alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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) 462,529 28,904 57,507 50,554 43,237 101,30Number of loans 12,642 5,414 3,911 1,578 680 68Weighted average maturity (months)1 33.20 12.36 14.25 15.33 26.94 41.8

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 15.20 6.80 9.12 8.80 13.33 22.7

Weighted average risk rating3 2.54 2.40 2.31 2.39 2.31 2.5

Weighted average interest rate4 8.47 8.49 8.79 8.56 8.77 8.4

 Standard error5 .16 .21 .13 .22 .39 .2

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.00 9.14 9.31 9.10 9.15 9.0 25th percentile 7.98 8.04 8.15 8.22 7.75 7.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.91 8.97 8.74 8.26 8.60 8.8 Other livestock 8.98 9.03 8.84 9.30 7.76 9.0 Other current operating expenses7 8.55 8.35 8.76 8.65 8.39 8.8

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.80 8.47 8.73 8.62 9.76 9.1 Farm real estate 8.01 9.11 9.37 7.97 10.59 7.6 Other8 8.49 9.30 8.30 6.91 n.a. 8.7

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 36.32 49.82 41.84 45.34 47.53 26.3 Under commitment 58.06 68.88 43.63 51.12 53.03 44.6 Callable 32.19 19.59 12.78 23.93 4.79 18.8 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.65 6.32 5.69 10.61 5.09 1.7 Other livestock 6.18 10.05 15.76 10.49 3.34 9.7 Other current operating expenses7 57.66 72.77 62.20 56.56 70.50 42.5

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.81 8.50 9.64 10.58 9.22 4.3 Farm real estate 13.51 .24 4.69 8.32 11.84 32.2 Other8 7.19 2.12 2.03 3.43 n.a. 9.4

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 26.74 6.83 4.83 5.69 12.77 38.8 Other 72.27 90.30 91.18 93.53 84.82 61.1 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.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1954

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26, 2001

Received

AN ACT

To extend the authorities of the Iran and Libya Sanctions

Act of 1996 until 2006, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1954 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ILSA Extension Act

3 of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO

5 LIBYA.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5(b)(2) of the Iran and

7 Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; 110

8 Stat. 1543) is amended by striking ‘‘$40,000,000’’ each

9 place it appears and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 subsection (a) shall apply to investments made on or after

12 June 13, 2001.

13 SEC. 3. REPORTS REQUIRED.

14 Section 10 of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of

15 1996 (Public Law 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is

16 amended—

17 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub18 section (c); and

19 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol20 lowing:

21 ‘‘(b) REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS

22 UNDER THIS ACT.—Not earlier than 24 months, and not

23 later than 30 months, after the date of the enactment of

24 the ILSA Extension Act of 2001, the President shall

25 transmit to Congress a report that describes—
3

HR 1954 RDS

1 ‘‘(1) the extent to which actions relating to

2 trade taken pursuant to this Act—

3 ‘‘(A) have been effective in achieving the

4 objectives of section 3 and any other foreign

5 policy or national security objectives of the

6 United States with respect to Iran and Libya;

7 and

8 ‘‘(B) have affected humanitarian interests

9 in Iran and Libya, the country in which the

10 sanctioned person is located, or in other coun11 tries; and

12 ‘‘(2) the impact of actions relating to trade

13 taken pursuant to this Act on other national secu14 rity, economic, and foreign policy interests of the

15 United States, including relations with countries

16 friendly to the United States, and on the United

17 States economy.

18 The President may include in the report the President’s

19 recommendation on whether or not this Act should be ter20 minated or modified.’’.

21 SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF

22 1996.

23 Section 13(b) of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act

24 of 1996 (Public Law 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is

25 amended by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’.
4

HR 1954 RDS

1 SEC. 5. REVISED DEFINITION OF INVESTMENT.

2 Section 14(9) of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act

3 of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; 110 Stat. 1549) is amend4 ed by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For

5 purposes of this paragraph, an amendment or other modi6 fication that is made, on or after June 13, 2001, to an

7 agreement or contract shall be treated as the entry of an

8 agreement or contract.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### L&S Motors, Inc., Doing Business as Huntington Honda, Appellant, v Broadview Networks, Inc., Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 777]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated February 16, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, L&S Motors, Inc., doing business as Huntington Honda, is an automobile dealership and the defendant, Broad-view Networks, Inc., is a provider of telephone services. In 2000 the parties entered into a contract for telephone services containing a provision stating that defendant would not be liable “for any special, consequential, punitive, or incidental damages including loss of use, profits, revenue or goodwill.” In 2004 the plaintiff allegedly experienced 42 days of faulty telephone service and thereafter commenced this action to recover “damages relating to advertising expenses, lost profits, goodwill . . . and other consequential and incidental damages.” The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1)—“defense founded upon documentary evidence.” We affirm.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) can be granted only if the movant presents documentary evidence that will conclusively dispose of the claim (see *Roth v Goldman,*254 AD2d 405 [1998]; *Fischbach & Moore v Howell Co.,*240 AD2d 157 [1997]). In the case at bar, the defendant demonstrated that the causes of action alleged in the complaint were barred by the provision of the contract which absolved the defendant from liability for the very damages sought by the plaintiff (see *David Gutter Furs v Jewelers Protection Servs.,*79 NY2d 1027 [1992]; *Collins v Adriatic Painting & Decorating,*272 AD2d 502 [2000]; *Aphrodite Jewelry v D&W Cent. Sta. Alarm Co.,*256 AD2d 288 [1998]; *Hartford Ins. Co. v Holmes Protection Group,*250 AD2d 526 [1998]; *cf. Matter of New York Tel. Co. v Public Serv. Commn. of State of N.Y.,*271 AD2d 35 [2000]). Furthermore, while “[p]ublic policy . . . forbids a party’s attempt to escape liability through a contractual clause for damages occasioned” by *768gross negligent conduct *(Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs.,*81 NY2d 821, 823 [1993]), the plaintiff did not allege conduct rising to the level of gross negligence or constituting malfeasance. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3930-19

BRIAN BUTCH,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICK CUTTRELL, Custodian

of Records for the Township 

of Neptune,

Defendant,

and

TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Submitted January 5, 2022 – Decided January 12, 2022

Before Judges Gilson and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-1109-18.

Marmero Law, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Michael 

R. Burns, on the briefs).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3930-19

Law Office of Donald F. Burke, attorneys for 

respondent (Donald F. Burke and Donald F. Burke Jr., 

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

We have been advised that this matter has been amicably resolved and the 

parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal 

is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

Dismissed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50072

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COBOS , Plaintiff

–

Appellant ,

v ersus MARK DONALDSON, Ector County Sheriff , Defendant

– Appellee

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CV

- 105

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Cobos , Texas prisoner # 2032199 , moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ( “ IFP ” ) to appeal t he dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 26, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50072 Document: 00513968733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017No. 16

- 50072

2 rights complaint. The district court denied Cobos’s motion to proceed IFP, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving in this court for IFP status, Cobos is challenging th at certification. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Cobos contends that the district court impermissibly de nied him the opportuni ty to amend his complaint after a motion to dismiss had been filed

. The court, however, gave Cobos the chance to present his best case; the court iden tified deficiencies in Cobos’s initial complaint, ordered him to file a more defini te statement, then granted his motion to amend. See Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994) . Cobos did not seek to amend again after the motion to dismiss had been submitted. Moreover, Cobos complains that he was not served with one of the court’s orders, which, he maintains, resulted i n dis mis

sal, but he does not explain how the case would have turned out differ ently had he received proper notice.
In his motion, Cobos does not address the district court’s reasons for the certification decision , namely, that Cobos failed to state a claim for relief and that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity

. See Baugh , 117 F.3d
at 202. Thus Cobos has abandoned his challenge to the certification decision. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219

- 20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, it is DISMISSED

. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Cobos’s motions for permission to proceed IFP and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED. The dismissal of the

com plaint and the appeal both count as s trikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996)

. Cobos is WARNED that if he accumulates a third strike , he wi ll not be allowed Case: 16-50072 Document: 00513968733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2017No. 16

- 50072

3 to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 16-50072 Document: 00513968733 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
#### SANDRONI v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

I, John Lackland, Chief Financial Officer of Power EfficiencyCorporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.              the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company forthe quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.              the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date:  August 12, 2005

 
| BY:    | /s/ John Lackland                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | John Lackland                                                                                               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer                                                         |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant 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) and is notbeing filed as part of a separate disclosure document.

 

1

----
H. Res. 856 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 17, 2007. 

Whereas the community of Omaha, Nebraska has suffered 

through a tragic event at the Westroads Mall that resulted in the loss of 9 lives and the wounding of several 

others; 

Whereas on December 5, 2007, a troubled young man entered a department store in the Westroads Mall in 

Omaha, Nebraska carrying a rifle; 

Whereas the young man began to randomly fire his rifle at 

shoppers and store clerks within the Von Maur department store and other locations within Westroads Mall; 

Whereas the result of this shooting spree resulted in the 

deaths of Gary Scharf, John McDonald, Angie Schuster, 

Maggie Webb, Janet Jorgensen, Diane Trent, Gary Joy, 

and Beverly Flynn; 

Whereas Fred Wilson, Michelle Oldham, Jeff Schaffert, and 

Brad Stafford were wounded as a result of the shootings; 

Whereas the first responders, officers of the Omaha Police 

Department, Douglas and Sarpy County Sheriff’s Department, and Omaha Fire Department, arrived at the 

Westroads Mall within minutes and secured all entrances 

and exits to the mall and discovered a number of deceased persons, including the shooter; 
2 

•HRES 856 EH 

Whereas on December 6, 2007 Nebraska Governor Dave 

Heineman ordered that all United States and State flags 

in Nebraska be flown at half-staff through Sunday, Dec. 

9; and 

Whereas the grieving and celebration of the lives of those lost 

in this senseless tragedy will be with the greater Omaha 

community for months and years to come: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses its heartfelt sympathy for the victims 

and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska on 

Wednesday, December 5, 2007; and 

(2) conveys its gratitude to the city and county officials, and all the police, fire, sheriff, and emergency 

medical teams who responded swiftly to the scene and 

secured the mall and surrounding area. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Stephen Lussier

Criminal No . 08-cr-125-01-JD

O R D E R

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

7) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant 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 .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : November 25, 200 8

cc : Bruce Kenna, Esq .

Robert Kinsella, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00125-JD Document 8 Filed 11/25/08 Page 1 of 1
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: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending April 12, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBERKSHIRE HILLS BANCORP, INC                                                                                            * 3A1Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., Pittsfield, Massachusetts (Berkshire), to become a bank holding company pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, in connection with the conversion of its subsidiary savings bank, Berkshire Bank, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to a Massachusetts trust company.  Berkshire also elects to become a financial holding company.Newspaper: 05/02/2014Federal Register: 05/01/2014BLUE HILLS BANCORP, INC                                                                                                 * 3A1Application by Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc., Hyde Park, Massachusetts to acquire 100% of the outstanding capital stock of Blue Hills Bank, Hyde Park, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act of 1956, as amended, in connection with the conversion of Hyde Park Bancorp, MHC, Hyde Park, Massachusetts from mutual to stock form.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/21/2014KENNEBEC SAVINGS, MHC                                                                                                   * 3A1
**Exhibit
        32.02**
  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 Westside Energy Corporation (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"),
        the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
        certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 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.
 
 Dated:
                  November 14, 2007
              /s/
                  Sean J. AustinSean
                  J. Austin,Chief
                  Financial Officer
<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>                                  417,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    528,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,559,880
<PP&E>                                      23,037,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,359,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,263,618
<BONDS>                                      4,464,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,941,357
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,203,695)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,359,783
<SALES>                                      1,289,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,289,430
<CGS>                                          884,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,132,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (169,618)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             511,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (673,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   242,580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (431,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (431,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
## NUMBER 13

- 1 9

- 00 614

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A . A. G., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

Appellant, Erika Garza , appealed a judgment entered by the 28th District Court of

Nueces County, Texas. On December 4, 2019 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

that her Notice of Appeal was defective and requested it be corrected within 30 days.

Additionally

, on December 19, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant, in

accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss thi s

appeal unless the $ 205.00 filing fee was paid within 10 days

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(c)

.2 Appellant has not responded to either notice from the Clerk n or paid the $ 20 5.00 filing

fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 5, 12.1(b).

The Court, having considered the docu ments on file and appellant ’ s failure to pay

the filing fee , is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

JAIME TIJERINA,

Justice

Delivere d and filed the

20th day of February , 20 20

.