alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, February 1-5, 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) 1,044,105 29,301 62,965 86,379 131,154 252,9Number of loans 16,485 5,383 4,174 2,531 1,895 1,6Weighted average maturity (months)1 14.74 8.18 10.15 11.80 13.21 14.4

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 4.80 2.38 3.42 4.35 4.72 5.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.25 3.13 3.18 3.26 3.24 3.

Weighted average interest rate4 4.78 5.34 5.34 5.13 4.95 4. Standard error5 .28 .22 .13 .14 .25 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.75 6.06 6.18 6.16 5.90 5. 25th percentile 3.79 4.85 4.75 4.30 4.07 4.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.54 5.21 5.56 4.98 4.58 5.0 Other livestock 4.71 5.51 4.95 5.00 4.57 4.0 Other current operating expenses7 5.22 5.47 5.49 5.29 5.15 5.

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.88 6.57 6.00 6.24 5.60 5. Farm real estate 6.11 3.86 5.79 5.43 6.34 5. Other8 3.42 4.17 4.29 3.89 3.97 3.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 77.90 85.35 82.64 79.88 81.51 81. Under commitment 70.51 90.29 82.73 75.28 79.80 70.0 Callable 15.03 26.07 23.00 17.46 16.80 23.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.64 5.83 6.39 7.43 7.58 7.7 Other livestock 5.78 6.32 4.30 4.23 5.19 4. Other current operating expenses7 54.98 73.20 68.16 64.94 56.01 58. Farm machinery and equipment 6.02 3.25 4.35 6.23 6.73 4.4 Farm real estate 5.00 .69 2.86 3.69 5.59 6. Other8 21.59 10.72 13.93 13.48 18.90 18.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 11.61 7.56 7.76 12.22 7.36 12. Other 85.73 89.36 89.67 83.91 90.61 82. 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio SALDANA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50249. D.C. No. CR-01-03114-MJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

*680Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Sergio Saldana appeals his jury conviction and consequent 24-month sentence imposed for importing two kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Saldana contends that the district court erred by excluding certain post-arrest statements he made to the investigating agent and limiting cross-examination of the agent regarding those statements, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We review for abuse of discretion the exclusion of evidence under the hearsay rule, *United States v. Matta-Ballesteros,*71 F.3d 754, 767 (9th Cir.1995), *amended by*98 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.1996), as well as a limitation on the scope of cross examination, *United States v. Domina,*784 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir.1986). The district court did not abuse its discretion because a defendant’s non self-inculpatory post-arrest statements to police officers are inadmissable hearsay unless they are offered against him by the prosecutor. *See United States v. Ortega,*203 F.3d 675, 682-83 (9th Cir.2000). It follows that limiting cross-examination to preclude eliciting this inadmissible hearsay was proper. *See id.*at 683; *United States v. Lo,*231 F.3d 471, 482 (9th Cir.2000) (affirming limitation on cross-examination due to “highly speculative” nature of allegations to be explored).

Saldana contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Where, as here, the defendant objected to alleged acts of prosecutorial misconduct at trial, we review for harmless error. *United States v. Cabrera,*201 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2000). Upon review of the record, we find no error. *See United States v. Ochoa-Sanchez,*676 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir.1982) (finding no prosecutorial misconduct where testimony was favorable to defendant and he failed to identify any prejudice).

The district court did not err in denying Saldana’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on faulty grand jury instructions. *See United States v. Marcucci,*299 F.3d 1156, 1164 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam).

Saldana’s contention that the drug statutes are facially unconstitutional is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Hernandez,*322 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2003).

Saldana’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 provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GERALD PARKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-94-73, CA-96-90-4-BO)

Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Gerald Parker seeks to appeal from the district

court's order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Because we find that Appellant did not challenge the alleged

use of coerced confessions from Government witnesses on direct

appeal, the district court's reliance on Boeckenhaupt v. United

States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976), as a basis for dismissal was erroneous. However, we find that this error was harmless

because the district court properly denied relief on the alternative basis that there was no admissible evidence to support the

claim. We further find that the record does not support Appellant's

allegations concerning prosecutorial misconduct and the existence

of a racial and political conspiracy against him. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and, in all other respects,

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Parker, Nos. CR-94-73; CA-96-90-4-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 22,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Lugo, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 94]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John N. Byrne, J.), entered on or about February 26, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment, same court (Gerald Sheindlin, J), rendered May 24, 1994, convicting him, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 45 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s principal claim is that the main prosecution witness at his murder trial gave false testimony. However, defendant’s submissions do not support that claim. Defendant submitted the following: an excerpt from a book about the instant murders and related investigations, which does not indicate the source of its information; two affidavits that consist entirely of hearsay and lack any exculpatory value; the plea allocution of another person involved in the murders, which contains nothing inconsistent with defendant’s guilt and which instead tends to support the People’s theory at defendant’s trial; and a patently incredible recantation affidavit from the lead witness at the trial. This material, even when viewed as a whole, does not warrant a new trial on a theory of newly discovered evidence or violation of due process, nor does it warrant an evidentiary hearing *(see People v Cintron,*306 AD2d 151 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 641 [2003]).

Defendant’s claims under *Brady v Maryland*(373 US 83 [1963]) are similarly without merit. There is no evidence that the People failed to disclose exculpatory material. Concur— Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
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: 2Federal Reserve Bank of: New YorkFilings received during the week ending January 17, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP TRUST, THE                                                            * 3A3The Adirondack Trust Company Employee Stock Ownership Trust, Saratoga Springs, New York, to acquire fifty additional shares of 473 Broadway Holding Corporation and two thousand additional shares of The Adirondack Trust Company, both of Saratoga Springs, New York.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 01/29/2015
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

ISONICS CORPORATION

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350of the

Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”)of Isonics Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended July 31,2008, each of the undersigned Christopher Toffales, the Chief Executive Officerof Isonics Corporation, and Gregory A. Meadows, the Chief Financial Officer ofIsonics Corporation 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 the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:

 

1.             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| September 18,  2008 | /s/  Christopher Toffales                      |
|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                           |
|                     | Christopher  Toffales, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Integral Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended September 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William M. Bambarger, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ WILLIAM M. BAMBARGER             
|William M. Bambarger                 
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|Date: December 24, 2008
H. Res. 877 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 18, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

6) to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency 

of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on 

and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and 

to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to 

the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the text, 

and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 

point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 

XXI, a motion offered by the Majority Leader or his designee 

that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate 

amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 

motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader 

or their designees. The previous question shall be considered 
2 

•HRES 877 EH 

as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of the motion to concur 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated by 

the Speaker. 

SEC. 3. On the first legislative day of the second session 

of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, the House shall not 

conduct organizational or legislative business. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-205-PB

Michael Martelluci

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

December 4, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and prepare a defense. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from December 4, 2007 to February 5, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

Case 1:07-cr-00205-PB Document 17 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 20, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 29, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 16, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00205-PB Document 17 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2
---

EXHIBIT 32.2




Certificate Pursuant to Section 906


of Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002


CERTIFICATION OF CFO




In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Bovie Medical Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: August 16, 2012/s/ Gary D. PickettGary D. PickettChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

     Certificate 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 First Georgia Community Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John L.
Coleman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
             15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ John L. Coleman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John L. Coleman, President and C.E.O.
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)


August 12, 2002
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 23.2





                         Report of Independent Auditors

Shareholders and Board of Directors
Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.

We have audited the balance sheet of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. as of
October 2, 1999 and the related statements of income, shareholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended October 2, 1999. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Span-America Medical Systems,
Inc. at October 2, 1999, and the results of its operations and its cash flows
for each of the two years in the period ended October 2, 1999, in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.


                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


October 27, 1999
56855-0011/LEGAL22775669.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Judge John L. Kane 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02236-JLK 

KENNETH P. ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OPPENHEIMERFUNDS, INC., 

a Colorado Corporation, 

OPPENHEIMERFUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC., 

a New York Corporation, and 

ANGELO MANIOUDAKIS, 

Defendants. 

MINUTE ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY

Judge John L. Kane ORDERS 

Defendants’ Unopposed Motion For Stay (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. This matter is stayed 

through and including Friday April 13, 2012. If the Parties have not filed a dismissal by that date, 

the Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report on April 13, 2012. 

Dated February 14, 2012. 

 

Case 1:11-cv-02236-JLK Document 7 Filed 02/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. AD08-13-000] 

Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold a technical conference on October 14, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be open for the public to attend and advance registration is not required. Members of the Commission may attend the conference. 

The purpose of this conference is to explore barriers to transmission development. The agenda for this conference will be published at a later time. 

                    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an e-mail to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.                 

                    For more information about this conference, please contact: Katie Detweiler, 202-502-6424,                     *katie.detweiler@ferc.gov*                     or Sarah McKinley, 202-502-8368,                     *sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov*.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-23064 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT (99)

                        Report of Independent Auditors



Board of Directors and Shareholders
First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders' equity, and cash flows of First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc. and
subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 1997. These financial statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated results of First Oak Brook Bancshares,
Inc. and subsidiary's operations and cash flows for the year ended December 31,
1997, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States.


/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
January 20, 1998