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

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Summary Charts                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|PDF (11 KB)                                                           
|                                                                      
|
|                                                                      
|A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                             
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                          
|A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                             
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                   
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.5. Average Effective Interest Rate on Non-real-estate Bank          
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans      
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.8. All Banks, by Size of Loan                                       
|ASCII (7 KB)                                                          
|A.9. Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.10. Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders                                
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.11. All Banks, by Risk Rating                                       
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.12. Large Farm Lenders                                              
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.13. Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders                                
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.14. Regional Disaggregation of Survey Results                       
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 09, 2009
23

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of total non-real-estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1994...... 69 10 11 15 33 .187 .026 .032 .037 .082

1995...... 51 -2 14 13 25 .131 -.004 .039 .032 .061

1996...... 95 16 27 24 30 .240 .039 .070 .058 .071

1997...... 93 6 19 19 50 .230 .014 .049 .045 .112

1998...... 87 4 15 24 45 .198 .008 .036 .051 .095

1999...... 126 18 37 35 36 .280 .040 .086 .078 .080

2000...... 108 11 17 34 45 .259 .027 .041 .075 .098

2001...... 308 67 53 140 48 .656 .142 .118 .294 .101

2002...... 221 40 50 58 73 .471 .085 .114 .124 .157

2003...... 175 34 35 48 58 .382 .074 .080 .108 .128

2004...... 129 28 17 46 38 .284 .062 .039 .099 .081

2005...... n.a. 8 16 12 n.a. n.a. .017 .035 .026 n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude

foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks that

are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
#### Frank ESPARZA, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45574.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

Dan J. Anderson, Richardson, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Catharine T. Hill, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

On the 25th day of September, 1970, the appellant was convicted for burglary with intent to commit theft. His punishment was assessed at two years, probated. One of the conditions of the probation was that the appellant report to the probation officer monthly. A motion to revoke probation was filed January 11, 1972. It alleged that the appellant failed to make reports for ten months, February through November of 1971.

The trial court found that appellant failed to report as ordered and revoked probation.

The appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to revoke probation.

Don R. Stiles, an adult probation officer for Dallas County, testified the appellant entered a plea of guilty to the burglary charge on the 25th day of September, 1970, and was placed on probation and that he did not report as directed during the months of February through November, 1971. The probation officer also testified that he tried to get in touch with the appellant *645by telephone and wrote letters in March and April, 1971, warning him that action would be taken to revoke probation if he did not report. There was no response to the letters.

The appellant testified that he received a copy of the order of probation from Officer Stiles and that he knew he was to report. He also testified that he received the letters from the probation officer but did not answer or report because he had lost his job and his wife was ill and he was afraid that he would be put in jail.

The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Basinger v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 623. The evidence is sufficient to show that appellant violated a condition of his probation in failing to report. See Whiteside v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 831.

No abuse of discretion has been shown. The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mohammed N. Khan

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00064-JL

United Airlines, Inc.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

June 17, 2008 at 10:00 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-00064-JL Document 18 Filed 06/12/08 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: June 12, 2008

cc: Paul McEachern, Esq.

Brigitte Duffy, Esq.

Sarah N. Turner, Esq.

Dana L. Fleming, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00064-JL Document 18 Filed 06/12/08 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22852]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Vaccine Research Center Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration 
of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of 
individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Vaccine Research Center Board of Scientific 
Counselors, NIAID.
    Date: October 28, 2008.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Vaccine Research Center, 
40 Convent Drive, Conference Room <greek-i>1207, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Gary J Nabel, MD, PhD, Director, Vaccine 
Research Center, NIAID/NIH, 40 Convent Drive, Bldg 40, Room 4502, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 401-496-1852, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#791e17181b1c1539171018101d57171011571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bfcf5faf9fef7dbf5f2faf2ffb5f5f2f3b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-22852 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2023 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2023

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of tax on 
                distilled spirits to its pre-1985 level.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2001

    Mr. Lewis of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. 
 Whitfield, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of tax on 
                distilled spirits to its pre-1985 level.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN RATE OF TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS TO PRE-1985 
              LEVELS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 5001(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition, rate, and attachment of 
tax) is amended by striking ``$13.50'' and inserting ``$10.50''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Subsection (a) of section 5010 of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``$13.50'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``$10.50''.
            (2) Subsection (f) of section 7652 of such Code is hereby 
        repealed.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-153-PB

Lan Thy Ly

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for January 5, 2010, citing the need for

additional time to arrange for defendant’s participation in the

pretrial diversion program and engage in plea negotiations. 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 January 5, 2010 to April 6, 2010. 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-00153-PB Document 19 Filed 12/18/09 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 18, 2009

cc: R. Brian Snow, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

2

Case 1:08-cr-00153-PB Document 19 Filed 12/18/09 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Daniella C.G. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Frank G., Appellant; Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 213]

*495Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol Stokinger, J.), entered on or about June 25, 2004, which, upon fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminated the parental rights of respondent father and committed the subject children to the custody and guardianship of the petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency satisfied its statutory burden of making diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship here (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]). Those efforts included scheduling regular visitation between the parents and the children, referring and encouraging the mother to attend and complete various drug treatment programs, referring respondent father to parenting skills training, holding regular planning meetings with respondent father and subjecting him to random drug screenings *(see Matter of Byron Christopher Malik J.,*309 AD2d 669 [2003]).

Although respondent father complied with much of the agency’s service plan, he nonetheless permanently neglected his children by failing to realistically plan for their fixture *(see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]). Respondent father did not adequately address the issue of his wife’s drug addiction, which led to removal of the children from the home in the first place. Respondent father acknowledged that his wife did not comply with her drug treatment programs, and although he told her she could not return to his home until she had ceased using drugs, he never enforced this ultimatum. In fact, contrary to the agency’s direction to respondent father to plan for his children independently because his wife continued to test positive for drugs, he continued to live with her. His failure to address this issue constituted a failure to plan, and thus supported a finding of permanent neglect *(see Matter of Monica Betzy D.,*291 AD2d 289, 290 [2002]; *Matter of Jaquone Emiel B.,*288 AD2d 57, 58 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 608 [2002]). The record does not support the contentions of respondent father, who did receive meaningful legal representation throughout these proceedings *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *Matter of Bykya Minnie E.,*212 AD2d 365, 366 [1995], *lv dismissed and lv denied*85 NY2d 964 [1995]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
Probation Form No. 35 Report and Order Terminating Probation / 

(1/92) Supervised Release 

Prior to Original Expiration Date 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


for the 


DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


v. Crim. No. 07-CR-196-0 1-PB 

Arthur Martel 

On February 26, 2008, Arthur Martel was sentenced to serve 3 Years probation, including 

a 12 month period ofhome detention with electronic monitoring. A fine of$3,600 was also ordered. 

He has complied with the rules and regulations of supervised release, paid the fine in full, and is no 

longer in need ofsupervision. It is accordingly recommended that Arthur Martel be discharged from 

probation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Timothy 1. Brown 

U.S. Probation Officer 

ORDER OF THE COURT 

Pursuant to the above report, it is ordered that the defendant is discharged from Supervised 

Release and that the proceedings in the case be terminated. 

Date this ____ day __________,2010. 

Paul Barbadoro 

U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 1:07-cr-00196-PB Document 14 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                           11,064,122
<SECURITIES>                      5,242,486
<RECEIVABLES>                     4,981,538
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                      11,521,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 36,466,338
<PP&E>                            2,945,356
<DEPRECIATION>                    1,643,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   41,117,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             7,504,237
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             99,311
<OTHER-SE>                       33,513,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     41,117,431
<SALES>                           7,459,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  7,459,466
<CGS>                             5,842,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    15,287,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (7,261,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (2,128,690)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (5,133,015)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (5,133,015)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.52)

        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Michael W. Levin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date:  February 12, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Michael W. Levin    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Michael W. Levin        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Todd Horstkotte

v. Civil No. 08-cv-61-JL

NHDOC, Commissioner

ORDER PROHIBITING REMOTE ELECTRONIC ACCESS

The exhibits to the objection to R&R in the above-captioned case contains one or more

personal identifiers listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Making this information available over the

Internet may result in personal or financial harm to the person whose personal information is

contained in the Objection to R&R. Therefore, because good cause exists to prohibit a non-party

from obtaining remote electronic access to the Objection to R&R, the clerk shall limit remote

access accordingly pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e)(2).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ James R. Muirhead

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: September 4 , 2008

cc: Todd Horstkotte, Pro se

Deborah Weissbard, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00061-JL Document 59 Filed 09/04/08 Page 1 of 1
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, August 6-10, 20Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 936,265 24,988 101,814 412,215 227,973 42,817 5,22Number of loans 17,735 873 2,159 8,176 3,121 698 10Weighted average maturity (months)1 16.38 12.52 10.10 19.80 12.48 11.58 10.5

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 2.96 9.95 6.20 2.37 2.43 .62 8.1

Weighted average risk rating3 3.20 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate 4 8.35 8.30 8.21 8.28 8.29 9.01 8.7

 Standard error5 .13 .22 .27 .19 .31 .31 .4

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.04 9.42 9.00 8.90 8.99 9.92 8.8 25th percentile 7.57 7.26 7.25 7.76 7.50 7.76 8.6 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.08 9.59 8.66 8.10 9.37 n.a. 9.1 Other livestock 7.67 9.01 8.57 8.49 8.01 8.87 9.6 Other current operating expenses7 7.88 8.51 8.69 8.61 9.48 8.92 8.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.18 8.86 8.25 9.33 10.00 10.05 8.5 Farm real estate 7.00 n.a. 8.48 9.00 9.43 n.a. 5.7 Other8 9.44 7.46 7.44 7.95 8.87 8.32 8.0

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 80.54 22.33 48.92 86.17 85.57 97.44 32.0 Under commitment 82.73 85.16 87.30 88.69 97.40 96.67 90.7 Callable 22.79 71.83 59.24 19.56 16.82 2.24 n.a Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.62 28.58 6.68 4.26 6.16 1.10 n.a Other livestock 8.44 12.74 4.96 7.27 12.18 20.44 58.7 Other current operating expenses7 39.22 42.10 44.93 37.14 29.00 50.09 5.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 11.71 11.20 4.38 21.56 4.20 .14 3.2 Farm real estate 3.77 .69 n.a. 5.99 1.11 .46 n.a Other8 30.23 4.69 39.05 23.78 47.35 27.76 32.0

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 9.26 13.24 20.30 4.30 9.10 20.93 n.a Other 82.66 83.53 77.37 82.36 89.65 79.07 100.0 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      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, as amended; and |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |                                                                                                      |                                           |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                                           | /s/                Mark Goldwasser   |
|   | Mark                GoldwasserChief                  Executive OfficerFebruary                    9, 2007 |

----