alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1998: Q4... 100 .01 .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 * * * 1999: Q4... 100 .01 .01 3.00 9.00 30.00 36.00 17.00 5.00 1.00 .01 .01 * * * 2000: Q4... 100 * .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2005: Q4... 100 .68 6.95 26.62 32.48 25.80 6.63 .70 * * * * * * * 2006: Q4... 100 * 3.32 10.48 17.65 39.46 21.03 7.27 .65 * * * * * * 2007: Q4... 100 * 7.53 22.95 27.42 25.90 14.22 1.65 * * * * * * * 2008: Q4... 100 52.53 18.20 16.11 8.68 3.71 .65 * * * * * * * * 2009: Q4... 100 52.92 18.49 20.52 6.08 1.47 * * * * * * * * * 2006: Q2... 100 * 1.04 14.21 34.09 30.67 15.91 3.24 .56 * * * * * *  Q3... 100 * * 5.27 21.96 34.82 30.67 5.70 1.12 * * * * * *  Q4... 100 * 3.32 10.48 17.65 39.46 21.03 7.27 .65 * * * * * * 2007: Q1... 100 * * 7.64 19.40 38.92 28.70 3.97 1.02 * * * * * *  Q2... 100 * 1.43 5.99 17.56 39.08 27.15 7.64 1.10 * * * * * *  Q3... 100 * .71 5.44 30.65 35.13 19.80 6.25 1.48 * * * * * *  Q4... 100 * 7.53 22.95 27.42 25.90 14.22 1.65 * * * * * * * 2008: Q1... 100 9.82 19.42 36.70 20.50 9.19 4.03 * * * * * * * *  Q2... 100 25.50 26.97 29.46 12.17 4.47 .87 .56 * * * * * * *  Q3... 100 42.96 22.94 21.11 8.58 2.62 1.52 * * * * * * * *  Q4... 100 52.53 18.20 16.11 8.68 3.71 .65 * * * * * * * * 2009: Q1... 100 39.51 21.84 28.68 5.44 3.88 * * * * * * * * *  Q2... 100 47.26 23.81 20.08 5.22 2.50 .67 * * * * * * * *  Q3... 100 47.01 22.06 20.03 8.04 1.70 .56 .58 * * * * * * *  Q4... 100 52.92 18.49 20.52 6.08 1.47 * * * * * * * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and Opinion Filed July 19, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00668-CV 

IN RE BRADLEY B. MILLER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-02616-Y 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

Before the Court is relator’s July 10, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record 

to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) 

(orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a). 

To the extent relator complains about the associate judge’s May 1, 2023 order 

on relator’s motion to compel discovery and the district judge’s purported rulings on 
 –2– 

relator’s motion to compel, we conclude after reviewing the petition and record 

before us that relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure and relator did not satisfy his burden to provide a sufficient record. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1)–(2); Walker, 827 S.W.3d at 837. Because 

relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief, we deny these portions of relator’s 

petition. See In re Jones, No. 05-23-00492-CV, No. 05-23-00493-CV, 2023 WL 

4101440, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

To the extent relator asks this Court to compel (1) the district judge to rule on 

relator’s motion to compel and (2) the trial court to provide a reporter’s record, we 

conclude that relator did not satisfy his burden to provide a sufficient record and 

failed to provide any argument with appropriate citations to authorities and to the 

appendix or record to support the requested relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h), 

(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); Walker, 827 S.W.3d at 837. Accordingly, we deny these 

portions of relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

To the extent relator simply asks for various declaratory and injunctive relief, 

we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and dismiss these portions of the petition. See 

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; see, e.g., In re Day Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 05-20-

00643-CV, 2020 WL 5036145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 2, 2020, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.) (injunctive relief); In re Martin, No. 05-18-00542-CV, 2018 
 –3– 

WL 2147949, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 10, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 

(declaratory relief). 

230668F.P05 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
                                  Estimated volume                 Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                               (millions of dollars)                                (percent)
                      ________________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1       Q2       Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
1998......    |           6      -1        3        0        5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0        3        5        7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12        3        8       14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10        9        5       17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8        6        5       16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |          32       4        6        8       14      .082      .010      .015     .021     .034
2004......    |          18       1        5        2       10      .044      .003      .012     .005     .021
2005......    |          17       2       11        4        0      .039      .005      .024     .009     .000
2006......    |          20       2        6        1       12      .042      .003      .012     .002     .023
2007......    |           8      -3        0        5        6      .015     -.006      .000     .009     .011
2008......    |          54       5        8       12       29      .093      .008      .013     .020     .046
2009......    |        n.a.      33     n.a.     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .051      n.a.     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.

25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01749-CMA-MEH

SABRINA MAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., and

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 12, 2011.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference [filed September 12, 2011;

docket #6] is granted. In light of the Notice of Settlement filed on September 9, 2011, the

Scheduling Conference set for September 15, 2011 is vacated. The parties shall file dismissal

papers with the Court on or before October 10, 2011.

Case 1:11-cv-01749-CMA-MEH Document 8 Filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nancy Duhaime

v. Civil No. 09-cv-00018-JL

Host International, Inc.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

May 15, 2009.

The caption is amended to substitute the correct name of the

defendant, as reflected in the caption above.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 8) is approved as

submitted, with the following changes:

• “DiBennedetto” disclosure deadline--June 1, 2009

• Depositions--the plaintiff is allowed the same number and

duration as the defendant.

Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at

the conference, the following affirmative defenses are stricken

without prejudice to being reinstated on request if warranted by

the evidence: fourth (unclean hands) and fifth (estoppel).

Case 1:09-cv-00018-JL Document 10 Filed 05/15/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The defendant will amend ¶¶ 18 and 23 of its Answer to

clearly indicate its position with respect to the events alleged

in the corresponding allegations in the complaint.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 15, 2009

cc: Brian C. Shaughnessy, Esq.

Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

Margaret Wood Danielski, Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-00018-JL Document 10 Filed 05/15/09 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.2


                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (this "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of January 1, 2004, by and between Werner Co., a Pennsylvania
corporation (the "Company"), and Peter R. O'Coin ("Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to enter into this Amendment to
certain terms of the Employment Agreement dated as of March 12, 2002 (the
"Agreement").

     NOW THEREFORE, the Company and Executive agree as follows:

     1. PLACE AND TERM OF EMPLOYMENT

     Section 2(b) of the Agreement shall be amended by deleting such section in
its entirety and replacing it with the following:

          (b) Subject to Section 6 hereunder, the term of this Agreement shall
     be through December 31, 2006. This Employment Agreement shall be
     automatically renewed for successive one (1) year periods thereafter unless
     either party gives notice otherwise within 12 months, but not less than 6
     months prior to an expiration.

     2. REMAINING PROVISIONS.

     All provisions of the Agreement not otherwise amended by this Amendment
shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the day and
year first above written.

                                       WERNER CO., a Pennsylvania
                                       Corporation



                                       By:      /s/ Dennis G. Heiner
                                                -----------------------------
                                       Name:    Dennis G. Heiner
                                       Title:   President and CEO



                                       EXECUTIVE


                                       /s/ Peter R. O'Coin
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Peter R. O'Coin
#### In the Matter of Ethel Richards, Respondent, v Vincent Bailey, Jr., Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 493]

In a paternity and child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 5, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 4, 1999, denying his objections to an order of the same court (Gonzalez-Roman, H.E.), entered March 30, 1999, finding that he was in willful violation of an order of support dated October 3, 1997, (2) an order of commitment of the same court, also dated June 4, 1999, (3) an order of the same court, dated June 22, 1999, suspending his incarceration on condition that he pay all arrears, and (4) an order of commitment of the same court, dated October 13, 1999.

Ordered that the appeals from the orders of commitment *413dated June 4, 1999, and October 13, 1999, and the order dated June 22, 1999, are dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 4, 1999, denying the father’s objections to an order finding that he was in willful violation of a prior support order, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The proof before the Hearing Examiner of the appellant’s failure to pay court ordered support for over one year constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation of the support order (see Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; *Matter of Department of Social Servs. [C. Children] v Richard C.,*250 AD2d 766). Thus, the burden of going forward shifted to the appellant to offer competent credible evidence of his inability to comply with the order (see *Matter of Powers v Powers,*86 NY2d 63, 69; *Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch,*229 AD2d 533).

Although the appellant claimed that he had no money to pay child support because he was not working, the ability to pay support also includes the ability to find employment *(see Matter of Nieves v Gordon,*264 AD2d 445). At the hearing, the appellant admitted that he had not been employed for the previous year. He explained that while he would be able to work at night, because of his own father’s medical condition his time to seek employment was limited as interviews were generally conducted during the day. However, the appellant presented no evidence that he had actively sought employment while his father was being cared for by others. Therefore, the Family Court properly found that the appellant’s failure to seek employment was a willful violation of the support order *(see Matter of Dorner v McCarroll,*271 AD2d 530; *Matter of Reed v Reed,*240 AD2d 951). Santucci, J.P., Altman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)

The undersigned, the chief executive officer of Span-America Medical Systems,
Inc. (the Company), certifies that to the best of his knowledge: (1) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2003 (the
Annual Report), which accompanies this certification fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained in the
Annual Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no person shall be entitled
to rely upon the foregoing certification for any other purpose. The
undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing
certification except as required by law.

|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/ James D. Ferguson                
|                        |  |                                      
|                        |  | James D. Ferguson                    
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |                                      
|Date: December 22, 2003 |  |                                      





---



##### 



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)

The undersigned, the chief financial officer of Span-America Medical Systems,
Inc. (the Company), certifies that to the best of his knowledge: (1) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2003 (the
Annual Report), which accompanies this certification fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained in the
Annual Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no person shall be entitled
to rely upon the foregoing certification for any other purpose. The
undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing
certification except as required by law.

|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | /s/ Richard C. Coggins 
|                        |  |                        
|                        |  | Richard C. Coggins     
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |                        
|Date: December 22, 2003 |  |
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23241]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Consumer Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting of the Consumer 
Advisory Council

    The Consumer Advisory Council will meet on Thursday, October 23, 
2008. The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will take 
place at the Federal Reserve Board's offices in Washington, DC, in 
Dining Room E on the Terrace Level of the Martin Building. Anyone 
planning to attend the meeting should, for security purposes, register 
no later than Tuesday, October 21, by completing the form found on line 
at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/secure/forms/cacregistration.cfm.
    Additionally, attendees must present photo identification to enter 
the building.
    The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and is expected to conclude at 1 
p.m. The Martin Building is located on C Street, NW., between 20th and 
21st Streets.
    The Council's function is to advise the Board on the exercise of 
the Board's responsibilities under various consumer financial services 
laws and on other matters on which the Board seeks its advice. Time 
permitting, the Council will discuss the following topics:
    <bullet> Housing and Economic Reco very Act of 2008: Members will 
discuss various initiatives included in the legislation, such as the 
new Federal Housing Administration ``HOPE for Homeowners'' refinancing 
program and the provision of $4 billion in block grant funds for the 
redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes
    <bullet> Proposed rules regarding credit cards and overdraft 
services: Members will discuss issues raised in the public comments 
received on the Board's proposed rules prohibiting unfair or deceptive 
acts or practices in connection with credit card accounts and overdraft 
services for deposit accounts.
    <bullet> Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): Members will discuss 
key findings from the 2007 HMDA data.
    Reports by committees and other matters initiated by Council 
members also may be discussed.
    Persons wishing to submit views to the Council on any of the above 
topics may do so by sending written statements to Jennifer Kerslake, 
Secretary of the Consumer Advisory Council, Division of Consumer and 
Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
Washington, DC 20551. Information about this meeting may be obtained 
from Ms. Kerslake, 202-452-6470.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 29, 
2008.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
 [FR Doc. E8-23241 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: January 12, 2017 1 06735

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILFREDO DEJESUS, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: December 13, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Thuillez, Ford, Gold, Butler & Monroe, LLP, Albany (Kelly M. Monroe of counsel), for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered May 8, 2013 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree. In satisfaction of a 12-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of six years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. Defendant's sole contention is that his plea was factually deficient in that it failed to establish the element of intent necessary for a conviction of burglary in the second degree.-2- 106735

Defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea is precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal, which we find was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v Zakrzewski, 140 AD3d 1536, 1537 [2016]; People v Devault, 124 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 989 [2015]; People v Reynolds, 117 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2014]). Moreover, the issue is not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made any postallocution motion to withdraw his plea, and no statements made during the plea colloquy warrant the application of the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Butler, 134 AD3d 1349, 1350 [2015], lvs denied 27 NY3d 962, 963 [2016]; People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]). Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court