alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Release Date: June 30, 2007*

*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 |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 7.1     | 7.1                    | 6.7                                |
| 7.4     | 7.3                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.7     | 7.7                    | 7.2                                |
| 8.1     | 8.0                    | 7.6                                |
| 8.3     | 8.3                    | 7.8                                |
| 8.7     | 8.7                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.9     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.0     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 8.9     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
||
| 7.5     | 7.3                    | 6.8                                |
| 7.7     | 7.5                    | 7.0                                |
| 8.1     | 7.9                    | 7.3                                |
| 8.4     | 8.2                    | 7.6                                |
| 8.6     | 8.4                    | 7.9                                |
| 9.0     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 9.1     | 8.9                    | 8.4                                |
| 9.2     | 8.9                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
||
| 7.1     | 7.3                    | 7.3                                |
| 7.4     | 7.7                    | 7.5                                |
| 7.9     | 8.0                    | 7.8                                |
| 8.8     | 8.8                    | 8.5                                |
| 8.9     | 9.0                    | 8.6                                |
| 9.1     | 9.1                    | 8.7                                |
| 9.3     | 9.3                    | 8.8                                |
| 9.4     | 9.4                    | 8.8                                |
| 9.2     | 9.3                    | 8.6                                |
```
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
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Barnes, Appellant, v Michael J. Allard, as Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 688]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 4, 2004 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 70, without a hearing.

Following his plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree, *894petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 5 to 10 years. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that, for various reasons, his detainment was illegal. Supreme Court denied the application and this appeal ensued. We now affirm.

Inasmuch as petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of his plea agreement and such issue could have been raised either through a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or by a CPL article 440 motion, habeas corpus relief is not appropriate *(see People ex rel. Martinez v West,*20 AD3d 842, 842 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 716 [2005]; *People ex rel. Warren v Artus,*17 AD3d 896, 896-897 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 705 [2005]). As for petitioner’s complaint regarding the correctional facility’s alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs, even if such a claim had merit, it would not entitle him to immediate release, thus making habeas corpus relief unavailable *(see People ex rel. Sandson v Duncan,*306 AD2d 716, 716-717 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 501 [2003]). With respect to the correctional facility’s purported improper withholding of petitioner’s good time allowance, habeas corpus relief is not warranted “because the determination to withhold good time did not render petitioner’s continued confinement pursuant to his original sentence unlawful” *(Matter of Doolen v Goord,*277 AD2d 624, 624-625 [2000]). Each of petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claims that he was wrongfully denied executive clemency and that Supreme Court erred by not converting the instant proceeding to a CPLR article 78 proceeding, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### Emmett McCOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Dec. 17, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Victor La Maina, Respondent, v Nathan's Famous, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants, and National Union Fire Insurance Company, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[807 NYS2d 640]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., National Union Fire Insurance Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered August 22, 2003, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a prior order of the same court dated December 3, 1999, which, upon its default, *589granted the plaintiffs motion to declare it a “vouched in” defendant liable to the plaintiff for any monetary award obtained by the plaintiff against the defendants Nathan’s Famous, Inc., and Frankly Delicious of Levittown, Inc.

Ordered that the order entered August 22, 2003 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the appellant’s motion to vacate is granted, the order dated December 3, 1999 is vacated, and the plaintiffs motion is denied.

Under the circumstances of this case, the motion of the defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter National Union) to vacate its default in opposing the plaintiffs motion to declare it a “vouched in” defendant should have been granted. The record demonstrates that National Union was never served with the motion papers which resulted in the order dated December 3, 1999 or the “notices of vouching in” *(see Loria v Plesser,*267 AD2d 213 [1999]; *Drummond v Petito,*253 AD2d 407 [1998]).

The essentials of vouching in have been stated as follows: “A named defendant who would have another (not yet a party) bound by judgment in an action must by proper notice offer to him [or her] control of the defense of the litigation” *(Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v First Natl. Bank & Trust Co.,*281 NY 162, 168 [1939]; *see Glens Falls Ins. Co. v Wood,*8 NY2d 409, 412 [1960]). “To be effective . . . the notice must be timely and proper, and it must offer to grant control to the [indemnitor] of the defense of the litigation” (Cole *v Long Is. Light. Co.,*14 AD2d 922 [1961]; *see Castignoli v Van Guard,*242 AD2d 357 [1997]). Here, none of these requirements were met. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
MySpace, Inc. v. Wallace et al Doc. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David R. Proverb

v. 08-cv-431-PB

Superintendent, HCDOC

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Arenas dated February 13, 2009, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

May 6, 2009 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: David R. Proverb, Pro Se

Elizabeth Hurley, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00431-PB Document 19 Filed 05/06/09 Page 1 of 1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 26, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00503

- CV

John Rady, Appellant

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUS TICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

IT APPEARING to this Court that the appellant has failed to file a brief, and, accordingly, has

failed to prosecute the appeal: IT IS THEREFORE consi dered, adjudged and ordered that the

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. It is FURTHER ordered that it appearing that the

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that

this decision be certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6377] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in the exhibition: “The Getty Commodus: Roman Portraits and Modern Copies,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Getty Villa, Malibu, CA, from on or about December 18, 2008, until on or about June 1, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202-453-8050)). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-22713 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Jordan *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 24773

— Decided May 23, 1934.)

*Mr. C. V. Thomas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. William, H. Schweihert,*prosecuting attorney, *Messrs. Jeffries <& Turnbull*and *Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-140-01-SM

Charlie Vallespin

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 13) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2009 trial period. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than January 30, 2009. 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 defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00140-SM Document 14 Filed 01/16/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: February 11, 2009 at 4:30 PM 

Jury Selection: February 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

January 16, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00140-SM Document 14 Filed 01/16/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Carey Carlberg, Jr.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-230-PB

NH Department of Safety, et al

DISCOVERY PLAN

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)

CASE SUMMARY

THEORY OF LIABILITY: See plaintiff’s plan.

THEORY OF DEFENSE: See defendant’s plan.

DAMAGES: See plaintiff’s plan.

JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS: Lack of jurisdiction.

QUESTIONS OF LAW: See defendant’s plan.

TYPE OF TRIAL: Jury.

DISCOVERY

TRACK ASSIGNMENT: Standard - 12 months.

DISCOVERY NEEDED: Standard.

MANDATORY DISCLOSURES (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)): Per federal

rule.

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION DISCLOSURES (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f))

Case 1:08-cv-00230-PB Document 44 Filed 01/13/09 Page 1 of 3
2

STIPULATION REGARDING CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE/PROTECTION OF TRIAL

PREPARATION MATERIALS (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)):

COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY: 10/01/2009.

INTERROGATORIES: 25 per party.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION: 25 per party.

DEPOSITIONS: 10 per side.

DATES OF DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS AND EXPERTS’ WRITTEN REPORTS AND

SUPPLEMENTATIONS:

Plaintiff: 04/01/2009 Defendant: 06/01/2009

CHALLENGES TO EXPERT TESTIMONY:

No later than 45 days prior to trial.

OTHER ITEMS

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES:

Plaintiff: 03/02/2009 Defendant: 04/01/2009

THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS: None.

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS:

Plaintiff: 03/02/2009 Defendant: 04/01/2009

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: 

To Dismiss: Pending.

For Summary Judgment: 01/13/2009 on constitutional issues;

08/03/2009.

SETTLEMENT POSSIBILITIES: Unlikely.

JOINT STATEMENT RE MEDIATION: None.

WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS:

Case 1:08-cv-00230-PB Document 44 Filed 01/13/09 Page 2 of 3
3

TRIAL ESTIMATE: 4-5 days.

TRIAL DATE: 06/02/2010

PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE:

OTHER MATTERS:

SO ORDERED.

 

James R. Muirhead 

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 13, 2009

cc: William Carey Carlberg, Jr. pro se

 Laura E.B. Lombardi, Esq.

 Glenn R. Milner, Esq.

 James W. Donchess, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00230-PB Document 44 Filed 01/13/09 Page 3 of 3
In the Senate of the United States,

August 3, 2001.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2133) entitled ‘‘An Act to establish a commission

for the purpose of encouraging and providing for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court

decision in Brown v. Board of Education.’’, do pass with the

following

AMENDMENTS:

1 Ω1æPage 3, line 8, strike out øChair¿ and insert: one of

2 two Co-chairpersons

3 Ω2æPage 3, after line 8, insert:

4 (2) Two representatives of the Department of

5 Justice appointed by the Attorney General, one of

6 whom shall serve as one of two Co-chairpersons of the

7 Commission.

8 Ω3æPage 3, line 9, strike out ø(2)¿ and insert: (3)

9 Ω4æPage 3, strike out lines 11 to 22
2

HR 2133 EAS

1 Ω5æPage 3, after line 22, insert:

2 (A)(i) The Members of the Senate from each

3 State described in clause (iii) shall each submit

4 the name of 1 individual from the State to the

5 majority leader and minority leader of the Sen6 ate.

7 (ii) After review of the submissions made

8 under clause (i), the majority leader of the Sen9 ate, in consultation with the minority leader of

10 the Senate, shall recommend to the President 5

11 individuals, 1 from each of the States described

12 in clause (iii).

13 (iii) The States described in this clause are

14 the States in which the lawsuits decided by the

15 Brown decision were originally filed (Delaware,

16 Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia), and the

17 State of the first legal challenge involved (Massa18 chusetts).

19 (B)(i) The Members of the House of Rep20 resentatives from each State described in sub21 paragraph (A)(iii) shall each submit the name of

22 1 individual from the State to the Speaker of the

23 House of Representatives and the minority lead24 er of the House of Representatives.
3

HR 2133 EAS

1 (ii) After review of the submissions made

2 under clause (i), the Speaker of the House of

3 Representatives, in consultation with the minor4 ity leader of the House of Representatives, shall

5 recommend to the President 5 individuals, 1

6 from each of the States described in subpara7 graph (A)(iii).

8 Ω6æPage 4, line 3, strike out ø(3)¿ and insert: (4)

9 Ω7æPage 4, line 6, strike out ø(4)¿ and insert: (5)

10 Ω8æPage 4, line 8, strike out ø(5)¿ and insert: (6)

11 Ω9æPage 4, line 10, strike out ø(6)¿ and insert: (7)

12 Ω10æPage 5, line 4, strike out øthe Chair¿ and insert:

13 a Co-chairperson

Attest:

Secretary.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2133

AMENDMENTS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH MARCH 1998 10Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,536,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  748,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,360,263
<PP&E>                                      19,370,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,504,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,338,728
<BONDS>                                      4,564,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,264,357
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,653,983)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,504,054
<SALES>                                      2,907,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,907,731
<CGS>                                          503,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,294,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                184,861
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (69,691)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            115,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,170
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Autobytel Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), we, Jeffrey H. Coats, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and Curtis E. DeWalt, Senior Vice President and 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Jeffrey H. CoatsJeffrey H. CoatsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 23, 2009





/s/ Curtis E. DeWaltCurtis E. DeWaltSenior Vice President andChief Financial OfficerOctober 23, 2009




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Autobytel Inc. and will be retained by Autobytel
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending October 13, 2012

----

Enforcement            Sunrise Bank, Cocoa Beach, Florida -- prompt corrective action directive dated August 26, 2010, terminated October 9, 2012.            -Announced, October 11, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-cr-09-01-JD

Joseph Delgado

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

16) filed by defendant is granted. Trial as to co-defendant Erick

Wanzo is also continued unless an objection is filed by March 10,

2009. 

Defendant Delgado shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

within 10 days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by

granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for

the reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: March 6, 2009

cc: Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

Michael Sheehan, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00009-PB Document 17 Filed 03/06/09 Page 1 of 1