alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2010 Q2 survey,

region share of national

total 3.0 8.6 25.9 23.5 7.1 5.3 4.7 8.5 5.0 8.5

Sample coverage, 2010 Q2

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 19.5 5.2 13.0 38.4 12.0 7.7 8.7 6.7 8.4 31.3

Avg. loan size, 2010 Q2 survey

(thousands of dollars) 23.2 40.4 50.0 75.7 45.1 32.9 92.5 40.9 31.3 88.7

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2005: Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

Q4 9.2 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.9

2007: Q1 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.9 9.3 8.9

Q2 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.4 8.6

Q3 10.4 8.6 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.9 8.9 9.5 8.6

Q4 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.3 6.8 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.9 7.6

2008: Q1 7.3 7.8 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.4 7.8 7.2 7.8 6.3

Q2 7.4 6.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.7 6.9 6.4 6.3 5.1

Q3 5.7 7.2 5.7 5.4 5.5 5.0 7.2 6.1 6.5 5.0

(0.93) (0.19) (0.31) (1.25) (0.37) (0.72) (0.20) (0.24) (0.36) (0.36)

Q4 7.5 6.6 5.4 4.6 5.1 4.5 7.6 6.1 5.6 4.4

(0.07) (0.10) (0.52) (1.05) (0.67) (0.04) (0.72) (0.38) (0.61) (0.09)

2009: Q1 4.2 6.4 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.7 3.9

(0.34) (0.35) (0.35) (1.22) (0.95) (0.93) (0.64) (0.67) (0.32) (0.65)

Q2 4.2 6.4 4.9 4.6 3.7 4.8 6.5 5.7 5.8 4.2

(0.35) (0.16) (0.38) (1.20) (1.07) (0.19) (0.40) (0.36) (0.55) (0.25)

Q3 3.0 6.2 4.9 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.9 5.9 6.1 4.3

(0.24) (0.12) (0.44) (1.08) (0.85) (1.29) (0.19) (0.31) (0.46) (0.37)

Q4 5.3 6.2 5.2 4.5 4.0 4.2 6.5 5.6 6.0 4.5

(0.05) (0.13) (0.50) (1.27) (1.14) (1.09) (0.21) (0.47) (0.30) (0.71)

2010: Q1 5.8 6.2 5.3 4.8 4.3 6.1 8.0 6.0 6.0 4.1

(1.05) (0.15) (0.29) (0.72) (0.77) (0.43) (0.63) (0.50) (0.27) (0.54)

Q2 5.3 6.5 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.1 6.7 6.2 6.0 4.3

(0.19) (0.13) (0.29) (0.91) (0.76) (0.86) (0.12) (0.47) (0.32) (0.70)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: October 14, 2011

Court Reporter: Paul Zuckerman

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

Parties: Counsel Appearing:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAUNITA WEINGART;

JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS; and

ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

Linda Kaufman

Edward Pluss

Darlene Bagley

Paula Ray

COURTROOM MINUTES

HEARING: Motions

4:17 p.m. Court in session.

The Court addresses John Phillip Gallegos’s Unopposed Motion to Modify Conditions of

Release (Doc. #37)

ORDER: John Phillip Gallegos’s Unopposed Motion to Modify Conditions of Release

(Doc. #37) is GRANTED, but Counsel will submit a written order to reflect the

modifications set forth.

The Court addresses Wuanita Weingart’s Unopposed Motion for Ends of Justice Continuance of

Deadline to File Pretrial Motions and Trial (Doc. #26); Alois Craig Weingart’s Unopposed

Motion for Ends of Justice Continuance Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act and for Extensions of

Time to File Motions (Doc. #27) and John Phillip Gallegos’s Unopposed Motion for Ends of

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 42 filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Courtroom Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

Justice Continuance Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act and for Enlargement of Time to File

Motions (Out of Time) (Doc. #39) .

Argument. The Government has no objection.

The Court made specific oral findings justifying a continuance of the trial, which findings are

incorporated herein.

ORDER: The ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Motions to

Continue the trial (Doc. #26, 27 and 39) is GRANTED, but the Court does not

find the case complex. The trial currently set on October 17, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.

is VACATED and reset to September 17, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (15 days). All

subsequent days of trial will begin at 8:30 a.m., unless the parties are notified

otherwise. No later than 30 days prior to trial counsel will file a motion

requesting more time for trial, if necessary. 

ORDER: Motions will be filed by March 12, 2012. Responses will be filed by March 26,

2012. Motions hearing (non-evidentiary) is set April 5, 2012 at 4:00 p.m., in

Courtroom A901, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO. A deadline will be set at the

motions hearing for tendering of expert reports.

Counsel will confer and advise the court at the time of the motions hearing whether or not there

is going to be a James Proffer.

4:45 p.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 28 minutes.

Hearing concluded.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 42 filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
08°c',yt°004 2°,.#I.. Di c,.7, ieI,t ".'t F I; C) 0311122009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randolph L . Chambers

V .

Richard Gerry, Warden ,

New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Civil No . 08-cv-442-JL

Randolph Chambers has filed an initial complaint (document

no . 1) as well as other pleadings and documents, ostensibly

presented in support of the claims stated in the complaint

(document nos . 16, 19, 20 & 22 - 24) . While several of the

documents filed pertain to the complaint, as explained in my

Report and Recommendation issued simultaneously with this Order,

I find that two of the additional filings are unrelated to the

underlying action and should therefore be docketed as complaints

in separate actions .

The Clerk's Office is directed to open two new cases,

docketing Chambers' motion for an injunction (document no . 16) as

the complaint in one of the cases, and Chambers' motion for

subpoena (document no . 24) as the complaint in the other . The

Clerk's Office may rely on Chambers' submissions in the aboveCase 1:09-cv-00092-PB Document 5 Filed 03/12/09 Page 1 of 2
08°c',yt°004 2°,.#I.. Di c,.7, ieI,t ".'t F I; C 0311122009

captioned case regarding in forma pauperis status, and my grant

of that status, in opening the new cases and assessing the

initial partial filing fee to be paid in each, if any . Upon

receipt of any required initial filing fee payment, the cases

will be referred to me for preliminary review .

SO ORDERED .

Date : March 12, 2009

Ja es Muirhead

Unl ed States Magistrate Judg e

cc : Randolph L . Chambers, pro s e

2

Case 1:09-cv-00092-PB Document 5 Filed 03/12/09 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,612,424
<SECURITIES>                                   173,051<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,727,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,512,901
<PP&E>                                       2,389,358<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 393,122
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,509,137
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,261,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,528
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,528
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,237,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,509,137
<SALES>                                      9,267,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,267,960
<CGS>                                        7,514,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,753,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,270,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                448,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                   165,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   283,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<FN>
<F1>Does not represent securities.  Includes Prepaid Expenses
@ $99,138 + Deferred Income Tax @ $73,913.
<F2>Includes PP&E @ $982,237 + S/W dev. costs @ $1,399,939 + Misc. deposits @
$7,182.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Edith R. Korn, Deceased. Edward D. Korn, Respondent; Robert B. Korn, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 48]

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about September 28, 2004, which admitted decedent’s will to probate and granted letters testamentary to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The decree referred to an earlier order which had granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing objections to probate. Summary judgment is appropriate where, as here, the proponent establishes a prima facie case for probate and the objectant fails to raise a material triable issue of fact *(Matter of Seelig,*13 AD3d 776 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 707 [2005]). Not only did petitioner produce a self-executing affidavit to the will, thereby creating a presumption that the will was duly executed and constituting prima facie evidence of the facts therein attested to by the witnesses *(see Matter of Clapper,*279 AD2d 730, 731 [2001]), but he also adduced testimony of an attesting witness and of the drafting attorney stating that the decedent was free of undue influence and, inter alia, “bright, intelligent, strong-minded.”

In response, the objectant submitted only conclusory and *380speculative evidence that petitioner exercised undue influence over the decedent in drafting and executing her will; this failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(Matter of Bustanoby,*262 AD2d 407 [1999]). There was no evidence that petitioner had any direct involvement in the preparation or execution of the will *(see Matter of Bartel,*214 AD2d 476 [1995]).

Insofar as the objectant insists that summary judgment was improper without permitting him to continue discovery, this claim is undermined by his failure to move for additional discovery or to seek a continuation so he could procure necessary affidavits. Nor does the objectant cite any statute or rule requiring a court to set a time limit for the completion of discovery. In any event, further discovery would serve no purpose. Even if the objectant could show that petitioner was responsible for the notations on an earlier draft will and played a role in the drafting of the final will, this would still not raise a question of fact as to whether the decedent was so dependent upon and subject to petitioner’s control that she could not resist the wielding of his influence *(Matter of Wilson,*266 AD2d 164 [1999]; *see generally Matter of Anna,*248 NY 421 [1928]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
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 of Bovie Medical Corporation. (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31,
2008, 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:
March 13, 2009




/s/ Gary D.
Pickett


Gary D.
Pickett


Chief
Financial Officer
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.
 Federal Communications Commission
 The following items have been deleted from the list of Agenda items scheduled for consideration at the September 25, 2008, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of September 18, 2008, 73 FR 55082, September 25, 2008. Item 3 has been adopted by the Commission. 3
Media
*Title:*
                             Kidd Communications and Pamplin Broadcasting-Oregon, Inc. Applications for a Construction Permit for New AM Station at Truckee, California and Jacksonville, Oregon.*Summary:*
                             The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review by Kidd Communications.
 Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.


[FR Doc. E8-22933 Filed 9-25-08; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### JOHNSON v. YOUNG.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
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 June 2, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCOMMERCIAL AND SAVINGS BANK OF MILLERSBURG, OHIO, THE                                                                   * BranchNotice by The Commercial & Savings Bank, Millersburg, OH of its intent to establish a branch at 91 North Clay Street, Millersburg, OH.Newspaper: 06/07/2007Federal Register: Not applicable
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 14
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 215 filed 02/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 14
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 975 

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death 

of the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative of the State of California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. STARK submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives 

on the death of the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative of the State of California. 

1 Resolved, That the House has heard with profound 

2 sorrow of the death of the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Rep3 resentative from the State of California. 

4 Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the 

5 House as the Speaker may designate, together with such 

6 Members of the Senate as may be joined, be appointed 

7 to attend the funeral. 

8 Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be 

9 authorized and directed to take such steps as may be nec10 essary for carrying out the provisions of these resolutions 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

HRES 975 ATH 

1 and that the necessary expenses in connection therewith 

2 be paid out of applicable accounts of the House. 

3 Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolu4 tions to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the 

5 family of the deceased. 

6 Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it ad7 journ as a further mark of respect to the memory of the 

8 deceased. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
September 21st 2015 filed in 1STCOURTOFAPPEALS HOUSTON. TEXAS
Mr. Christopher A. Prine 

### SEP2 32015 Clerk of the Court j^A^*-"^ x. „ ^ ^ « -. CHRISTSP/I^M^PfilNE 

## First Court of Appeals VVfj 301 Fannin Street cifrk r^-J Houston, Texas 77002-2066
Re: Case No. 01-15-00402-CR; Birshal D. Mitchell v. State of Texas

Dear Mr. Prine, 

### I amwriting in regards to the above numbered and styled cause, and would ask how I might file a Brief with this Court if there is no Official Reporter's record as was indicated on the Court's white card that I received on 09/14/15. The Texas Constitution clearly states in Article 1, Section 10, that I 

### have a right to beheard, and the fact that I filed with the 337th Judicial District Court a Motion For Nunc Pro Tunc, which wasn't heard it seems by the 

### Judge of the Court, but was in fact, denied by the Clerk of the Court, Chris
Daniel. 

### I amonly aware that I have a right to access to the Courts, yet itwould
seem that the Court has someone in the Clerk's Office that screens incoming 

### Motions and other paperwork to determine what will be filed and what won't be filed. As in this case, my Motion For Nunc Pro Tunc. All I am requesting from this Honorable Court is for them to order the 337th Judicial District Court to do what is required by Law, to give a "Fair & Impar tial Hearing" to my legalwork. I know that the Clerk of the Court for the 1st District of Texas cannot give legal advice, but I am givingnotice by this letter that without the record, I cannot properly file a Brief in this matter, and that is on the 337thDistrict
Court. Sincerely,

Birshal D. Mitchell, TDCJ-CID #630503 McConnell Unit 3001 South Emily Drive Beeville, Texas 7B102Birshal Dion Mitchell TDGJ-CID #630503 William G. McConnell Unit 3001 South Emily Drive ^Beeville, Texas 78102 RIO GRAflDE.O-ISTRKT.^ PM3 L



### Mr. Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court First District ofTexas Court ofAppeals 310 Fannin Street 

### Houston, Texas 77002-2066 iFIRSTCOUiYi OrAPPEALS! HOUSTON, TEXAS



### SEP2 32015 

## |CHW3TCPHERA.PRINE ICll-P-K 

# MAILRECEIVED

7T002204110 

### )jI,,il,il|ll|iu|,,rt|ii|M,i|,,.iil|HJ|i.i„.|..||p,.}ii{,,i,
#### FISHER v. SOUTHERN LIFE & HEALTH INS. CO.

No. 6664.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1943.

D. Ross Banister, of Monroe, for appellant.

Bryan E. Bush, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff appealed from judgment rejecting his suit to recover One Thousand ($1,000) Dollars, under the terms of a limited accident insurance policy, for the loss of a foot; for penalty of same amount and attorney’s fee under the provisions of Act No. 310 of 1910, and interest.

It is obvious the total amount for which sued and in dispute when the case was decided below is in excess of Two Thousand ($2,000) Dollars, the maximum amount of which this court has jurisdiction in a case of this character.

Appellee has moved that the appeal be dismissed or transferred to the Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction here, ra-tione materiae. The motion must be sustained.

For the reasons assigned it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that this appeal, under the authority of Act No. 19 of 1912, be, and it is hereby, transferred to the Supreme Court, there to be proceeded with as though appeal had been originally taken to that court; and the appellant is allowed sixty days from finality of this decree within which to lodge complete transcript in the Supreme Court, and failing to do so within said period, the appeal for all purposes will be deemed and treated as having been abandoned. Costs of appeal to this court are assessed against the appellant.
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1994...... 2.53 .28 .23 1.56 .18 .27 1.55 .51 .35 .12 1995...... 2.49 .26 .19 1.48 .17 .39 1.45 .57 .36 .12 1996...... 2.22 .18 .17 1.38 .14 .36 1.33 .48 .31 .11 1997...... 2.27 .19 .20 1.40 .15 .33 1.32 .50 .34 .11 1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2005...... 1.47 .10 .11 1.02 .11 .14 .76 .32 .27 .12 2002: Q4... 1.65 .13 .15 1.09 .07 .20 .92 .36 .28 .09 2003: Q1... 1.69 .13 .14 1.08 .16 .18 .84 .37 .33 .15  Q2... 1.81 .11 .12 1.27 .15 .15 1.07 .37 .27 .09  Q3... 1.58 .08 .09 1.17 .10 .14 .94 .33 .24 .08  Q4... 1.57 .14 .14 1.04 .10 .15 .80 .36 .31 .10 2004: Q1... 1.60 .09 .13 1.12 .12 .15 .81 .33 .32 .14  Q2... 1.88 .08 .13 1.38 .14 .15 1.06 .43 .28 .10  Q3... 1.62 .07 .12 1.17 .14 .12 .93 .36 .23 .10  Q4... 1.44 .12 .13 .95 .10 .15 .67 .33 .32 .13 2005: Q1... 1.37 .10 .12 .94 .07 .14 .68 .29 .28 .12  Q2... 1.79 .11 .10 1.26 .14 .18 .97 .40 .28 .15  Q3... 1.52 .05 .09 1.10 .14 .14 .83 .33 .27 .10  Q4... 1.19 .12 .13 .77 .07 .09 .57 .27 .24 .11 2006: Q1... 1.53 .12 .13 1.06 .11 .11 .76 .31 .30 .16  Q2... 1.56 .10 .12 1.08 .13 .13 .62 .45 .34 .15  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual 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.