alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BRYANT v. KUHN et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

June 25, 1954.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1954

R. B. Huffaker, Bartow, for appellant.

Shackleford, Farrior, Shannon & Stall-ings, Tampa, for appellees.

*676DREW, Justice.,

The principal contention in this appeal is that the lower Court committed substantial and harmful error by requiring the plaintiff to join her insurance carriers as use plaintiffs in an action she had instituted to recover damages resulting from a fire allegedly caused by the negligent installation and repairs to a hot water heater made by the appellees.

The record shews that the original complaint was filed on August 17, 1951 by Mary Bryant, the plaintiff, against Bertha Kuhn, Gertrude Kuhn and Peter Kuhn, a partnership trading as Kuhn Plumbing and Electric Shop. A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants and sustained by the lower Court with leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff to which a motion to dismiss, motion to strike, and a motion for more definite statement were filed. These motions were never ruled on by any formal order which appears in the record in this cause. Instead, after a notice of hearing on the motions had been filed, a third amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff, individually, “and for the use and benefit of Home Insurance Company and Aetna Insurance Company.” Upon the issues formed by defendants’ answer to the latter complaint, a trial was had before a jury who found in favor of defendants.

At the bar of this Court plaintiff argued that the reason the third amended complaint was filed was that the lower Court had orally stated to plaintiff’s counsel that unless he joined the insurance carriers as use plaintiffs, the action would be dismissed. There is no order in this record evidencing such ruling. It is conceded that no formal order was ever entered. It is fundamental that it is only upon the record before us that we are authorized to review the actions of the lower Court. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 60 Fla. 83, 93, 53 So. 838, 842. So far as the record shows, the third amended complaint was voluntarily filed by the plaintiff and she cannot now complain of any injurious result of joining the insurance carriers as use plaintiffs. Compare Dorman v. Dorman, 125 Fla. 280, 169 So. 867.

The other questions raised have been duly considered by us but found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, Acting C. J., and THOMAS and HERIN, JJ., concur.
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003...... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004...... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

2005...... 100.0 87.2 10.7 1.9 .2 ... ...

2006...... 100.0 86.8 11.5 1.6 .0 .0 ...

2007...... 100.0 84.0 13.3 2.4 .2 .0 ...

2008...... 100.0 76.1 18.3 4.7 .8 .0 .0

2009...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 77.7 18.3 3.6 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004: Q1... 100.0 79.2 17.2 3.2 .2 .1 .0

 Q2... 100.0 81.3 15.1 3.2 .3 .0 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.1 15.1 2.4 .2 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

2005: Q1... 100.0 84.4 13.3 2.0 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 85.7 12.0 2.0 .3 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 85.7 12.4 1.8 .1 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 87.2 10.7 1.9 .2 ... ...

2006: Q1... 100.0 85.6 12.6 1.7 .1 ... ...

 Q2... 100.0 85.8 12.5 1.5 .1 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 85.9 12.5 1.5 .0 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 86.8 11.5 1.6 .0 .0 ...

2007: Q1... 100.0 84.9 12.9 2.0 .1 ... ...

 Q2... 100.0 85.2 12.2 2.5 .1 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 83.6 14.1 2.1 .0 .0 .0

 Q4... 100.0 84.0 13.3 2.4 .2 .0 ...

2008: Q1... 100.0 81.0 15.5 2.9 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 78.2 17.5 3.5 .6 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 76.1 18.3 4.7 .8 .0 .0

2009: Q1... 100.0 69.9 23.6 5.6 .7 .2 .1

 Q2... 100.0 67.9 25.0 5.9 1.0 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 67.1 25.5 6.3 1.1 .0 .0

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 19

- 00790

- CV

IN RE Joshua KARLIN

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 2, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 7, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The real party in

interest filed a response, to which relator replied. After considering the petition

, response, reply,

and the record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the

petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CI085 88, styled In the Interest of K.G.K., a Child , pending in the 408th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-217-01-SM

William L. Twining

O R D E R

Defendant Twining’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 28). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2008

trial period. Defendant Twining shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than June 13, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Change of Plea Hearing or Final Pretrial Conference: July 1, 2008 at

2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: July 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00217-SM Document 29 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 2, 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq. 

Peter Papps, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00217-SM Document 29 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1986

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the proceeds from

bonds to be used for prepayments for natural gas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 24, 2001

Mr. COLLINS (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. SHAW,

Mr. JOHN, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr.

LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. COOKSEY, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr.

TANNER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BRYANT,

Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LINDER, and Mr. DEAL of Georgia)

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 allow the

proceeds from bonds to be used for prepayments for

natural gas.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Municipal Utility Nat5 ural Gas Supply Act Of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1986 IH

1 SEC. 2. ARBITRAGE RULES NOT TO APPLY TO PREPAY2 MENTS FOR NATURAL GAS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 148 of

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining higher yield5 ing investments) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN PREPAYMENTS

8 TO ENSURE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY.—The term ‘in9 vestment property’ shall not include any prepayment

10 for the purpose of obtaining a supply of a natural

11 gas reasonably expected to be used in a business of

12 one or more utilities each of which is owned and op13 erated by a State or local government, any political

14 subdivision or instrumentality thereof, or any gov15 ernmental unit acting for or on behalf of such a util16 ity.’’.

17 (b) PRIVATE LOAN FINANCING TEST NOT TO APPLY

18 TO PREPAYMENTS FOR NATURAL GAS.—Paragraph (2) of

19 section 141(c) of such Code (providing exceptions to the

20 private loan financing test) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’

21 at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period

22 at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and

23 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

24 ‘‘(C) arises from a transaction described in

25 section 148(b)(4).’’.
3

•HR 1986 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall take effect as if included in the amend3 ments made by section 1301 of the Tax Reform Act of

4 1986.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Alvarenga, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 416]

*561Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), rendered April 9, 2002, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney did not move for a severance of his trial from that of his codefendants *(see People v McNerney,*6 AD3d 1107 [2004]; *People v Ruger,*288 AD2d 686, 687 [2001]; *People v Jefferson,*156 AD2d 716 [1989]). Nor does the defendant’s disagreement with his trial counsel’s tactics on cross-examination render the representation less than meaningful *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *see also People v Taylor,*1 NY3d 174 [2003]; *People v Ellis,*81 NY2d 854 [1993]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *People v Caban,*4 AD3d 274, 282 [2004], *affd*5 NY3d 143 [2005]; *People v Neverson,*247 AD2d 492, 492-493 [1998]).

The identification of the defendant by two witnesses at the crime scene shortly after the attack upon the complainant was not orchestrated by the police, but instead arose through mere happenstance. Thus, the People were not required to provide the defendant with notice that they intended to call those witnesses to testify at trial *(see*CPL 710.30; *People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543, 551-552 [1979]; *People v Southerland,*288 AD2d 497 [2001]; *People v Richardson,*212 AD2d 743 [1995]; *People v Overton,*192 AD2d 624 [1993]; *People v Moon,*180 AD2d 652 [1992]; *People v Ravenell,*179 AD2d 788 [1992]; *cf. People v Bello,*219 AD2d 657 [1995]).

The defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a baseball bat recovered from the trunk of a car he was driving when he was apprehended is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77 [1997]; *People v Davis,*272 AD2d 339 [2000]). In any event, the contention is without merit as the bat was sufficiently connected to both the defendant and the attack upon the complainant *(see People v Mirenda,*23 NY2d 439, 452-454 [1969]; *People v Andino,*243 AD2d 718 [1997]; *People v Sandy,*187 AD2d 466 [1992]; *People v Del Valle,*149 AD2d 610 [1989]; *People v Dinkins,*139 AD2d 759, 760 [1988]; *People v Mooney,*
      *562135 AD2d 578 [1987]; *People v Cunningham,*116 AD2d 585 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              MAY-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,627
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,708
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,695
<PP&E>                                             952
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,725
<COMMON>                                         6,952
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,982)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,170
<SALES>                                          3,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,084
<CGS>                                            2,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    79
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (473)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (473)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
*AFFIRMED.*

#### Timothy Lamont HAZEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. PARKER, Correctional Officer, Nash Correctional Institution; North Carolina Department of Corrections, Head of the NCDOC Division of Prisons @ 831 West Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC 27603, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-6950.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Timothy Lamont Hazel, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Lamont Hazel appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Hazel v. Parker,*No. CA-03-358-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 5, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
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 filing of HomeLife, Inc.'s (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2005, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marie
M. May, the 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, 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.


                                        /s/ Marie M. May
                                        --------------------------
                                        Marie M. May
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Date:  January 17, 2006
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1762

To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Amendment

5 Protection Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL HARASSMENT PERIOD.

7 Public Law 103–159 is hereby replaced, and any pro8 visions of law amended or repealed by such Act are re9 stored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

10 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN BAN.

11 Title XI of Public Law 103–322 is hereby repealed,

12 and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such
2

•HR 1762 IH

1 title are restored or revived as if such title had not been

2 enacted.

3 SEC. 4. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION.

4 (a) Section 201 of title 11 of Public Law 90–618 is

5 amended by striking ‘‘which the Secretary finds is gen6 erally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting pur7 poses,’’ and ‘‘which the owner intends to use solely for

8 sporting purposes.’’

9 (b) Public Law 90–351, as amended, is amended as

10 follows:

11 (1) In section 902, strike ‘‘which the Secretary

12 finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable

13 for sporting purposes,’’ ‘‘which the owner intends to

14 use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural pur15 poses,’’ ‘‘a projectile which the Secretary finds is

16 primarily intended to be used for sporting pur17 poses,’’ ‘‘devoted to the collection, competitive use,

18 or other sporting use of firearms in the community,’’

19 ‘‘determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be

20 particularly suitable for sporting purposes and,’’

21 ‘‘(A) determined by the Secretary to be generally

22 recognized as particularly suitable for sporting pur23 poses, or determined by the Department of Defense

24 to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war

25 souvenir, and (B),’’ ‘‘and is generally recognized as
3

•HR 1762 IH

1 particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to

2 sporting purposes,’’ and ‘‘provided that such hand3 guns are generally recognized as particularly suitable

4 for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,’’.

5 (2) Strike ‘‘lawful sporting purposes’’ and in6 sert in lieu thereof ‘‘lawful purposes’’.

7 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 The provisions of this Act shall take effect imme9 diately upon enactment.

Æ
36

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 estate loans estate loans

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

2002: Q1... 7.5 7.3 n.a. 7.2

 Q2... 7.3 7.3 n.a. 7.1

 Q3... 7.2 7.2 n.a. 6.8

 Q4... 6.8 6.7 n.a. 6.5

2003: Q1... 6.7 6.6 n.a. 6.4

 Q2... 6.5 6.4 n.a. 6.0

 Q3... 6.5 6.4 n.a. 6.1

 Q4... 6.3 6.3 n.a. 6.1

2004: Q1... 6.3 6.2 n.a. 5.9

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

2002: Q1... 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.0

 Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.2 7.8

 Q3... 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.8

 Q4... 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5

2003: Q1... 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.5

 Q2... 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.2

 Q3... 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.6

 Q4... 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2

2004: Q1... 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.0

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

2002: Q1... 7.0 7.1 9.4 7.3

 Q2... 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.2

 Q3... 7.3 6.9 7.3 7.2

 Q4... 6.8 6.7 7.0 6.7

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.6

 Q2... 6.8 6.4 6.4 6.4

 Q3... 6.3 6.1 6.3 6.5

 Q4... 6.5 6.5 6.9 6.7

2004: Q1... 6.6 6.4 6.7 6.3
37

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans (continued)

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 -estate loans estate loans

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2002: Q1... n.a. 7.9 7.9 7.5

 Q2... n.a. 8.1 8.0 7.7

 Q3... n.a. 7.9 7.9 7.5

 Q4... n.a. 7.6 7.6 7.2

2003: Q1... n.a. 7.4 7.5 7.0

 Q2... n.a. 7.3 7.3 6.9

 Q3... n.a. 7.2 7.3 6.8

 Q4... n.a. 7.1 7.2 6.8

2004: Q1... n.a. 7.0 7.1 6.7

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2002: Q1... n.a. 7.6 7.8 7.3

 Q2... n.a. 7.6 7.7 7.4

 Q3... n.a. 7.4 7.5 7.2

 Q4... n.a. 7.2 7.2 6.9

2003: Q1... n.a. 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q2... n.a. 6.7 6.8 6.5

 Q3... n.a. 6.7 6.8 6.5

 Q4... n.a. 6.7 6.8 6.5

2004: Q1... n.a. 6.6 6.7 6.4

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA) 

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

2003: Q1... n.a. 6.9 7.6 7.5

 Q2... n.a. 6.5 7.1 7.0

 Q3... n.a. 6.5 7.0 7.2

 Q4... n.a. 6.5 6.9 7.3

2004: Q1... n.a. 6.4 7.1 7.2

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of

livestock (including poultry).

 * 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.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SABINSA CORP.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERBAKRAFT, INC.,

Defendant

PRAKRUTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2023-2002

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey in No. 1:14-cv-04738-RBK-SAK, 

Senior Judge Robert B. Kugler.

______________________

Before DYK, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Following this court’s show cause order directing the 

parties to address whether this appeal should be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction, we dismiss. 

The district court sanctioned Prakruti Products PVT. 

Ltd. (“Prakruti”) for discovery misconduct. The court 

Case: 23-2002 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2023
2 SABINSA CORP. v. HERBAKRAFT, INC.

thereafter held Prakruti in “civil contempt” for failing to 

comply with the sanctions order, directed the clerk of court 

to enter default, and scheduled briefing on default judgment. Prakruti filed this appeal, even though the motion 

for default judgment remains pending. 

In general, we only have jurisdiction to review a “final 

decision” from district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)—one

that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing 

for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. 

United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). Here, Prakruti 

does not appeal from such a decision. “[C]ivil contempt orders [against parties] are not final judgments, even when a 

fine is assessed,” Entegris, Inc. v. Pall Corp., 490 F.3d 1340, 

1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and “the entry of default is an 

‘interlocutory act and, as such, a non-final order.’” City of 

New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128 

n.15 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

October 20, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

 Jarrett B. Perlow

 Clerk of Court

Case: 23-2002 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2023