alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57649-57650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23369]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service


Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 208 in the Central 
Planning Area (CPA) in the Gulf of Mexico

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for 
Proposed Sale 208.

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

SUMMARY: The MMS announces the availability of the proposed Notice of 
Sale for proposed Sale 208 in the CPA. This Notice is published 
pursuant to 30 CFR 256.29(c) as a matter of information to the public. 
With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the 
Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides the 
affected States the opportunity to review the proposed Notice. The 
proposed Notice sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the 
sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rentals.

DATES: Comments on the size, timing, or location of proposed Sale 208 
are due from the affected States within 60 days

[[Page 57650]]

following their receipt of the proposed Notice. The final Notice of 
Sale will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior 
to the date of bid opening. Bid opening is currently scheduled for 
March 18, 2009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed Notice of Sale for Sale 208 and 
a ``Proposed Notice of Sale Package'' containing information essential 
to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, 
Gulf of Mexico Region, Minerals Management Service, 1201 Elmwood Park 
Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Telephone: (504) 736-
2519.

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
Randall B. Luthi,
Director, Minerals Management Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-23369 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Madalyn Fischer

v . Civil No. 09-cv-90-JL

NH Department of Health and Human Service s

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judg e

Muirhead dated July 23, 2009, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

September 9, 2009

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Madalyn Fischer, pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00090-JL Document 8 Filed 09/09/09 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

l0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137388

JAMES R. SHAWL and MARY B. SHAWL, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 137388 COA: 275271 Saginaw CC: 06-060834-NO SPENCE BROTHERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee,

and

J. RANCK ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 19, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
8

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

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

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

1998...... 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.9 27.5 6.8 8.8 11.3 12.5 8.7 1999...... 11.5 8.0 11.0 11.3 20.1 10.5 9.8 11.2 12.4 11.4 2000...... 11.2 8.0 10.8 9.5 22.4 13.2 9.7 11.5 11.1 11.4 2001...... 13.2 8.5 14.0 10.3 24.3 15.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 14.1 2002...... 11.2 8.6 11.5 10.2 23.3 11.7 9.4 10.9 12.5 10.8 2003...... 12.5 8.5 9.4 11.1 26.5 14.4 9.5 11.2 12.7 12.9 2004...... 11.9 9.2 11.9 10.0 23.3 12.0 9.6 11.8 12.9 11.7 2005...... 12.9 9.4 10.0 9.9 18.9 18.3 9.3 11.4 13.5 13.1 2006...... 12.7 8.7 12.9 10.0 15.9 18.3 9.6 11.7 12.6 13.1 2007...... 13.3 9.9 15.1 9.7 21.4 18.5 9.8 11.8 11.6 14.3 2008...... 13.8 9.5 12.3 9.1 30.6 21.7 9.2 11.1 12.6 14.6 2009...... 11.0 9.6 8.4 8.5 27.9 14.3 9.1 10.7 11.8 10.9 2006: Q3... 13.9 9.4 9.3 9.3 24.6 20.2 8.5 11.2 11.3 15.3  Q4... 12.5 9.0 11.4 9.0 14.3 20.6 7.9 9.9 11.4 13.4 2007: Q1... 13.5 10.3 16.5 10.8 33.0 16.3 9.6 14.2 12.5 13.8  Q2... 12.8 10.3 9.8 10.6 21.6 16.5 10.4 12.2 11.3 13.8  Q3... 13.9 6.8 23.9 8.1 20.5 18.3 10.5 10.7 10.1 16.2  Q4... 13.1 10.6 11.6 8.6 15.0 21.7 8.3 10.0 12.4 14.0 2008: Q1... 13.9 10.7 15.9 9.7 38.0 20.2 9.1 12.2 13.6 14.3  Q2... 14.8 8.2 8.9 9.7 24.4 25.7 10.7 11.7 11.9 16.3  Q3... 14.8 8.6 13.2 9.2 34.6 22.5 9.0 11.1 13.9 15.6  Q4... 12.0 9.7 11.7 7.6 29.2 18.7 7.9 9.5 11.5 12.5 2009: Q1... 10.8 9.7 9.6 8.3 36.8 14.0 9.6 12.5 14.6 9.9  Q2... 11.8 12.6 7.5 9.8 31.7 14.6 10.0 11.9 12.6 11.7  Q3... 11.7 7.0 7.7 8.8 35.0 15.8 8.7 9.7 10.8 12.5  Q4... 9.8 9.5 8.8 7.4 15.9 13.2 8.0 8.7 8.9 10.4 2010: Q1... 10.9 9.2 8.4 9.6 24.9 12.2 9.5 10.6 11.8 10.7  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
Chart 1

Number, Size, and Volume of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2008

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

1

2

3

4

5

Number of non-real-estate farm loans Millions, annual rate

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

10

20

30

40

50

60

Average size of non-real-estate farm loans Thousands of dollars

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

25

50

75

100

125

Volume of non-real-estate farm loans

3

Billions of dollars, annual rate
Chart 2

Maturity and Interest Rate of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2008

 Note. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other

 terms of the loans and weighted by loan size.

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

4

8

12

16

Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans 20

Months

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

4

8

12

16

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans 20

Percent

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

0

25

50

75

100 Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

4

Percent
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                       NATIONAL AUTO FINANCE COMPANY, INC.
                    Computation of Earnings per Common Share
                (Unaudited, in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                                            June 30,
                                                                 ------------------------------
                                                                     1999              1998
                                                                 ------------      ------------
<S>                                                              <C>               <C>
Average number of common shares outstanding ................           16,731             9,031

Common equivalent shares outstanding:

Stock options (1) ..........................................               --                --
                                                                 ------------      ------------

Total common and common equivalent shares outstanding ......           16,731             9,031
                                                                 ============      ============

Net income (loss) attributed to common shareholders ........     $     (1,675)     $     (4,330)
                                                                 ============      ============

Loss per common share (basic and diluted) ..................     $      (0.10)     $      (0.48)
                                                                 ============      ============
</TABLE>

------------------------
(1)   Stock options are excluded from the computation of diluted loss per common
      share as the effect of such options would be anti-dilutive.

                                      -29-
#### In the Matter of Michael B. Rudin, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 736]

A certified copy of plea minutes having been filed showing that Michael B. Rudin was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree, he is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ. (Filed June 17, 2002.)
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1122 

To improve the calculation of highway mileage to medium and large hub 

airports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2007 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To improve the calculation of highway mileage to medium 

and large hub airports, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Mapping Airport Prox5 imity Act’’ or the ‘‘MAP Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CALCULATION OF HIGHWAY MILEAGE TO MEDIUM 

7 AND LARGE HUB AIRPORTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 41731 of title 49, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 1122 IS

1 ‘‘(c) CALCULATION OF HIGHWAY MILEAGE TO ME2 DIUM AND LARGE HUB AIRPORTS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any determination under 

4 this subchapter of compensation or eligibility for 

5 compensation for essential air service based on the 

6 highway mileage of an eligible place from the nearest 

7 medium hub airport or large hub airport, the high8 way mileage shall be that of the most commonly 

9 used route, as identified under paragraph (2). 

10 ‘‘(2) MOST COMMONLY USED ROUTE.—The Sec11 retary of Transportation shall identify the most com12 monly used route between an eligible place and the 

13 nearest medium hub airport or large hub airport 

14 by— 

15 ‘‘(A) consulting with the Governor or a 

16 designee of the Governor in the State in which 

17 the eligible place is located; and 

18 ‘‘(B) considering the certification of the 

19 Governor or a designee of the Governor as to 

20 the most commonly used route. 

21 ‘‘(3) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection shall 

22 apply only to eligible places in the 48 contiguous 

23 States and the District of Columbia.’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 1122 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 409 of Vi2 sion 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub3 lic Law 108–176; 49 U.S.C. 41731 note) is repealed. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
Case 1:11-cv-01979-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01979-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01979-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01979-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01979-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01979-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
#### In the Matter of Claude W. Thomas, Respondent, v Felisha Merrill, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Felisha Merrill, Appellant, v Claude William Thomas, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[745 NYS2d 462]

In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Croiter, R.), dated November 6, 2000, as, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s award of custody of the parties’ child to the father. It is well settled that in adjudicating custody and visitation rights the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child *(see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89). Moreover, the court’s determination depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents. Therefore, the findings of the trial court must be treated with great respect unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Gago v Acevedo,*214 AD2d 565; *see also Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173-174; *Amari v Molloy,*293 AD2d 491; *Matter of Winslow v Lott,*272 AD2d 406).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### FINLEY et al. v. POLICE JURY OF CATAHOULA PARISH et al.

No. 5632.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 8, 1938.

Rehearing Denied April 1, 1938.

Jesse C. McGee, of Harrisonburg, and S. R. Holstein, of Winnsboro, for appellants.

*887Flowers & Russell, of Jena, for appel-lees.

HAMITER, Judge.

The trial court, in this controversy, decreed that a previously issued alternative writ of mandamus be made peremptory and that “there be judgment in favor of the relators and against the respondents, the Police Jury of Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, and the individual members thereof, .commanding the respondents to call and caused to be held, according ,to law, an election in the Parish of Catahoula, Louisiana, within ninety (90) days from the date that this judgment becomes final, to determine whether the business of producing, manufacturing, rectifying, blending, handling, selling, distributing, storing or consuming malt, vinous, spiritous, alcoholic, or intoxicating. liquors containing more than six (6%) per centum of alcohol by volume, shall be permitted within the said Parish of Catahoula.” It was further ordered that respondents “do and perform any and all acts necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this judgment.”

The parties cast appealed.

No appearance in this court has been made on behalf of appellants, either by means of oral argument or through brief, and the presumption exists that the appeal has been abandoned. Under circumstances of this nature, there will be no disturbance of the trial court’s decision. Burchik v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., La.App., 177 So. 484; Calhoun v. Hodges, La.App., 174 So. 209, and cases therein cited.

Accordingly, an affirmance of the judgment is ordered.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0310

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

Samuel Huffines,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until August 23, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

07/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0310

FILED

Bowen Greenwood

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MONTANA

07/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0310
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Chad M. Wright, hereby certify that I have served true and accurate copies of the foregoing 

Motion - Unopposed to the following on 07-17-2023:

Audrey S. Cromwell (Govt Attorney)

1709 W. College St.

Ste 200

Bozeman MT 59715

Representing: State of Montana

Service Method: eService

Austin Miles Knudsen (Govt Attorney)

215 N. Sanders

Helena MT 59620

Representing: State of Montana

Service Method: eService

 Electronically signed by Stefanie Moore on behalf of Chad M. Wright

Dated: 07-17-2023

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 17 2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

MATTHEW TIMOTHY, 

Defendant. 

4:23CR3059 

ORDER 

 

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline by 60 days 

(Filing No. 35), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to 

fully review the discovery due to additional discovery materials that defense just 

became aware of. The Court held a status call with counsel on March 28, 2024. 

After conferring with counsel, the motion to continue is denied without prejudice to 

reassertion once Defendant and defense counsel have had the opportunity to 

review the newly produced discovery. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 35), is denied without 

prejudice to reassertion.

2) The change of plea hearing previously scheduled to be held on April 

11, 2024, is canceled. A telephonic conference with counsel will be 

held before the undersigned magistrate judge at 10:30 a.m. on May 

28, 2024 to discuss potential pretrial motions, setting any change of 

plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for disclosing 

experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties shall use 

the conferencing instructions provided by the court to participate in 

the call. 

3) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between today’s date and May 28, 2024 shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have 

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-JMD Doc # 37 Filed: 03/28/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 61
been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately prepare 

this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a 

miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). Failing to 

timely object to this order as provided under this court’s local rules will 

be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not 

have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. 

 Dated this 28th day of March, 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-JMD Doc # 37 Filed: 03/28/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 62
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 FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending July 23, 2016FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodLUTHER BURBANK CORPORATION                                                                                              * 3A1Luther Burbank Corporation, Santa Rosa, California, to become a bank holding company upon the conversion of Luther Burbank Savings, Santa Rosa, California, from a savings bank into a commercial bank.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 07/18/2016NHB HOLDINGS, INC.                                                                                                      CICBrink Investments, Christina Ann Fink, Orlando, Florida, Robert Thomas Fink, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Timothy Russell Brose, St. Petersburg, Florida, for approval to retain over 10 percent of the voting shares of NHB Holdings, Inc., which owns Proficio Bank, both of Cottonwood Heights, Utah.Newspaper: 07/15/2014Federal Register: Not availableWELLS FARGO & COMPANY                                                                                                   CICChange in Bank Control Notice filed by Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., et al, Omaha, Nebraska, to acquire over 10.0 percent of the voting common stock of Wells Fargo & Company, San Francisco, California.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 07/19/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02267-WJM-CBS

STONEAGE, INC, a Colorado Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

NLB Corporation, a Michigan Corporation

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal

with Prejudice filed December 29, 2011 (ECF No. 17). The Court being fully advised

hereby ORDERS as follows:

The parties’ Stipulated Motion is GRANTED. The above-captioned matter is

hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay its own attorney’s fees

and costs.

Dated this 30th day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02267-WJM-CBS Document 18 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
23




Consent of Independent Registered Public
      Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:





(1)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-79561),


(2)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-82805),


(3)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51188),


(4)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51190),


(5)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51192),


(6)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103625),


(7)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103626),


(8)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132281), and


(9)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-154168





of our
reports dated April 29, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp.,
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 28,
2009.





/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
LLP


ERNST & YOUNG
LLP








Melville,
New York


April 29,
2009











EXHIBIT
23








Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement numbers
333-79561, 333-82805, 333-51188, 333-51190, 333-51192, 333-103625, 333-103626,
333-132281, and 333-154168 on Form S-8 of our opinion dated May 7, 2007
(November 21, 2007 as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 2), on
the consolidated financial statements of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and
subsidiaries, as of February 28, 2007 and for the year ended February 28, 2007
included in the Corporation’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2009.








/s/LAZAR
LEVINE & FELIX LLP


Certified
Public Accountants





New York,
New York


April 29,
2009