alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Release Date: September 30, 2005*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 10   | 1                                      | 1                                                     | 3 | 6 | .048 | .003 | .003 | .013 | .026 |
| 12   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 6 | 4 | .055 | -.001 | .011 | .027 | .016 |
| 7    | 0                                      | 1                                                     | 2 | 4 | .031 | .000 | .003 | .009 | .017 |
| 16   | -1                                     | 0                                                     | 3 | 14 | .064 | -.003 | -.001 | .010 | .054 |
| 6    | -1                                     | 3                                                     | 0 | 5 | .022 | -.004 | .009 | .000 | .016 |
| 15   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 5 | 7 | .051 | -.001 | .011 | .015 | .022 |
| 12   | -12                                    | 3                                                     | 8 | 14 | .037 | -.037 | .009 | .022 | .040 |
| 42   | 10                                     | 9                                                     | 5 | 17 | .123 | .030 | .027 | .014 | .049 |
| 35   | 8                                      | 6                                                     | 5 | 16 | .097 | .022 | .017 | .014 | .041 |
| 32   | 4                                      | 6                                                     | 8 | 14 | .082 | .010 | .015 | .021 | .034 |
| 18   | 1                                      | 5                                                     | 2 | 10 | .044 | .003 | .012 | .005 | .021 |
| n.a. | 2                                      | 11                                                    | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | .005 | .024 | n.a. | n.a. |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

B.K., et al.

v. Civil No. 09-cv-94-JL

N.H. Department of Health and

Human Services, et al.

 O R D E R

Plaintiff B.K.’s motion to stay this case until September 5,

2012 is GRANTED. While the court vehemently disagrees with

nearly the entire substance of BK's motion, the fact remains

that, as a result of other pressing matters--including a busy

September trial schedule--it is highly unlikely that the court

would have taken any action in this case prior to September 5,

2012 regardless. For the same reason, the final pretrial

conference in this matter is continued until Tuesday, November

20, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., and trial is continued until Tuesday,

December 4, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 13, 2012

cc: B.K., pro se

S.K., pro se

James Spencer Culp, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-00094-JL Document 100 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 2
Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00094-JL Document 100 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 2109

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study

of Virginia Key Beach Park in Biscayne Bay, Florida, for possible inclusion

in the National Park System.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STUDY AND CRITERIA.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred

to as ‘‘the Secretary’’) shall conduct a study of Virginia Key Beach

Park in Biscayne Bay, Florida, which was used for recreation by

African Americans at a time when public beaches were racially

segregated by law. The study shall evaluate the national significance of the site and the suitability and feasibility of establishing

the site as a unit of the National Park System.

(b) CRITERIA.—In conducting the study required by subsection

(a), the Secretary shall use the criteria for the study of areas

for potential inclusion in the National Park System contained in

section 8 of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5; popularly known

as the National Park System General Authorities Act).

SEC. 2. REPORT.

Upon completion of the study, the Secretary shall transmit

to the Congress a report on the findings of the study and the

conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tony L. Ellison

v.

NH Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 07-fp-131

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $12.40 is due no later than June

20, 2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income

credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-131-SM.

SO ORDERED.

__________

es R. Muirhead

ted States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 10, 2007

cc: Tony L. Ellison, pro se

Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:07-cv-00131-SM Document 6 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 1 of 1

Ellison v. NH Department of Corrections et al Doc. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
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) 502,367 22,418 43,801 44,498 68,815 98,83Number of loans 10,720 4,192 2,973 1,340 1,098 68Weighted average maturity (months)1 42.34 11.79 15.60 19.90 16.32 27.1

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 26.95 7.18 10.03 13.46 9.31 12.5

Weighted average risk rating3 2.31 2.34 2.22 2.65 2.32 2.2

Weighted average interest rate4 6.82 7.55 7.18 7.06 7.13 6.8

 Standard error5 .13 .18 .18 .21 .24 .3

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.28 8.18 7.95 7.95 8.08 7.6 25th percentile 6.09 6.94 6.40 6.35 6.18 6.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.59 8.03 8.66 7.63 6.45 7.0 Other livestock 7.75 8.70 7.33 7.47 7.90 7.7 Other current operating expenses7 6.86 7.28 6.99 7.01 7.09 6.7

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.80 7.95 7.56 6.76 6.74 6.7 Farm real estate 6.50 8.06 7.49 7.07 6.66 6.0 Other8 6.71 7.50 8.42 6.40 6.82 n.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 42.91 37.53 35.56 41.88 51.69 50.7 Under commitment 52.83 58.33 56.92 55.15 52.34 40.9 Callable 20.93 18.37 17.84 18.10 15.96 12.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.64 4.62 1.08 9.18 3.92 8.7 Other livestock 7.14 9.39 8.41 13.99 13.12 14.9 Other current operating expenses7 55.05 69.89 70.10 57.27 70.85 49.6

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.33 13.17 13.67 9.41 6.48 6.9 Farm real estate 22.77 .62 3.07 2.10 2.17 19.6 Other8 3.08 2.30 3.66 8.05 3.46 n.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 30.39 5.29 15.26 15.10 8.35 21.2 Other 68.24 89.22 81.09 79.86 89.02 78.7 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Brown, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 650]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered January 14, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who initially indicated that he might “tend to” credit police testimony. That statement did not “cast serious doubt on [his] ability to render an impartial verdict” *(People*
      *385
      *v Arnold,*96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]), and, in any event, he then gave the court an unequivocal assurance that he could make a proper credibility determination regardless of the occupation of a witness. The panelist’s response was not rendered equivocal by the court’s use of the word “think” in its inquiry (see *People v Chambers,*97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]).

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see *People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The court precluded inquiry into a substantial portion of defendant’s very extensive criminal record, and the drug convictions that the court allowed were highly probative of defendant’s credibility, and were relevant to his agency defense *(see People v Brathwaite,*238 AD2d 125 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 891 [1997]). Defendant’s related complaints about the prosecutor’s cross-examination and summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them to be without merit.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
#### Re-Max Classic Realty, Inc., Appellant, v Howard Berger et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 307]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated May 4, 2004, as denied that branch *681of its motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, and (2) from an order of the same court dated December 15, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the order dated May 4, 2004, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of whether a co-brokerage agreement existed between the parties.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the order dated May 4, 2004, are dismissed, as the portions of the order appealed and cross-appealed from have been rendered academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated December 15, 2004; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 15, 2004, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). However, the plaintiff presented mere conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations, which were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra*at 325; *Zuckerman v City of New York, supra,*at 562). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions on the appeal from the order dated December 15, 2004, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Amendment to Shared Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.92 
  
 AMENDMENT TO SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment dated as of December 30, 2003 by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc.
(“Mission”) is made to that certain Shared Services Agreement dated as of February 16, 1999 by and between VHR Broadcasting of Lubbock, Inc. (“VHR”) and Quorum Broadcasting of Texas, Inc. (“Quorum”), as amended (the
“Agreement”). 
  
 WHEREAS, VHR is the operator of
television broadcast station KAMC, Lubbock, Texas (the “Station”) and its subsidiary VHR Lubbock License, Inc. (“VHR License”) is the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) licensee of the Station; 
  
 WHEREAS, Quorum is the operator of television broadcast station KLBK-TV,
Lubbock, Texas and its subsidiary Quorum of Texas License, LLC is the FCC licensee of station KLBK-TV; 
  
 WHEREAS, VHR and Quorum entered into the Agreement for their mutual benefit; 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to FCC consent, Kenos Broadcasting, Inc. is (i) acquiring all of VHR’s and VHR License’s rights,
title and interest in and to the Station and then (ii) merging with and into Mission; and 
  
 WHEREAS, also pursuant to FCC consent, Nexstar is acquiring Quorum’s and Quorum License’s rights, title and interest in and to KLBK-TV; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar intend that the Agreement between VHR and Quorum remain in effect with certain changes in
terms. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. Mission is hereby assuming all of VHR’s and VHR License’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 2. Nexstar is hereby assuming all of Quorum’s and Quorum License’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 3. Paragraph 4(g) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the
following is substituted in its place: “4(g) Services Fee. In consideration for the services to be provided to KOLR by Nexstar personnel as described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f), Mission will pay to Nexstar the fee (the “Services
Fee”) described in this Section 4(g). 
  
 (i) Base Amount. Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 4(g), the base amount of the Services Fee will be $ $150,000 per month. 
  









 (ii) Payment Terms. The Services Fee will be payable monthly, in arrears, from and after
the month during which this Agreement is executed, and will be prorated on a daily basis for first and last months during which the sharing arrangements described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f) are in effect. 
  
 4. As so amended, all sections and provisions of the Agreement are hereby
ratified in full. 
  









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the date first written above.

  

			
	 NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ G. Robert Thompson

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 G. Robert Thompson

	 Title:
	 	 CFO



  

			
	 MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ David S. Smith

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 David S. Smith

	 Title:
	 	 President
#### Rachel Gluck et al., Appellants, v Fantastic, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Landau Supermarket, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[807 NYS2d 304]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated August 18, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant *652Landau Supermarket, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action alleging common-law negligence, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered December 8, 2004, as dismissed the fourth cause of action alleging common-law negligence.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the respondent Landau Supermarket, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action alleging common-law negligence. In opposition to the respondent’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

We note that the plaintiffs’ contentions regarding its separate causes of action sounding in negligence per se and/or strict products liability based upon specifically-alleged statutory violations are not properly raised on this appeal. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### The State, ex rel. Caston, *v.*Brindle, Supt. of Public Works.

(No. 24675

— Decided April 18, 1934.)

*Mr. Frank B. Burch, Mr. Walter C. Quayle*and *Mr. Willis Bacon,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. William J. Ford,*for respondent.

This cause came on to "be heard upon the demurrer of the respondent to the relator’s petition, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the demurrer be, and the same is hereby, sustained on authority of *Cullen, Vice Mayor,*v. *State, ex rel. City of Toledo,*105 Ohio St., 545.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that a writ of mandamus be, and the same hereby is, denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                      -----------------------------


We consent to  the incorporation by  reference in Registration  Statements No.
2-88721,  33-2481,  33-18221,  33-32596,  33-32597,  33-44633,  33-67782   and
33-67784 of Gibson Greetings,  Inc. on Form S-8  of our report dated  February
12, 1997, appearing in  this Annual Report on  Form 10-K of Gibson  Greetings,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
--------------------------

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 27, 1997





























                                     -76-
PAGE
<PAGE>
Exhibit 11
                                                                      ----------
                             CRAGAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
                  Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share

Earnings Per Share

<TABLE><CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                            2002              2001
                                                         ---------        ----------
<S>                                                      <C>              <C>
Net Earnings                                             $ 289,049        $   58,453
Less: Preferred Stock Dividends in Arrears                                      --
                                                         ---------        ----------

Earnings Available for Common Stockholders               $ 289,049        $   58,453
                                                         =========        ==========

Basic EPS - Weighted Average Shares Outstanding          3,897,611         3,627,014
                                                         =========        ==========

Basic Earnings Per Share                                 $    0.07        $     0.02
                                                         =========        ==========


Basic EPS - Weighted Average Shares Outstanding          3,897,611         3,627,014

Effect of Diluted Securities:
                   Stock Options and Warrants                4,289         1,748,641
                                                         ---------        ----------

Diluted EPS - Weighted Average Shares Outstanding        3,901,900         5,375,655
                                                         =========        ==========

Diluted Earnings Per Share                               $    0.07        $     0.01
                                                         =========        ==========



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02244-RM-MJW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RICHARD WILMER, and

ROCK WEISS,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Second Joint Motion Requesting Stay of

Proceedings (Docket No. 130) is granted, and all proceedings and deadlines in this

case are stayed until September 20, 2013. The parties have advised the court that they

have agreed to settlement terms and lodged a fully-executed Consent Decree with the

court on August 1, 2013, obviating the need to conduct any additional pretrial

proceedings. (See Docket No. 129). 

Date: August 16, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02244-RM-MJW Document 132 Filed 08/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
8

A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMonths

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1996...... 8.5 7.8 11.3 7.6 29.4 9.2 8.6 10.5 12.1 7.3 1997...... 9.9 9.1 11.0 10.7 30.6 7.4 8.8 11.6 12.4 8.8 1998...... 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.9 27.5 6.8 8.8 11.3 12.5 8.7 1999...... 11.5 8.0 11.0 11.3 20.1 10.5 9.8 11.2 12.4 11.4 2000...... 11.2 8.0 10.8 9.5 22.4 13.2 9.7 11.5 11.1 11.4 2001...... 13.2 8.5 14.0 10.3 24.3 15.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 14.1 2002...... 11.2 8.6 11.5 10.2 23.3 11.7 9.4 10.9 12.5 10.8 2003...... 12.5 8.5 9.4 11.1 26.5 14.4 9.5 11.2 12.7 12.9 2004...... 11.9 9.2 11.9 10.0 23.3 12.0 9.6 11.8 12.9 11.7 2005...... 12.9 9.4 10.0 9.9 18.9 18.3 9.3 11.4 13.5 13.1 2006...... 12.7 8.7 12.9 10.0 15.9 18.3 9.6 11.7 12.6 13.1 2007...... 13.3 9.9 15.1 9.7 21.4 18.5 9.8 11.8 11.6 14.3 2004: Q3... 10.4 7.1 10.6 8.8 27.2 7.0 9.6 12.9 11.7 9.8  Q4... 11.9 10.2 13.2 8.5 17.8 16.9 7.7 9.3 11.1 12.6 2005: Q1... 13.3 10.8 9.9 11.1 46.8 16.5 8.7 12.1 15.2 13.0  Q2... 13.2 9.5 10.5 10.5 14.7 17.4 10.8 12.3 12.6 13.6  Q3... 10.8 8.8 10.0 9.0 13.6 12.8 8.1 11.0 12.7 10.4  Q4... 14.4 8.9 9.8 8.2 28.1 32.4 9.3 9.8 13.4 15.7 2006: Q1... 13.2 7.6 21.2 10.8 21.8 17.0 10.4 13.4 14.0 13.2  Q2... 11.6 8.2 10.1 10.4 12.1 15.0 11.0 12.1 13.2 11.1  Q3... 13.9 9.4 9.3 9.3 24.6 20.2 8.5 11.2 11.3 15.3  Q4... 12.5 9.0 11.4 9.0 14.3 20.6 7.9 9.9 11.4 13.4 2007: Q1... 13.5 10.3 16.5 10.8 33.0 16.3 9.6 14.2 12.5 13.8  Q2... 12.8 10.3 9.8 10.6 21.6 16.5 10.4 12.2 11.3 13.8  Q3... 13.9 6.8 23.9 8.1 20.5 18.3 10.5 10.7 10.1 16.2  Q4... 13.1 10.6 11.6 8.6 15.0 21.7 8.3 10.0 12.4 14.0 2008: Q1... 13.9 10.7 15.9 9.7 38.0 20.2 9.1 12.2 13.6 14.3  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.