alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Government

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-75-1-SM

Jacob D. Silva,

Defendant

O R D E R

As part of the presentence investigation and reporting

process, the probation officer has informed the court of the

identities of the victims involved in this case. Because I know

some of the victims, and have known some of the victims’ parents

for many years, I hereby recuse myself from imposing sentence and

from any further proceedings in this case.

The clerk will reassign the case to another judge in the

usual manner.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

June 10, 2009

cc: Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esq., AUSA

Peter J. Anderson, Esq.

U.S. Probation

U.S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00075-JD Document 20 Filed 06/10/09 Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136808 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136808 

 COA: 284557 

Wayne CC: 07-012810-FC

RAYMOND PNIEWSKI, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1891

To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to eliminate the phase-in period

for the reduction of sulfur content in diesel fuel.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. BRYANT (for himself and Mr. GORDON) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to eliminate

the phase-in period for the reduction of sulfur content

in diesel fuel.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Diesel Fuel Pro5 vider Relief Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds the following:

8 (1) The petroleum distribution system in the

9 United States has a strong impact on the supply
2

•HR 1891 IH

1 and availability of products in the various markets

2 in the United States.

3 (2) The petroleum distribution system was de4 veloped for limited types of products to be distrib5 uted.

6 (3) Environmental regulations have substan7 tially increased the number of products distributed

8 in the United States.

9 (4) The interaction between the number of

10 products in a market may affect the overall supply

11 to an area.

12 (5) The recently finalized regulations estab13 lishing a 15 ppm sulfur standard for diesel fuel cou14 pled with a phase-in will require the distribution sys15 tem to handle multiple grades of diesel and kerosene

16 to handle this new requirement.

17 (6) The existence of two grades of on-road die18 sel in the market may lead to misfueling of vehicles

19 which will undermine the benefits of this vital regu20 lation.

21 (7) Eliminating the second grade of on-road

22 diesel will put less stress on the distribution system,

23 and will likely benefit consumers as less stress is put

24 on supply and the environment as potential

25 misfueling incidents are eliminated.
3

•HR 1891 IH

1 SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SULFUR REDUCTION PHASE-IN

2 REQUIREMENT.

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 211(i) of the Clean Air

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 7545) is amended by adding the following

5 at the end thereof:

6 ‘‘(5) Effective September 1, 2006, no person shall

7 manufacture, sell, supply, or offer for sale or supply, dis8 pense, transport, or introduce into commerce motor vehicle

9 diesel fuel which contains a concentration of sulfur in ex10 cess of 15 ppm or which fails to meet a cetane minimum

11 index of 40 and a maximum aromatic content of 35 vol12 ume percent.’’.

13 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 12 months after

14 enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environ15 mental Protection Agency shall promulgate regulations to

16 implement and enforce the requirements of paragraph (5)

17 of section 211(i) of the Clean Air Act, as added by this

18 Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Kurt
      Freudenberg, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nu Horizons
      Electronics Corp., certify that:




The
      Form
      10-K/A of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. for the period ended February 28, 2007
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and




The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Nu Horizons Electronics
      Corp. for the periods presented.


/s/
                  Kurt
                  FreudenbergKurt
                        Freudenberg
                      Executive
                        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                      
                      Date:November
                        21, 2007


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and will be retained by Nu Horizons Electronics
      Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon
      request.
#### Mrs. Lillie SWAGGERTY v. Charles LILLIE et al.

No. 1369.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 3, 1934.

Rownd & Warner, of Hammond, for appellant.

Jos. M. Blache, Jr., of Hammond, for ap-pellees.

LE BLANC, Judge’.

For reasons assigned in the opinion this day handed down in the case of S. C. Swag-gerty et al. v. Charles Lillie et al. (La. App.) 156 So. 782, the judgment appealed from in this case is hereby affirmed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2131

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through fiscal

year 2004.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2001

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr.

BEREUTER, Mr. SUNUNU, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. LEACH, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr.

BAIRD, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. CAMP, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr.

FRANK, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. KIRK, Mr.

LATOURETTE, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. OXLEY, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr.

SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. WEXLER, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998

through fiscal year 2004.

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

•HR 2131 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SUP2 PORT REDUCTION OF DEBT UNDER THE FOR3 EIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 AND TITLE I

4 OF THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOP5 MENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1954.

6 (a) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 806 of the Tropical

7 Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d) is

8 amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section:

10 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIS11 CAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2001.—For the cost (as

12 defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform

13 Act of 1990) for the reduction of any debt pursuant to

14 this section or section 807, there are authorized to be ap15 propriated to the President the following:

16 ‘‘(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

17 ‘‘(2) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

18 ‘‘(3) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.’’.

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

20 808(a)(1)(D) of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of

21 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431f(a)(1)(D)) is amended by striking

22 ‘‘to appropriated under sections 806(a)(2) and 807(a)(2)’’

23 and inserting ‘‘to be appropriated under sections

24 806(a)(2), 807(a)(2), and 806(d)’’.

Æ
#### Samuel SKLAR, Appellant, v. John GUASTELLA and Josephine Guastella, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Dec. 11, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
*Release Date: March 31, 2010*

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

----

```
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 87   | 4                                      | 15                                                   | 24 | 45 | .198 | .008 | .036 | .051 | .095 |
| 126  | 18                                     | 37                                                   | 35 | 36 | .280 | .040 | .086 | .078 | .080 |
| 108  | 11                                     | 17                                                   | 34 | 45 | .259 | .027 | .041 | .075 | .098 |
| 308  | 67                                     | 53                                                   | 140 | 48 | .656 | .142 | .118 | .294 | .101 |
| 221  | 40                                     | 50                                                   | 58 | 73 | .471 | .085 | .114 | .124 | .157 |
| 175  | 34                                     | 35                                                   | 48 | 58 | .382 | .074 | .080 | .108 | .128 |
| 129  | 28                                     | 17                                                   | 46 | 38 | .284 | .062 | .039 | .099 | .081 |
| 59   | 8                                      | 16                                                   | 12 | 24 | .124 | .017 | .035 | .026 | .048 |
| 73   | 9                                      | 7                                                    | 23 | 34 | .146 | .018 | .015 | .045 | .064 |
| 90   | 8                                      | 13                                                   | 23 | 47 | .170 | .014 | .025 | .042 | .085 |
| 150  | 12                                     | 20                                                   | 42 | 75 | .269 | .022 | .037 | .074 | .129 |
| 435  | 65                                     | 59                                                   | 151 | 159 | .743 | .111 | .108 | .265 | .271 |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

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

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
|   (1)  | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 28, 2010 (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. |
|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: October 27, 2010 | By:/s/ Steven S. Sintros           Steven S. Sintros, Chief Financial Officer      (Principal Financial Officer) |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Babe Ease, LLC, and

Melissa Cohen-Fyffe,

Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 08-cv-223-SM

Nurtured Little One, LLC,

Defendant

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

April 23, 2009 ________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00223-SM Document 5 Filed 04/23/09 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: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending January 25, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12004
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12005
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02006
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02007
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02008
          1
          0
          0
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 18, 2008
#### Felice Brenner et al., Appellants, v New York City Board of Education et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 493]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), entered February 13, 2001, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant New York City Board of Education pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in its favor as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and upon a jury verdict finding the plaintiff Felice Brenner to be 70% at fault in the happening of the accident and the defendant Edward Trerise to be 30% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Felice Brenner and against the defendant Edward Trerise in the principal sum of only $2,115.

*520Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs failed to offer any proof that the door which allegedly injured the plaintiff Felice Brenner was defective or that the defendant New York City Board of Education (hereinafter the Board of Education) had notice of any alleged defect *(see Aquila v Nathan’s Famous,*284 AD2d 287; *Pacht v International Bus. Machs.,*228 AD2d 422). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action asserted against the Board of Education, to recover damages for negligent maintenance of the door *(see Fasolino v Charming Stores,*77 NY2d 847, 848; *DiGiovanni v Rausch,*226 AD2d 420).

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to include a negligence claim against the Board of Education based on the theory of respondeat superior *(see Castagne v Barouh,*249 AD2d 257; *Felix v Lettre,*204 AD2d 679, 680; *Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*201 AD2d 693, 696, *affd*87 NY2d 370; *Mazzilli v City of New York,*154 AD2d 355; *DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth.,*105 AD2d 236).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 297,125 19,675 71,700 68,852 23,311 592 18,461 Number of loans 8,006 825 2,511 2,245 994 44 173 Weighted average maturity (months)1 23.76 11.42 30.21 31.60 22.47 7.95 12.02 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 15.49 10.59 26.19 20.94 17.81 .09 12.02 

Weighted average risk rating3 2.53 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate4 6.46 6.39 6.67 6.32 6.71 7.61 5.74 

 Standard error5 .13 .45 .11 .38 .44 .42 1.16 

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.01 7.23 7.16 7.50 7.23 8.14 5.64  25th percentile 5.88 6.03 5.88 5.06 5.04 7.30 5.64  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.35 6.36 7.43 6.03 6.08 n.a. 8.00  Other livestock 7.45 7.48 n.a. 6.08 7.67 n.a. 6.75  Other current operating expenses7 6.48 5.95 6.58 6.90 6.18 7.61 8.33 

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.07 6.81 7.50 6.49 7.29 n.a. 7.12  Farm real estate 6.00 n.a. 6.21 5.67 6.96 n.a. 5.64  Other8 6.75 6.50 9.31 6.83 7.58 n.a. n.a

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 47.73 17.40 30.86 52.00 43.59 100.00 n.a Under commitment 57.20 30.14 57.56 62.49 55.16 100.00 n.a Callable 27.71 25.16 15.42 36.40 53.58 n.a. 97.69  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 16.56 26.97 11.57 40.84 22.70 n.a. 2.31  Other livestock 6.49 13.96 7.31 2.67 20.31 n.a. .71  Other current operating expenses7 51.82 43.58 48.90 33.54 29.57 100.00 1.06 

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.40 11.91 5.51 4.48 5.02 n.a. .55  Farm real estate 18.40 n.a. 26.59 14.70 19.44 n.a. 95.37  Other8 2.32 3.57 .12 3.77 2.97 n.a. n.a

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 22.66 n.a. 24.51 20.00 34.90 n.a. 95.37  Other 76.16 98.71 73.91 78.06 n.a. n.a. n.a Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 14, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00883-CV

BARKER CROSSING CLA PARTNERS, LTD., RIVERSTONE CLA 

PARTNERS LTD., LASCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CALCO 

ADA, LTD., AND LARY SELIGMANN, Appellants

V.

VERITEX COMMUNITY BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-15932

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from an order signed September 1, 2022. No clerk’s record 

has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On December 30, 2022, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 
2

fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and 

provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). No 

response was filed. On February 16, 2023, appellant was ordered to provide this 

court with proof of payment for the record on or before February 27, 2023. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). In the order, the court notified appellant that failure to 

comply with the court’s order would result in dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 37.3(b). No response was filed.

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record.

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02270-WJM-CBS

MRS. REBECCA RENEE CRONE, and

MR. TIMOTHY CRONE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES; et, D.H.S. DEFENDANTS,

MR. MATTHEW GRAFT -- DEFENDANT,

MR. STEVEN CLIFTON -- DEFENDANT,

MS. BRENDA RALL -- DEFENDANT,

MR. MECONI -- DEFENDANT,

MR. WILLIAM CROSSMAN -- DEFENDANT,

MR. DANIEL SLATER -- DEFENDANT,

MS. HOLLY MCBEE -- DEFENDANT, and

MS. STACEY RUSSELL -- DEFENDANT,

Defendants.

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer 

This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Amend Case Heading”

(filed October 26, 2011) (Doc. # 24). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated September 1,

2011 (Doc. # 2) and the memorandum dated October 26, 2011 (Doc. # 25), this matter was

referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the Motion, the entire case file, and

the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. 

Plaintiffs seek “to amend the case heading in this matter to respectfully and

appropriately identify all entities in the case,” relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). (See

Motion). Plaintiffs’ proposed amended caption, or case heading, adds Defendants “Fremont

County DSS (Dept. of Social Services[)] (DSS) West Central Mental Health Inc.” and “Foster

Parents: Defendant – Roger and Tracy McKissak, DEFENDANT,” who were mentioned in the

original Complaint as “Additional defendants.” (See Doc. # 1 at 19 of 32). (See id.). 

Case 1:11-cv-02270-WJM-CBS Document 26 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Fremont County Department of Human Services has some awareness of this civil action. 

(See Docs. # 14, # 19). Plaintiffs have filed purported returns of service on Roger and Tracy

McKissak. (See Docs. # 17, # 20). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Amend Case Heading” (filed October 26, 2011) (Doc. # 24)

is GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall add “Fremont County DSS (Dept. of Social

Services[)] (DSS) West Central Mental Health Inc.” and “Foster Parents: Defendant – Roger

and Tracy McKissak, DEFENDANT” to the case caption as Defendants. 

3. Plaintiffs are advised that adding these Defendants to the case caption does not

resolve any outstanding issues of proper service of process, failure to state a claim for which

relief can be granted, or requested sanctions. 

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 27th day of October, 2011. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Craig B. Shaffer 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02270-WJM-CBS Document 26 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2