alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ADC Contracting and Construction Corp., Respondent, v New York City Department of Design and Construction et al., Appellants.

[808 NYS2d 69]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered September 15, 2004, which directed a trial on the facts alleged in the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While respondents refer to the “administrative record” in justifying their determination, in fact there is little information indicating what was presented at the default hearing before the Department’s Deputy Commissioner. There appears to be no transcript or other attempt at a formal record, and the Deputy Commissioner did not set forth his findings of fact to explain his reasoning. It is noteworthy that in their answer, respondents did not produce an affidavit from the Deputy Commissioner himself, but rather submitted simply an affidavit from the Program Director within the Department’s Structural Unit. While the Program Director may have accurately related what he presented at the default hearing, he did not discuss what petitioner had presented in response. The Program Director did not attest to the reasons why—after hearing petitioner’s justifications for its delay—the Deputy Commissioner decided to disregard petitioner’s position, nor was he in a position to do so.

Even though the Program Director referred, in his own affidavit, to the affidavit and summary by the Department’s engineer, he acknowledged that the information in the engineer’s statement was not presented to the Deputy Commissioner at the default meeting. Thus, in light of the foregoing, *Matter of Moen v Lansing Cent. School Dist.*(257 AD2d 846 [1999]), on which the City relies, is distinguishable *(see id.*at *489847-848; *see also*CPLR 7804 [h]). Moreover, petitioner emphasizes that it should have the opportunity to submit to the court “any competent and relevant proof . . . bearing on the triable issue here presented and showing that any of the underlying material on which the [Deputy Commissioner] based [his] determination has no basis in fact” *(Matter of Mandle v Brown,*5 NY2d 51, 65 [1958]), or that the determination was irrational or arbitrary *(Matter of Newbrand v City of Yonkers,*285 NY 164, 178 [1941]; *Matter of Poster v Strough,*299 AD2d 127, 142 [2002]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, 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 |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 6Federal Reserve Bank of: AtlantaFilings received during the week ending March 30, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodENTERPRISE CAPITAL CORPORATION, INC.                                                                                    CICPrior change in control notice filed by William Henry Carr, Enterprise, Alabama, and Jerry Newman Carr, Cornelius, North Carolina, to acquire 31.12 percent of the outstanding shares of Enterprise Capital Corporation, Inc., and its subsidiary bank, The Citizens Bank, both of Enterprise, Alabama.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/04/2013FLORIDA CAPITAL GROUP, INC.                                                                                             CICPrior change in control notice filed by Phillip Bruce Culpepper, Tallahassee, Florida;  Richard Rene  Dostie, Jacksonville, Florida; Charles Eldridge Hughes, Jr., Jacksonville, Florida; Jan Malcolm Jones, Jr., Jacksonville, Florida; James Thomas Katsur, Longwood, Florida; William Andrew Krusen, Jr., Tampa, Florida; Allan Scott Martin, Tampa, Florida; Linda Claire McGurn, Micanopy, Florida; and Manuel Gonzalo Sanchez, Gainesville, Florida; to collectively acquire 25.34 percent of the outstanding shares of Florida Capital Group, Inc.,  and its subsidiary, Florida Capital Bank, both of Jacksonville, Florida.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/04/2013UNITED LEGACY BANK                                                                                                      * BranchUnited Legacy Bank, Longwood, Florida, to establish a branch located at 3825 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, to be known as United Legacy Bank - College Park Office.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-240-02-SM

Peter Loukedes

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 17) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2008 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than January 3, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

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

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account

Case 1:07-cr-00240-SM Document 18 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: March 21, 2008 at 4:00 PM 

Jury Selection: April 1, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

December 17, 2007 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Debra Walsh, Esq.

 Jessica Brown, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00240-SM Document 18 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
INTERIM STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,403
<PP&E>                                           1,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (270)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,222
<BONDS>                                         14,229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,335
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,241
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 (571)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Victor Alesi, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Underforming and Foundation Construction, Inc., Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 434]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated December 14, 2004, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of those branches of the appellant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
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: 10Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas CityFilings received during the week ending October 24, 2009FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANCFIRST CORPORATION                                                                                                   * 3A3BancFirst Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of First Jones Bancorporation, Inc., parent of First State Bank, both in Jones, Oklahoma.Newspaper: 11/09/2009Federal Register: 11/13/2009COMMUNITY BANK OF PLEASANT HILL                                                                                         * 18CCommunity Bank of Pleasant Hill, Pleasant Hill, Missouri, to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the Pleasant Hill, Missouri branch of BC National Banks, Butler, Missouri.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicableLINDSAY STATE COMPANY                                                                                                   CICNotification by the Bonita M. Hegemann Irrevocable Trust, Newman Grove, Nebraska, and its trustees, Bonita M. Hegemann, Lindsay, Nebraska; and James B. Hegemann, Newman Grove, Nebraska; to acquire control of Lindsay State Company, parent of Bank of Lindsay, both in Lindsay, Nebraska. Notice by Lindsay State Company, Lindsay, Nebraska, to redeem 38.5 percent of its outstanding common stock.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/03/2009RIVERDALE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                              CICNotice by Philip Eugene Jossi, and Marian Joanne Hardin, both of Kearney, Nebraska; James Andrew Bodyfield, Ericson, Nebraska; and Keith Weldon Carlson, Lincoln, Nebraska; to acquire control of Riverdale Bancshares, Inc., parent of State Bank of Riverdale, both in Riverdale, Nebraska, through the acquisition of voting shares.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/09/2009
EXHIBIT 15


                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


Linens 'n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

Re:      Registration Statements Numbers 333-26819 and 333-26827 on Form S-8

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 15, 1997 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)  under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  such report is not
considered  a part of a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.




KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


New York, New York
November 12, 1997
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LELAND ASAY,

SAMUEL VIDAL GOMEZ,

JERRY LEE RHEA,

DENNIS GLENN COEN, and

QUALITY PAVING CO., a Colorado corporation, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Stipulated Voluntary

Dismissal With Prejudice of Complaint Against Defendant Jerry Lee Rhea [Docket No.

131]. The Court has reviewed the pleading and is fully advised in the premises. It is

ORDERED that the Motion for Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of

Complaint Against Defendant Jerry Lee Rhea [Docket No. 131] is GRANTED. It is

further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), all claims asserted by plaintiff

against defendant Jerry Lee Rhea are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear

its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 134 Filed 04/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

DATED April 30, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 134 Filed 04/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006...... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007...... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .2 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007: Q1... 1.0 .6 .4 .1 .3 1.9 1.1 .8 .3 .5

 Q2... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .7 .9 .2 .7

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2008: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.7 1.0 .7 .2 .5

 Q2... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .2 .5

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             556
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,005
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     33,228
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              30
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                30
<LOANS>                                         34,485
<ALLOWANCE>                                        447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,662
<DEPOSITS>                                      35,878
<SHORT-TERM>                                    15,789
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                372
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  73,662
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,152
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,603
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    46
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,801
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,451
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,350
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      259
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  28
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    450
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         450
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .071
<LOANS-NON>                                        245
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   324
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      141
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  447
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               447
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
*Release Date: December 21, 2007*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 7.7     | 7.7                    | 7.2                                |
| 8.1     | 8.0                    | 7.6                                |
| 8.3     | 8.3                    | 7.8                                |
| 8.7     | 8.7                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.9     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.0     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 8.9     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.8     | 8.7                    | 8.2                                |
| 8.7     | 8.6                    | 8.2                                |
||
| 8.1     | 7.9                    | 7.3                                |
| 8.4     | 8.2                    | 7.6                                |
| 8.6     | 8.4                    | 7.9                                |
| 9.0     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 9.1     | 8.9                    | 8.4                                |
| 9.2     | 8.9                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.8                    | 8.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.8                    | 8.2                                |
| 9.0     | 8.7                    | 8.1                                |
||
| 7.9     | 8.0                    | 7.8                                |
| 8.8     | 8.8                    | 8.5                                |
| 8.9     | 9.0                    | 8.6                                |
| 9.1     | 9.1                    | 8.7                                |
| 9.3     | 9.3                    | 8.8                                |
| 9.4     | 9.4                    | 8.8                                |
| 9.2     | 9.3                    | 8.6                                |
| 9.4     | 9.5                    | 9.3                                |
| 9.1     | 8.9                    | 8.8                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
56540 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

COAST GUARD SECTOR BALTIMORE—COTP ZONE

Number Date Event Sponsor Location 

* * * * * * * 

58 ........... November 8, 

2008.

Tug of War ......... City of Annapolis The waters of Spa Creek from shoreline to shoreline, extending 400 

feet from either side of a rope spanning Spa Creek from a position at 

latitude 38°58′36.9′′ N, longitude 076°29′03.8′′ W on the Annapolis 

shoreline to a position at latitude 38°58′26.4′′ N, longitude 

076°28′53.7′′ W on the Eastport shoreline. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 18, 2008. 

Fred M. Rosa, Jr., 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E8–22442 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[PS Docket No. 07–114; DA 08–2129] 

Wireless E911 Location Accuracy 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission sought comment on 

proposals in certain ex parte filings 

submitted by the Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials, 

International (APCO), the National 

Emergency Number Association 

(NENA), AT&T, Sprint Nextel 

Corporation, and Verizon Wireless 

regarding location accuracy 

requirements for wireless licensees 

subject to the Commission’s rules that 

specify standards for wireless Enhanced 

911 (E911) Phase II location accuracy 

and reliability. The proposed rule stated 

that ‘‘Comments are due October 6, 2008 

by 12 p.m. Reply Comments are due 

October 14, 2008 by 12 p.m.’’ Only 

Reply Comments are due by 12 p.m. 

Comments are due on October 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas J. Beers, Chief, Policy Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, at (202) 418–0952. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of September 

25, 2008, in FR Doc. E8–22645, on page 

55473, in the first column, correct the 

DATES caption to read: 

DATES: Comments are due October 6, 

2008. Reply Comments are due October 

14, 2008 by 12 p.m. 

Thomas J. Beers, 

Division Chief, Policy, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E8–22932 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS