alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,804
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      534
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,466
<PP&E>                                          72,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,126
<BONDS>                                          3,615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,000
<PREFERRED>                                          1<F1>
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     127,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,095
<SALES>                                          6,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,947
<CGS>                                            1,384
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,515)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,515)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($2.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($2.65)
<FN>
<F1>Represents par value of Reading Enterainment Series B preferred stock.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,405
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           8,449
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        224
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,585
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,616
<LOANS>                                         99,959
<ALLOWANCE>                                        512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,928
<DEPOSITS>                                      92,273
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                595
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 116,928
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,045
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  155
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    10
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,210
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,079
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,203
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,007
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       37
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    230
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.65
<LOANS-NON>                                        334
<LOANS-PAST>                                       183
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   478
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  512
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               512
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### William LEGANIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellee.*

No. 12085.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 17, 1932.

St. John Perret, John R. Perez, Henry G. McMahon, and John H. Holmes, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

James Wilkinson, N. H. Polmer, and George Piazza, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons assigned in the case of John Williams et al. v. Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District (La. App.) 141 So. 871, decided May 30, 1932, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment herein appealed from be, and it is, affirmed.

Affirmed.
NO. SCWC-28857

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DAVID GARNER, ALLAN KLITERNICK, JO JENNIFER GOLDSMITH 

and DAVID HUDSON, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 28857; CIV. NO. 07-1-1480)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Duffy, J., for the court )

1

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants’ application for writ

of certiorari, filed on June 28, 2011, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 3, 2011.

Paul Alston, FOR THE COURT:

Peter S. Knapman,

Mei-Fei Kuo, and /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

Bruce H. Wakuzawa 

for petitioners/ Associate Justice

plaintiffs-appellants 

on the application 

and reply

Deirdre Marie-Iha,

Deputy Solicitor General,

for respondent/defendantappellee on the response

Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.

1

and Circuit Judge Garibaldi, in place of Acoba, J., recused. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-28857

03-AUG-2011

12:35 PM
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRIAN MILLAN,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00092

- CR

Appeal from the

243rd Judicial District Court,

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20190D00102)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28 TH DAY OF MAY , 20 2 1.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996<F1>         SEP-30-1995<F1>
<CASH>                                           3,057                  20,929
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,203                  15,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,728                  32,282
<PP&E>                                          26,184                  31,418
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,079                 106,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,606                  49,246
<BONDS>                                         63,761                 102,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            74                      37
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,335)                (34,335)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,079                 106,302
<SALES>                                            922                   1,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,354                  24,617
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,656                  26,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,201                  21,543
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,455                   4,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,698                 (1,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       123                   (173)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,575                 (1,363)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,575                 (1,363)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23                  (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23                  (0.37)
<FN>
<F1>THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND 1995 FINANCIAL DATA HAS BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT
A CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING METHOD RETROACTIVELY APPLIED BY THE COMPANY IN FISCAL 
1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2043 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2043

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2001

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, as the ``Elwood Haynes 
                  `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2719 
South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
199 La. 259

#### STATE v. FRANKS.

No. 36271.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1942.

Edwin I. Mahoney, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Niels F. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Bernard Cocke, Dist. Atty., and T. M. Logan Bruns, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, for the State.

FOURNET, Justice.

The defendant prosecutes this appeal from his conviction on a charge of possessing marijuana cigarettes, in violation of Act No. 14 of the 2d Extra Session of 1934, and his sentence to serve from twenty months to five years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary relying for the reversal thereof on a bill of exceptions reserved to the trial judge’s ruling refusing his motion for a new trial.

 The alleged errors complained of in the motion that the defendant’s admission to the arresting officers of his possession of the marijuana cigarettes was made under duress and that his plea of guilty entered before the United States Commissioner “was not free and voluntary because of his helplessness and poverty and lack of means to employ counsel” present nothing for us to review, for the reason that no bills were reserved to the rulings of the trial judge at the time the defendant’s admission to the arresting officers and his plea of guilty before the United States Commissioner were introduced in evidence. Defendant’s failure to reserve any bills to these rulings operates as a waiver of whatever rights he may have had, there being no error patent on the face of the, record. Article 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The sum and substance of the remaining exceptions in the motion is that the defendant was illegally convicted in that he was not given the benefit of “a reasonable doubt” by the trial jury because they failed to give proper consideration to the facts of the case. In other words, it is his contention that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction and that such evidence as was presented was *766misconstrued by the jury. The *motion,*therefore, presents no error of law and there is nothing for us to review. Article S.16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

For the reasons assigned, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Manuel RAMOS-RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-40002.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

*412Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Isaac Manuel Ramos-Rubio appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by entering the United States, without permission, following both his conviction for an aggravated felony and subsequent deportation. Ramos-Rubio contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction for a felony or aggravated felony as a sentencing factor and not as an element of the offense. Alternatively, Ramos-Rubio contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Ramos-Rubio acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *AlmendarezTorres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Melissa A. Alexander, et al .

V .

Best Rate Funding Cofp., et al .

Civil No. 06-cv-443-JD

ORDER

Attorney David Garfunkel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Best Rate Fundin g

Corp. Attorney Garfunkel's Motion was granted by Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead on

September 13, 2007.

An Order was subsequently issued and sent to Best Rate Funding Corp. ordering new counsel

to appear by October 4, 2007 or the case would be referred to a judicial officer for further action .

To date, no appearance having been filed on behalf of Best Rate Funding Corp, it is herewith

ordered that default is entered against Best Rate Funding Corp .

As to the Third-Party action Best Rate Funding Corp . filed against Lender Services Direct,

Inc., the court herewith dismisses that complaint for want of prosecution .

By November 19, 2007, the Plaintiffs shall submit a motion for default judgment and, if

appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), an affidavit specifying damages. Unless notified by the

court that the motion has been approved, a damages hearing will be held before Magistrate Judge

Muirhead on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM.

SO ORDERED.

October 23, 2007 /s/,Iosenh A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq .

Richard Gaudreau, Esq.

Paul DeCarolis, Esq .

Rhonda Thomas, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00443-JD Document 25 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 1
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, November 6-Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,058,154 27,921 57,278 76,879 115,494 185,8Number of loans 14,867 5,060 3,715 2,227 1,739 1,2Weighted average maturity (months)1 18.77 7.37 9.82 11.37 13.88 15.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 6.88 1.65 3.32 4.65 6.73 5.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.19 3.09 3.14 3.12 3.03 3.

Weighted average interest rate4 8.24 9.26 9.09 8.98 8.63 8. Standard error5 .30 .08 .11 .08 .10 .0

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.84 9.92 9.69 9.73 9.25 8. 25th percentile 7.50 8.57 8.43 8.30 8.00 7.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.40 9.23 8.73 8.86 8.77 8. Other livestock 8.33 9.42 9.24 8.77 8.04 8. Other current operating expenses7 8.50 9.22 9.16 9.16 8.71 8.

 Farm machinery and equipment 9.01 9.76 9.46 8.54 8.78 8. Farm real estate 8.37 9.54 8.41 8.73 8.61 8.4 Other8 7.46 9.19 8.61 8.60 8.52 8.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 76.41 81.83 74.55 70.93 76.87 80. Under commitment 83.22 91.30 81.98 85.39 84.33 83. Callable 20.49 26.68 24.52 30.44 27.90 24.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 11.29 5.89 8.75 10.31 13.17 14.7 Other livestock 7.29 6.70 5.63 7.06 8.74 10.7 Other current operating expenses7 37.50 74.10 68.83 61.82 54.51 41. Farm machinery and equipment 9.28 5.53 7.37 8.18 6.00 4. Farm real estate 8.09 .92 1.14 1.39 2.20 5. Other8 26.55 6.86 8.28 11.23 15.39 23.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 12.56 5.55 4.57 7.73 8.32 9. Other 81.97 89.73 90.17 88.50 87.91 88. 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1890 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1890

  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide for inflation 
 adjustments to the mandatory jurisdiction thresholds of the National 
                         Labor Relations Board.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2001

 Mr. Istook (for himself, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. 
   Northup, and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide for inflation 
 adjustments to the mandatory jurisdiction thresholds of the National 
                         Labor Relations Board.

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

SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO MANDATORY JURISDICTION THRESHOLDS 
              OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

    Section 14(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
164(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c)(1)(A) Mandatory Jurisdiction.--The Board shall assert 
jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or category of 
employers over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards 
prevailing on August 1, 1959, with the financial threshold amounts 
adjusted for inflation under subparagraph (B).
    ``(B) Inflation Adjustments.--The Board, beginning on October 1, 
2001, and not less often than every 5 years thereafter, shall adjust 
each of the financial threshold amounts referred to in subparagraph (A) 
for inflation, using as the base period the later of (i) the most 
recent calendar quarter ending before the financial threshold amount 
was established, or (ii) the calendar quarter ending June 30, 1959. The 
inflation adjustments shall be determined using changes in the Consumer 
Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Department of 
Labor and shall be rounded to the nearest $10,000. The Board shall 
prescribe any regulations necessary for making the inflation 
adjustments.''.
                                 <all>
```