6.2 4.4

 Q3... 71.1 27.0 44.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 6.8 8.1 6.0

 Q4... 71.3 27.1 44.2 .3 .7 .0 8.9 8.5 9.1

1998: Q1... 70.1 27.6 42.4 -1.7 1.8 -3.9 9.8 9.0 10.4

 Q2... 75.0 28.5 46.5 7.1 3.2 9.6 8.6 8.8 8.5

 Q3... 76.3 28.9 47.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 7.2 7.2 7.3

 Q4... 74.7 29.3 45.5 -2.0 1.3 -4.0 4.8 7.8 3.0

1999: Q1... 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5.6 3.7 7.6 1.1

 Q2... 75.8 30.8 45.1 4.4 3.5 5.0 1.1 8.0 -3.1

 Q3... 76.8 31.4 45.5 1.3 1.9 .9 .7 8.6 -4.1

 Q4... 76.0 31.8 44.2 -1.0 1.5 -2.8 1.7 8.8 -2.8

2000: Q1... 71.5 31.4 40.1 -5.9 -1.4 -9.2 -1.6 5.5 -6.5

 Q2... 79.7 33.7 45.9 11.4 7.5 14.4 5.0 9.6 1.9

 Q3... 80.1 33.9 46.2 .6 .5 .6 4.3 8.1 1.6

 Q4... 80.9 34.0 46.9 1.0 .3 1.5 6.4 6.8 6.1

2001: Q1... 79.4 34.3 45.1 -1.9 .8 -3.9 11.0 9.2 12.4

 Q2... 82.9 35.1 47.7 4.4 2.5 5.8 4.0 4.2 3.9

 Q3... 82.5 35.4 47.1 -.4 .8 -1.3 3.0 4.5 2.0

 Q4... 82.2 35.6 46.7 -.3 .4 -.9 1.6 4.6 -.5

2002: Q1... 80.1 36.0 44.1 -2.6 1.2 -5.5 .9 4.9 -2.2

 Q2... 83.7 37.0 46.7 4.4 2.7 5.9 1.0 5.1 -2.1

 Q3... 84.4 37.7 46.7 .9 2.1 -.1 2.3 6.5 -.9

 Q4... 83.9 38.0 45.9 -.6 .6 -1.6 2.0 6.8 -1.7

2003: Q1... 82.0 38.7 43.3 -2.3 1.9 -5.7 2.4 7.5 -1.9

 Q2... 84.5 39.6 44.9 3.1 2.5 3.7 1.1 7.3 -3.9

 Q3... 85.5 40.2 45.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 6.5 -2.8

 Q4... 86.1 40.6 45.5 .6 1.1 .2 2.7 7.0 -.9

2004: Q1... 84.3 41.4 42.9 -2.1 1.9 -5.7 2.8 7.0 -.9

 Q2... 88.9 42.9 46.0 5.4 3.6 7.2 5.2 8.3 2.4

 Q3... 91.5 43.9 47.6 2.9 2.3 3.5 6.9 9.2 4.9

 Q4... 92.3 44.5 47.7 .8 1.5 .2 7.1 9.6 4.9

 Note. Data are as of end of quarter.

21
#### Alyssa Wisoff et al., Appellants, v County of Westchester, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and Corali Edwards, Respondent. Board of Education of City of New Rochelle, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 60]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated January 3, 2001, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants County of Westchester and Corali Edwards which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against them based upon violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (20) and § 1174 (b), and granted that branch of the motion of the defendant third-party defendant, Board of Education of the City of New Rochelle, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The infant plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Nancy Ricevuto shortly after alighting from a bus operated by the defendant Coralie Edwards. The plaintiffs premise their theory of liability upon alleged violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, because the bus in which the infant plaintiff was transported was not equipped as a “school bus.”

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that Edwards and the County of Westchester are not subject to liability for failure to comply with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (20) and § 1174 (b). The bus from which the infant plaintiff alighted was not being used “exclusively” to transport pupils *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [20]). In addition, Edwards’ duty to the infant plaintiff as a passenger terminated when the infant plaintiff alighted safely onto the sidewalk *(see Sigmond v Liberty Lines Tr.,*261 AD2d 385; *Shahzaman v Green Bus Lines Co.,*214 AD2d 722; *Kramer v Lagnese,*144 AD2d 648).

The Supreme Court also correctly granted summary judgment to the Board of Education of the City of New Rochelle. Where a school district has engaged an independent contractor to provide bus transportation, the school district cannot be *403held liable based on physical custody once the children board the contractor’s bus (see *Sigmond v Liberty Lines Tr., supra*at 387; *see also Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*87 NY2d 370; *Womack v Duvernay,*229 AD2d 488). Smith, J.P., O’Brien, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tracy Adams, et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00425-JL

J. Myers Builders, Inc.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

November 21, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 9 Filed 11/14/08 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: November 14, 2008

cc: John P. Sherman, Esq.

William E. Gericke, Esq.

Andrew D. Dunn, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 9 Filed 11/14/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,016
<SECURITIES>                                     1,052
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,806
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,280
<PP&E>                                          33,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,251
<BONDS>                                         56,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,250
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,718)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,822
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,321
<CGS>                                           20,384
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,254
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,633
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,621
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
        

</TABLE>
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 July 27, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCOMMERCIAL BANK OF MOTT EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN                                                                   CICRetroactive notice by Charlotte Aldinger and Jeri Haberstroh, both of Mott, North Dakota, as trustees/administrators of the Commercial Bank of Mott Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Mott, North Dakota ("ESOP"), to retain control of ESOP and thereby indirectly retain control of Commercial Bank of Mott, Mott, North Dakota.Newspaper: 07/10/2013Federal Register: 07/08/2013DACOTAH BANKS, INC.                                                                                                     * 3A5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-123-01-SM

FNU LNU

a/k/a Carlos Maldonado-Fermaint

O R D E R

Defendant Maldonado-Fermaint’s motion to continue the final pretrial

conference and trial is granted (document 13). Trial has been rescheduled for

the September 2007 trial period. Defendant Maldonado-Fermaint has filed a

Waiver of Speedy Trial. 

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: August 20, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: September 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00123-SM Document 15 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

August 1, 2007

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00123-SM Document 15 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ralph Holder

v. Civil No. 08-cv-197-JL

Town of Newton, et al.

O R D E R

The plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case (document no. 72)

is DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), a

motion for relief from judgment on grounds of newly discovered

evidence must be filed "no more than a year after the entry of

the judgment." The court entered judgment in this case on

February 8, 2010, but plaintiff did not file his motion until

September 29, 2011--over a year and a half later. Plaintiff has

articulated no reason for his failure to move for relief from

judgment within the one-year deadline, although he apparently

obtained the evidence in question within a week after the entry

of judgment. The motion is therefore untimely.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: November 15, 2011

cc: Ralph Holder, pro se

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00197-JL Document 77 Filed 11/15/11 Page 1 of 1
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
__________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2          Q3           Q4           Total
__________________________________________________________________________________

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              0
2007......    |             0           0           0             0              0
2008......    |             1           0           0          n.a.           n.a.
__________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
#### In the Matter of the Claim of De Marcus Kemp, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 484]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 20, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant lost his job as a direct care counselor due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that while on a 10-day suspension for letting an unauthorized driver operate the company vehicle, claimant called his supervisor to discuss a temporary change in his schedule. According to claimant’s supervisor, claimant began using profanities and wanted to “meet after work.” After this incident, claimant was fired from his employment. Inasmuch as the use of profanities and disrespectful or insubordinate behavior has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Pagan [Haig Press—Commissioner of Labor],*305 AD2d 845 [2003]; *Matter of Walli [Commissioner of Labor],*275 AD2d 845, 846 [2000]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision. To the extent that claimant presented differing testimony regarding the nature of the telephone conversation with his supervisor, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Walli [Commissioner of Labor], supra*at 846).

*1055Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
*

 The Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, United States District Judge for the District of

New Jersey, sitting by designation.

1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0352n.06

Filed: May 4, 2005

No. 04-5597

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

__________________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE

) UNITED STATES DISTRICT

–vs.– ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN

) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

SAMMIE L. ALLEN, )

) O P I N I O N

Defendant-Appellant. )

__________________________________________)

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; and ACKERMAN, District

Judge.*

HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge. On December 18, 2003, Defendant

Sammie L. Allen entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of willfully failing to file a

federal income tax return for the year 2000, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. The plea was

conditioned upon this Court affirming the District Court’s adjudication of five pre-plea motions. 

These motions are as follows: (1) Pre-Plea Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Abuse of the Grand

Jury and Prosecutorial Misconduct; (2) Motion to Dismiss and Notice of Misprision of Felony by

Sammie Allen; (3) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdictional Statement and Challenges [sic]
2

Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Sammie Allen; (4) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

over the Alleged Accused; and (5) Motion to Quash Indictment and Motion to Dismiss for Want

of Personal Jurisdiction.

After carefully considering the record on appeal, we find no merit in the Defendant’s

legal arguments. Indeed, the frivolous nature of the Defendant’s motions, we think, betrays the

conduct to which he ultimately pled guilty. The legality of the federal income tax is beyond all

doubt, a proposition that can be made no plainer by repetitions or explanations. See Brushaber

v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Accordingly, the District Court’s adjudication of

each of the Defendant’s motions is hereby AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-128-PB

Talbot Curtin

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

February 5, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to negotiate a plea agreement. 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 February 5, 2007 to May 6, 2008. 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

The January 28, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 28, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00128-PB Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 28, 2008

cc: Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00128-PB Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2
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: 2Federal Reserve Bank of: New YorkFilings received during the week ending January 5, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFNBNY BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                     * 3A3FNBNY Bancorp, Inc. and Modern Capital Holdings LLC, both of New York, New York, to acquire up to 24.89 percent of the total equity of The Upstate National Bank, Rochester, New York, under Section 3(a)(3)of the Bank Holding Company Act and Section 225.15 of Regulation Y.Newspaper: 01/27/2013Federal Register: 01/26/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02188-RPM

MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SURE SHOT DRILLING, INC., 

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER VACATING STAY AND TO RESET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to the notices of authority filed by the plaintiff on May 7, 2013, and defendant on

May 8, 2013, it is now

ORDERED that the stay order entered on March 28, 2012, is vacated and this civil action

will be set for a scheduling conference at a time to be determined.

Dated: May 9, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02188-RPM Document 16 Filed 05/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1