alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Release Date: June 30, 2009*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 8.9     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.8     | 8.7                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.7     | 8.6                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.2     | 8.1                    | 7.6                                |
| 6.9     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
| 6.6     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.7     | 6.8                    | 6.5                                |
| 6.2     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.0     | 6.1                    | 5.9                                |
||
| 9.1     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 9.0     | 8.7                    | 8.1                                |
| 8.5     | 8.2                    | 7.7                                |
| 7.4     | 7.2                    | 6.7                                |
| 7.1     | 6.9                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.0     | 6.9                    | 6.5                                |
| 6.7     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.5     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
||
| 9.2     | 9.3                    | 8.6                                |
| 9.4     | 9.5                    | 9.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.9                    | 8.8                                |
| 8.3     | 8.4                    | 8.4                                |
| 7.5     | 7.6                    | 7.7                                |
| 6.6     | 6.8                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.8     | 7.3                    | 7.1                                |
| 5.5     | 5.9                    | 5.8                                |
| 5.7     | 6.1                    | 6.0                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
H. R. 182

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

An Act

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Eightmile

River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Eightmile River Wild and Scenic

River Study Act of 2001’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that—

(1) the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut possesses important resource values, including wildlife, ecological,

and scenic values, and historic sites and a cultural past important to America’s heritage;

(2) there is strong support among State and local officials,

area residents, and river users for a cooperative wild and

scenic river study of the area; and

(3) there is a longstanding interest among State and local

officials, area residents, and river users in undertaking a concerted cooperative effort to manage the river in a productive

and meaningful way.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.

1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(138) EIGHTMILE RIVER, CONNECTICUT.—The segment from its

headwaters downstream to its confluence with the Connecticut

River.’’.

SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT.

Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.

1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(18) The study of the Eightmile River, Connecticut, named

in paragraph (138) of subsection (a) shall be completed by the

Secretary of the Interior and the report thereon submitted to Congress not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of

this paragraph.’’.
H. R. 182—2

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may

be necessary to carry out this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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 1993: Q3... 100 * 12.00 29.00 14.00 19.00 22.00 4.00 1.00 * * * * * * 1994: Q3... 100 4.00 4.00 20.00 21.00 23.00 24.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 .01 .01 * * * 1995: Q3... 100 * * 5.00 15.00 8.00 30.00 30.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 * * .01 * 1996: Q3... 100 * .01 15.00 18.00 25.00 22.00 15.00 4.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 * 1997: Q3... 100 * .01 5.00 3.00 33.00 33.00 17.00 8.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1998: Q3... 100 * .01 8.00 10.00 30.00 29.00 16.00 6.00 .01 .01 * * .01 * 1999: Q3... 100 * 2.00 4.00 10.00 35.00 32.00 12.00 4.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2000: Q3... 100 .01 .01 1.00 1.00 16.00 30.00 28.00 19.00 5.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 2001: Q3... 100 1.10 9.00 23.00 25.00 25.00 12.00 3.00 1.00 .26 .01 * * * * 2002: Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * * 2003: Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * * 2004: Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * * 2001: Q1... 100 .01 * 8.00 7.00 28.00 33.00 17.00 5.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 .01  Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * *  Q3... 100 1.10 9.00 23.00 25.00 25.00 12.00 3.00 1.00 .26 .01 * * * *  Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q1... 100 23.76 17.31 19.76 23.14 10.76 4.30 .80 .00 .00 * .00 .00 * .00  Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * *  Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q1... 100 37.28 22.16 18.64 14.73 4.88 1.72 .47 .02 .02 * * * * *  Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * *  Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * *  Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q1... 100 43.84 22.35 17.33 11.30 3.56 1.16 .27 .05 .05 * .07 .02 * *  Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * *  Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * *  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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                           48,900
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                   249,000
<ALLOWANCES>                     12,100
<INVENTORY>                     401,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                730,500
<PP&E>                          605,200
<DEPRECIATION>                  254,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,557,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           550,900
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                        379,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                       6,000
<OTHER-SE>                       91,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,557,100
<SALES>                       1,514,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,514,700
<CGS>                         1,092,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,092,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                288,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               30,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 103,500
<INCOME-TAX>                     28,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              75,400
<DISCONTINUED>                   33,900
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     41,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.05
        





</TABLE>
#### The State, ex rel. Cockrell, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio.

(No. 24743

— Decided May 2, 1934.)

*Mr. Wade J. Beyerly*and *Mr. Kenneth T. Stevens,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Bricher,*attorney general, and *Mr. B. B. Zurmehly,*for respondent.

It appearing to the court that the respondent herein has filed a return disclosing that said respondent has vacated its order of March 5, 1934, dismissing the application for rehearing and has ordered that the claim of relator be set down for the taking of testimony on *469rehearing as provided in Section 1465-90, General Code, as prayed for in the petition herein; it is now ordered and adjudged by this court that this cause be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

*Cause dismissed.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lil’ Man Snowmobile/Jet

Ski Rentals, Inc.

Edward C. Furlong, III

v. Civil No. 08-cv-511-PB

Bartlett Water Precinct

Town of Bartlett

United States of America

O R D E R

Plaintiff is ordered to submit a memorandum in support of

its claim for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346. 

Plaintiff is ordered to serve a copy of this order and the

memorandum on defendants, to allow them the opportunity to

respond.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 7, 2009

cc: Christopher T. Meier, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00511-PB Document 15 Filed 01/07/09 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2109 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2109

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
resource study of Virginia Key Beach Park in Biscayne Bay, Florida, for 
            possible inclusion in the National Park System.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2109

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
resource study of Virginia Key Beach Park in Biscayne Bay, Florida, for 
            possible inclusion in the National Park System.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY AND CRITERIA.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred to 
as ``the Secretary'') shall conduct a study of Virginia Key Beach Park 
in Biscayne Bay, Florida, which was used for recreation by African 
Americans at a time when public beaches were racially segregated by 
law. The study shall evaluate the national significance of the site and 
the suitability and feasibility of establishing the site as a unit of 
the National Park System.
    (b) Criteria.--In conducting the study required by subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall use the criteria for the study of areas for 
potential inclusion in the National Park System contained in section 8 
of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5; popularly known as the National 
Park System General Authorities Act).

SEC. 2. REPORT.

    Upon completion of the study, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
Congress a report on the findings of the study and the conclusions and 
recommendations of the Secretary.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Long-Term Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.23 
  
 BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC. 
  
 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 (as amended
and restated effective February 24, 2004) 
  
 This Long-Term Incentive Plan
(“Plan”) of Baxter International Inc. (“Baxter”) and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”), as amended and restated effective February 24, 2004, is adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of Baxter (the “Committee”). The Plan is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 162(m)(4)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the related regulations promulgated thereunder. 
  
 1.0 Participants 
  
 Participants in the Plan (“Participants”) shall consist of those valued employees
of the Company who shall be selected by the Committee, and to whom the Committee makes awards (each, an “Award”) hereunder. Each Award shall be granted pursuant to and for the purposes stated in the Baxter International Inc. 1998 Incentive
Compensation Program, 2000 Incentive Compensation Program, 2001 Incentive Compensation Program or 2003 Incentive Compensation Program, as specified by the Committee (the “Program”). Awards may include Stock Options (as defined in the
applicable Program), Restricted Stock (as defined in the applicable Program) and/or other types of incentives permitted under the applicable Program and shall be subject to the terms and conditions contained in the applicable Program and the Plan.

  
 2.0 Incentives 
  
 2.1 Each Participant shall be assigned an annual target for any Stock
Option, Restricted Stock or other Award under the Plan. Each of these targets may be increased up to a maximum of 150% or decreased to a minimum of 75% of the target. The Stock Performance Multiplier shall be based on the Company’s total
shareholder return compared to the total shareholder return for the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Health Care Index for the 12-month period ending on the most recent December 31 prior to the date of an Award. 
  
 The number of shares of Baxter common stock subject to an Award will be based on the
Participant’s target, the Stock Performance Multiplier, and the Participant’s individual performance. 
  
 2.2 Subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable Program, the Committee shall determine the number, type, and terms of the Stock Options,
Restricted Stock and/or any other types of incentives to be awarded under the Plan. 







 3.0 General Provisions 
  
 3.1 Subject to the restrictions contained in the applicable Program, the Company may, at any time, amend, suspend or
terminate the Plan. 
  
 3.2 The Plan does not constitute a
contract of employment or continued service. Participation in this Plan does not give any Participant the right to be retained as an employee of the Company or any right or claim to any benefit under the Plan unless such right or claim has
specifically accrued hereunder. 
  

 2
#### McCASKEY REGISTER CO. et al. v. BARNES.

No. 4503.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 6, 1933.

Rusca & Cunningham, of Natchitoches, for appellants.

Phanor Breazeale, of Natchitoches, for ap-pellee.

MILLS, Judge.

The McCaskey Register Company, a creditor, and the estate of D. H. Yeal, a stockholder, join in bringing this action to annul the appointment of T. G. Barnes as receiver for the Breazeale-Hyams Motors, Incorporated, a Louisiana corporation, and all proceedings had by virtue of said appointment.

Defendant interposed an exception of misjoinder. Prom a judgment sustaining this exception and dismissing the suit, plaintiffs have appealed.

A motion by defendant to dismiss the appeal is overruled for the reason that the grounds relied upon are not pertinent to the present case, being more applicable to the appeal in the companion case of Receivership of Breazeale-Hyams Motors, Incorporated v. Opposition of McCaskey Register Company and Heirs of D. H. Veal (La. App.) 146 So. 348, this day passed upon by this court, in which the same motion to dismiss is filed.

The parties plaintiff have a common, mutual, and identical interest in the preservation and proper distribution of the assets of the corporation. The fact that one is a creditor and the other a stockholder in no manner affects this mutuality. Our jurisprudence is that under such circumstances two or more parties have the right to join in an action to protect their common interest. State v. Shakspeare, 43 La. Ann. 92-111, 8 So. 893.

This is so even if plaintiffs sue in different and distinct qualities. The right of joinder is not based upon any provision of the Code of Practice, but upon well-settled rules of pleading found in the common law, aiming to prevent a multiplicity of suits. Gill v. City of Lake Charles, 119 La. 17, 43 So. 897; Castile et al. v. Texas Co., 170 La. 887, 129 So. 518; Erskine Heirs v. Gardiner, 166 La. 1098, 118 So. 453; State v. Parish Democratic Ex. Com., 173 La. 844, 138 So. 857; Peninger et al. v. Cox, 12 La. App. 209, 125 So. 754.

In view of these decisions, the ruling of the lower court in sustaining the exception and dismissing plaintiffs’ suit is manifestly erroneous. It is reversed, and the case remanded to be proceeded with according to law.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1736 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1736

To require that a commemorative postage stamp be issued recognizing the 
  courage of the American Indian at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that a commemorative postage stamp be issued recognizing the 
  courage of the American Indian at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty guaranteed to the Sioux 
        Indians exclusive possession of the area in South Dakota west 
        of the Missouri River;
            (2) gold was discovered in the Black Hills of South Dakota 
        in the mid-1870s, and thousands of miners, choosing to 
        disregard the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, began to settle the 
        Sioux's territory, provoking them to defend their land;
            (3) unwilling to remove the settlers and being unable to 
        purchase the land, the United States Government issued an order 
        to the Indian agencies that all Indians return to their 
        designated reservations by January 31, 1876, or be deemed 
        hostile;
            (4) on June 25, 1876, the Sioux Indians, led by Chief 
        Sitting Bull, were camped in the valley of the Little Bighorn 
        River and were joined by 3,000 more Sioux, Cheyenne, and 
        Arapaho warriors; they were attacked by the 7th Calvary, led by 
        General George Armstrong Custer; the Indians surrounded the 7th 
        Calvary and killed all 210 soldiers, including General Custer; 
        and
            (5) the Battle of the Little Big Horn has been recognized 
        as one of the single greatest victories won by the American 
        Indian, and the attack led by General Custer was one of the 
        greatest fiascoes the United States Army has ever been forced 
        to endure.

SEC. 2. COMMEMORATIVE STAMP.

    The Postmaster General shall take such measures as may be necessary 
to provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp 
recognizing the courage of the American Indian at the Battle of the 
Little Big Horn.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11.1



|                                       |  |                              |            |   |      |   |            |  
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | ---------- | - | ---- | - | ---------- | -
|                                       |  | Three Months Ended March 31, |           
|                                       |  | 2007                         |            |   | 2006 |  
|Net income (loss)                      |  | $                            | (363       | ) |      | $ | (3,101     | )
|                                       |  |                              |            |   |      |   |            |  
|                                       |  |                             
|Net income (loss) per share  Basic:   |  |                              |            |   |      |   |            |  
|Weighted average common shares  Basic |  |                              | 26,030,067 |   |      |   | 25,710,713 |  
|                                       |  |                              |            |   |      |   |            |  
|Net income (loss) per share  Basic    |  | $                            | (0.01      | ) |      | $ | (0.12      | )
|                                       |  |                              |            |   |      |   |            |
##### 



Exhibit 18 February 4, 2005 The Audit Committee
Lafarge North America, Inc. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Note 19 of the Notes to the consolidated financial statements of Lafarge North America, Inc.
included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 describes a
change in the date used to measure the assets and obligations of its pension and other
postretirement benefit plans from December 31 to November 30. We conclude that such change is
acceptable which, based on your business judgment to make this change and for the stated reasons,
is preferable in your circumstances. Very truly yours, Ernst & Young
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 21

- 3719

_____________________________
J ONAVIAN R APHAEL G RIMSLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. February 27, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and R OBERTS and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.