alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending February 6, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION                                                                                   InvestmentBank of America, N.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, to make an indirect investment of $11 million in BANA Canada Funding Company Limited, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableXENITH BANK                                                                                                             * BranchXenith Bank, Richmond, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1400, McLean, Virginia.Newspaper: 01/28/2010Federal Register: Not applicable
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

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

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 304,073 19,792 49,268 49,184 46,529 77,58Number of loans 9,826 3,646 3,504 1,427 712 45Weighted average maturity (months)1 26.96 10.35 13.32 23.22 34.13 52.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 10.46 6.14 8.88 12.39 20.22 12.7

Weighted average risk rating3 2.36 2.56 2.58 2.22 2.50 2.6

Weighted average interest rate4 7.00 7.63 7.30 7.25 7.19 7.0

 Standard error5 .14 .12 .20 .10 .42 .3

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.64 8.50 8.00 8.00 7.64 7.6 25th percentile 6.09 6.82 6.40 6.16 6.50 6.1 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.34 8.02 6.56 7.83 6.59 6.9 Other livestock 6.51 8.06 7.78 8.06 7.92 6.1 Other current operating expenses7 7.23 7.43 7.11 7.23 6.87 7.6

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.17 7.63 7.94 7.25 7.72 5.8 Farm real estate 6.61 8.67 6.70 6.94 7.09 6.2 Other8 7.56 9.48 7.95 6.85 7.25 7.7

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 56.07 40.83 39.20 46.90 30.84 64.9 Under commitment 57.97 57.25 63.13 59.18 42.41 38.2 Callable 17.86 25.03 19.78 18.11 31.57 2.9 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.81 4.26 1.69 3.73 7.02 8.8 Other livestock 21.66 5.86 8.23 6.25 14.53 12.7 Other current operating expenses7 50.82 75.16 70.78 58.86 51.31 49.3

 Farm machinery and equipment 10.77 7.82 13.14 14.79 19.07 11.0 Farm real estate 4.58 1.97 .85 5.73 5.46 10.0 Other8 5.35 4.93 5.30 10.63 2.59 8.0

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 17.19 10.96 17.31 24.10 33.75 18.0 Other 80.45 80.47 77.42 69.99 66.25 81.9 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02183-MSK-KLM

RICKEY EUGENE STOCKTON-BEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. HUFFINE,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02183-MSK-KLM Document 7 Filed 08/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Gerald BOYDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis O’SULLIVAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-56030.

D.C. No. CV-94-08438-JSL/AJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 13, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald Boyden appeals pro se the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) in favor of defendants O’Sullivan and the City of Los Angeles in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. Boyden also appeals the district court’s May 14,1997 order dismissing without prejudice seven defendants for failure to timely serve. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(a). *Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist.,*251 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.2001). We review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). *Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan),*253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Because Boyden testified that defendant O’Sullivan was not one of the officers involved in the alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the district court properly granted the Rule 50(a) motion in favor of defendant O’Sullivan. *See Wilson v. Good Humor Corp.*757 F.2d 1293, 1300 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding directed verdict appropriate where plaintiff unable to identify defendant as individual who caused injury).

The district court also properly granted the Rule 50(a) motion in favor of defendant City of Los Angeles because Boyden failed *348to present any evidence of a municipal policy or custom. *See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown,*520 U.S. 397, 403-04, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing defendants Bancroft, Contreras, Williams, McWilliams, Pratt, Ramos, and Vialda for failure to effect timely service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because Boyden, who was incarcerated until approximately January of 1997, failed to show good cause why he did not provide the United States Marshal with service information during the more than two years between the filing of the complaint and dismissal of the unserved defendants. *See Walker v. Sumner,*14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), *abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (dismissing in forma pauperis action where incarcerated plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he provided Marshal with sufficient information necessary for service). Moreover, after Boyden was released from prison, he failed to show good cause for his failure to serve the aforementioned defendants. *See Boudette v. Barnette,*923 F.2d 754, 755 (9th Cir.1991) (requiring plaintiff to show good cause for failure to serve within 120 days).

Boyden’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
 
                                 Exhibit 11.1

                                        
                        International Electronics, Inc.
                  Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share


                                               Year Ended August 31
                                         ------------------------------
                                         1997          1996        1995
                                         ----          ----        ----
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
PRIMARY NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
-----------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>          <C>          <C>
 
Weighted average common and
equivalent shares:
 
Common stock                          1,492,604    1,451,609    1,413,981
 
Common equivalent shares
resulting from dilutive stock
options and warrants (treasury
stock method using the average
market price)                           186,462      207,746        -
                                     ----------   ----------    ---------
 
Total                                 1,679,066    1,659,355    1,413,981
                                     ==========   ==========    =========
 
Net income (loss)                    $   70,144   $  161,990    ($231,040)
                                     ==========   ==========    =========
 
Net income (loss) per share:
 
   Income (loss) before
   extraordinary gain                $      .03   $      .10        ($.16)
 
   Extraordinary gain                       .01        -            -
                                     ----------   ----------    ---------
 
   Net income (loss)                 $      .04   $      .10        ($.16)
                                     ==========   ==========    =========
<CAPTION>  
FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
-----------------------------------------
<S>                                  <C>          <C>           <C> 
Weighted average common and
equivalent shares:
 
Common stock                          1,492,604    1,451,609    1,413,981
 
Common equivalent shares
resulting from dilutive stock
options and warrants (treasury
stock method using the higher
of the ending or average
market price)                           186,462      207,746        -
                                     ----------   ----------    ---------

Total                                 1,679,066    1,659,355    1,413,981
                                     ==========   ==========    =========
 
Net income (loss)                    $   70,144   $  161,990    ($231,040)
                                     ==========   ==========    =========

Net income (loss) per share:
 
   Income (loss) before
   extraordinary gain                      $.03         $.10        ($.16)
 
   Extraordinary gain                       .01        -            -
                                     ----------   ----------    ---------
 
   Net income (loss)                       $.04         $.10        ($.16)
                                     ==========   ==========    =========
</TABLE>

                                      24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02278-WJM-KLM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASHCROFT HOMES CORP.,

ANITA L. RUSSELL,

TIMOTHY J. RUSSELL,

USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,

FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN CORP., and

TIMBER CREEK HOLDINGS, L.P.

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT 

ASHCROFT HOMES CORPORATION

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulation for Judgment Against

Ashcroft Homes Corporation, filed November 28, 2011 (ECF No. 27). Upon

consideration of the stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS

as follows:

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED against Defendant Ashcroft Homes Corporation and

in favor of the United States on Count 1 of the United States’ First Amended Complaint

(Docket No. 6) in the amount of $286,093.92 as of November 18, 2011, including

statutory penalties and interest and less any credit for payments made plus any

additional interest that continues to accrue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c)(1) and 26

Case 1:11-cv-02278-WJM-KLM Document 28 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

U.S.C. § 6621, accruing from November 18, 2011, until paid in full, for Form 941

employment taxes for the tax periods ending December 31, 2003, March 31, 2004, and

June 30, 2004, and Form 940 unemployment taxes for the period ending December 31,

2003. 

It is further ORDERED that JUDGMENT IS ENTERED against Ashcroft Homes

and in favor of the United States on Count Two of the United States’ First Amended

Complaint. 

It is further ORDERED that each Party shall bear their or its own attorney’s fees

and costs.

Dated this 29th day of November, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02278-WJM-KLM Document 28 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 883 

Honoring the heroic service and sacrifice of the 350 American soldiers 

detained at the Nazi camp at Berga during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. BACA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the heroic service and sacrifice of the 350 American soldiers detained at the Nazi camp at Berga during 

World War II. 

Whereas in December 1944, over 19,000 United States soldiers died and more than 23,000 were captured at the 

Battle of the Bulge; 

Whereas of those captured, 350 American soldiers were segregated and sent to Berga, Germany; 

Whereas in February 1945, the 350 American soldiers arrived at a camp called Berga an der Elster; 

Whereas this is the only case in which Nazi Germany segregated American soldiers to such a degree; 

Whereas these soldiers were victims of the Nazi policy of 

physical destruction through labor, mostly digging tunVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:06 Dec 19, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR883.IH HR883

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 883 IH 

nels for an underground armaments factory without 

proper masks, overcoats, or protective footwear; 

Whereas these soldiers were sent to a Nazi camp and detained for over 50 days under inhumane conditions in 

violation of the Geneva Conventions Accord; 

Whereas at least 70 American soldiers died at Berga or on 

the death march, making this the highest number of 

American military fatalities at any German camp; 

Whereas on April 22, 1945, the Allied forces freed the American soldiers; 

Whereas in 50 days, there will only be 250 survivors of the 

original 350 American soldiers from the Berga camp; 

Whereas Berga camp survivors reside in Alabama, California, 

Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and New York; and 

Whereas many of these soldiers were unjustly denied rightful 

recognition of their service: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the United States House of Rep2 resentatives— 

3 (1) recognizes and expresses its appreciation for 

4 the courageous and loyal contributions made by the 

5 soldiers detained in Berga, Germany; and 

6 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

7 to recognize the service and loyalty of the soldiers 

8 detained in Berga, Germany. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 359,873 58,377 56,103 132,362 18,952 18,928 18,467 Number of loans 11,901 2,019 2,799 3,280 893 154 638 Weighted average maturity (months)1 22.18 15.97 10.71 24.93 77.32 17.94 38.36 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 10.57 7.71 5.54 11.80 15.98 17.70 18.40 

Weighted average risk rating3 2.59 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate4 9.04 8.61 9.18 9.00 9.63 9.05 9.88 

 Standard error5 .07 .16 .14 .13 .21 .45 .22 

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.50 8.95 9.49 9.35 10.20 9.20 10.26  25th percentile 8.42 8.25 8.75 8.74 9.11 8.94 9.79  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.26 8.21 9.22 8.89 10.08 10.55 9.91  Other livestock 9.29 9.57 n.a. 9.53 10.20 9.65 9.63  Other current operating expenses7 9.03 8.59 9.09 9.08 9.40 9.01 10.06 

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.68 8.01 9.14 8.80 10.14 n.a. 8.52  Farm real estate 8.63 8.62 8.25 8.29 8.84 n.a. 11.07  Other8 9.13 8.86 9.44 7.72 10.29 9.17 9.75 

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 35.25 32.72 60.21 30.32 71.60 1.82 41.32  Under commitment 59.92 80.16 66.33 58.87 50.39 95.57 66.35  Callable 23.19 12.20 15.23 37.79 41.58 .95 n.a Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.51 1.88 12.84 5.61 18.18 .95 21.65  Other livestock 9.07 3.23 21.70 6.57 5.20 4.43 3.86  Other current operating expenses7 68.08 84.27 54.26 73.71 35.72 92.93 52.36 

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.16 2.81 2.76 6.51 3.08 n.a. 9.17  Farm real estate 4.62 3.04 2.63 4.79 20.63 n.a. 3.79  Other8 4.56 4.77 5.80 2.82 17.20 1.70 9.17 

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 12.21 6.71 6.39 13.13 42.33 29.76 3.79  Other 84.24 90.12 91.33 86.43 56.85 n.a. n.a Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2193 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2193

               To suspend temporarily the duty on prenol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2001

 Mr. McCrery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To suspend temporarily the duty on prenol.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON PRENOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.30.27    3-methyl-2        Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     butene-1-ol                                                             31/2004          ''
                     (CAS No. 556-82-                                                                          .
                     1) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2905.29.90)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mount Sinai Hospital, as Assignee of Trinidad Goforth, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 726]

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered April 20, 2005, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action, asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Mount Sinai Hospital, as assignee of Trinidad Goforth, and, in effect, denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

In support of that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action, asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Mount Sinai Hospital, as assignee of Trinidad Goforth (hereinafter Mount Sinai), sufficient evidentiary proof was submitted to establish, prima facie, that the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate), did not pay or deny Mount Sinai’s claim for no-fault medical payments *674within 30 days as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (c). However, the evidence submitted by Allstate in opposition to the motion and in support of that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, while insufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Mount Sinai complied with a demand for verification in accordance with the mandates of 11 NYCRR former 65.15 (g) (1) (i) and (2) (iii). Until it is established when the 30-day period within which Allstate was required to respond began to run, any claim for payment was premature *(see*11 NYCRR former 65.15 [g] [1] [i]; [2] [iii]; *Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*8 AD3d 533 [2004]; *St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v American Tr. Ins. Co.,*299 AD2d 338, 340 [2002]; *Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*262 AD2d 553 [1999]; *see also Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*24 AD3d 492 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, but should not have granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02259-RPM 

JACQULYN BISHOP, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and 

YELLOW BOOK GROUP INSURANCE PLAN,

Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

____________________________________________________________________________________

Upon the stipulated motion of the parties, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Each party shall bear his or its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: December 23rd , 2011. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Richard P. Matsch

_______________________________________ 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02259-RPM Document 12 Filed 12/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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







Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of M Power Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the
      "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:




·
            The
                Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form 10-QSB")
                of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
                and





·
            the
                information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
                material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.










Dated:August
      13, 2007











/s/
      Gary
      F. Kimmons


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


Gary
      F.
      Kimmons, President,


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer