alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JOSTENS,
INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                          12,373
<SECURITIES>                                   161,096
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,049)
<INVENTORY>                                     71,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               402,368
<PP&E>                                         184,556
<DEPRECIATION>                               (116,731)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 547,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          196,087
<BONDS>                                         53,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,160
<OTHER-SE>                                     255,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   547,968
<SALES>                                        665,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               665,099
<CGS>                                          313,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  313,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               256,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,552
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,893
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,027
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,864)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (634)
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.13

NOTE EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

THIS NOTE AND EXTENSION MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
(Agreement) is entered into by and between JILCO INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation (Payor) and MILL EQUITIES CO, a California General Partnership (Payee).

Payor and Payee do hereby mutually acknowledge and agree that Payor is presently liable to Payee for the indebtedness represented by a certain Revolving
Demand promissory note payable to MILL EQUITIES CO in the original principal amount of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) (Note) with interest accruing on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 8% per year. Payor and
Payee previously orally agreed to extend the initial maturity date of December 31, 1999. Said Note was not paid on December 31, 1999. Interest on the unpaid principal balance has continued to accrue through July 31, 2006. Payor has
requested Payee to again extend the maturity date of said Note and Payor is willing to do so.

NOW, THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION
IN HAND

RECEIVED, the parties hereto, and each of them, do hereby agree that effective as of the date hereof, the unpaid principal portion of the Note and
all unpaid accrued interest, if any, shall be all due and payable on July 31, 2007.

Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to
affect the obligation of Payor regarding the payment of interest accrued on the Note through the date hereof, or to affect any obligations of Payor under the Note, except as set forth herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, and each of them, have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth below but effective as of the 31st day of
December, 1999.



|                         |  |    |  |                                                    |  | 
|------------------------ |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                         |  |    |  | JILCO INDUSTRIES, INC.                            
|                         |  |    |  | a California corporation                          
|                         |  |    | 
|Date:    August 29, 2006 |  | By |  | /s/ Martha J. Kretzmer                             |  | 
|                         |  |    |  | Martha J. Kretzmer                                 |  | 
|                         |  |    |  | President                                          |  | 
|                         |  |    |  | Payor                                            |  | 
|                         |  |    |  | MILL EQUITIES CO, a California General Partnership
|                         |  |    |  | By: Leonard M. Ross, Trustee of the               
|                         |  |    |  | Leonard M. Ross Revocable Trust                   
|                         |  |    |  | u/d/t 12-20-85, Partner                           
|                         |  |    | 
|Date:    August 29, 2006 |  |    |  | /s/ Leonard M. Ross                                |  | 
|                         |  |    |  | Leonard M. Ross, Trustee                          
|                         |  |    |  | Payee
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE02973

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNN GENERAL OF TEXAS AIJSI-INDr. LO. Toule, Prw&b&at, page 2 

### reiitted c the appllaant, under the name 01 

### 301. Rogers, t4 take the minatlon subjeat to 

## l pprwaldterobta%nlnga rullngfromy~ur de

### partment* Ro@M8 has parsedthe oSWd.natien, aad the pueslifbion now is whether o? aot he 18 en?ltled to a ltaoaf3~~ 

## l 8ererallaonthsa~~~~wauraoaPlp~iat filed ia Eaxrla uouuty is&ninstSol. f. Ro@m8 SW 

### praatioing

Optaswtry

nitho*.a lloenee~ 0a lhpodirferent oomplalntr the ahaX&08 noxa' tlU+ ai88a&, at the requed 

### of the Dirtrlot Attorney, and QIIthe third 

## eom~laint3he drlonaant;~Sol~ t. Rogera, waeiIOU not eullty.* 

### ArMalma 598s ana 69% ot~ths~Rovi5abClrilstat

## utee ma4 a8 fd.laet



### 4$&rte59S09 3henever a4 prawn ahall uhange hi@ orlglmii naxm and adopt another, it sbau. not operate to.~lease h5.mfiaprmy XWsponsibillty whldh h&May have inaurmd by the original n~amenor defeet~or4le~trop 6uaYrl@ts ur 

### property br aotion rhloh the 

### person had or held +I his ori&inal nam¶** 

### Rbferrfng

to examlnatiqpls akamlnaxa in optolzbstxy, Art1a1s 3 'sgh;~fi~8~fij& w&ah applumnt ehall be given duo aotfoe ai:the data and glaoe of examlnatfon~ All et batloos sha.11



### .be~ aoiiduated Sm writing and bf gt~ohother sea@ as the board shall deter-Dr. Ji.0.Toule, Proeiceat, pge 3

mine adequate to asoertain the qusllfitmtiona’ Of~aj&+utk, aa& in &oh maunec as ehall be SntiZo~ 

### fairand impartial to all indiv~duaJ.8 

### ad wox .rOOo(pl5~a 8~hOOi Of OphM¶~. AU applio6nb era;;inadat the 8aue time 8hall be &iV8@ iduo*iOti @&3'&iOlI8r .Phe beard may wetube to 

### a&iltprsona to its esanii.nuti*or to issue l&mums for pap orthe rollawing ma* rcPI#

**‘ 1.**  **Ti8** presentation to the bokpd of any untrue mtatement ox any doaumsnt or te8tUonp g3.aa.a; Ule@Uly ox $mwlulently obtaiaed,

T d or doaeit **ha8** been praotlaed in 

### pcioslng.tp

eraslnatlosi.~

Tipweiore,

youare reipedfullydvised that it .tethe opinion of thl8 d&tprtmeZltthat the r-8 stats **i3wd 0r**  **imwbl21) in**  **optoarstrjr ~0~16**  **not ba**  **jU5tima** 

### or hare the authorlty~.towithhold a liaenas to pracltloe optometry from Sol; J, BOaer5.

Trwstlng that tha foregolag fully answeri pour

## r39:

Dr. W3. iowls,Prasibsnt, page4

.

.”

.,

‘2

- . _. ..-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAUL SVINDLAND, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION, :

et al. : NO. 05-417

________________________________________________

ROBERT DADDIO, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

THE A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR :

CHILDREN OF THE NEMOURS :

FOUNDATION, et al. : NO. 05-441

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2009, upon consideration

of the various evidentiary motions filed by the parties in the

above-captioned cases, the oppositions and reply briefs filed by

the parties and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

(“CHOP”), an interested third party, as well as the arguments

presented by the parties and by CHOP at a hearing on said motions

on March 11, 2009, and for the reasons stated in a memorandum of

law bearing today’s date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Svindland defendants’ Motion in Limine to

Preclude Mortality Data (C.A. No. 05-417, Docket No. 148) is

GRANTED. The testimony and report of the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr.

Robert L. Hannan, do not meet the standard for admissibility

under Daubert, and therefore may not be introduced at trial. The

Case 2:05-cv-00441-MAM Document 153 Filed 05/19/09 Page 1 of 2
plaintiffs may also not introduce any evidence or testimony at

trial related to or referring to the morbidity and mortality

rates of Dr. Norwood’s patients, any patients treated at the A.I.

duPont Hospital for Children, or any patients other than Ian

Svindland, as explained in the Court’s memorandum of law.

2. The defendants’ Motions for a Protective Order in

the Svindland and Daddio cases (C.A. No. 05-417, Docket No. 147;

C.A. No. 05-441, Docket No. 130) are GRANTED. The plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel in the Svindland case (C.A. No. 05-417, Docket

No. 150) is DENIED. The plaintiffs may not enforce the subpoenas

directed to CHOP and to Dr. James Goin to obtain raw data related

to publications of studies done at CHOP.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00441-MAM Document 153 Filed 05/19/09 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT A. STATEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0520 GEB PAN P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEDIA, Jr, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges violations

of his civil rights by defendants. The alleged violations took place in Kern County, which is part

of the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

See Local Rule 3-120(d). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in

the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper

division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the

court. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00520-GEB-PAN Document 27 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and

shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street

Fresno, CA 93721

DATED: May 24, 2006.

\004

stat0520.22

Case 2:04-cv-00520-GEB-PAN Document 27 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Due to usage of Javascripting on the website for State Personal Income, http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/SQPI_NewsRelease.htm, many of the functions of the web site have not been replicated. Please see ~\netsite-docs\lps3781\lps3781\bea.gov\newsreleases\regional\spi for a collection of the reports beginning in 1996.
No. 49137.

#### Protests 865533-G, etc., of Olaf Hertzwig Trading Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK VALENZUELA, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0900 FCD DAD P

vs.

C. SMITH, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action. Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment has been briefed and is submitted for decision. Pursuant to the court’s

December 27, 2004 scheduling order, the case is set for a pretrial conference on November 25,

2004, and jury trial on February 28, 2006.

Defendants were granted an extension of time to file their motion for summary

judgment, and plaintiff was granted an extension of time to oppose the motion. Plaintiff

subsequently filed an unauthorized reply to defendants’ reply and has recently filed a motion for

injunctive relief. The pending matters cannot be resolved prior to the date set for pretrial

conference. Good cause appearing, the dates set for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and

jury trial will be vacated. If claims remain to be tried after defendants’ summary judgment

motion is resolved, new dates will be set at a later time.

Case 2:04-cv-00900-FCD-DAD Document 55 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pretrial conference set for November 25, 2005, is vacated, along with the dates

set for filing pretrial statements and motions to obtain attendance of witnesses at trial; and

2. Jury trial set for February 28, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Frank C.

Damrell is vacated.

DATED: November 8, 2005.

DAD:13

vale0900.vac

Case 2:04-cv-00900-FCD-DAD Document 55 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61836.

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 234255-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of a mixture of sugar and water similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Jovita Perez et al.*(44 C. C. P. A. 35, C. A. D. 633), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

Filed 1/26/21 P. v. Ferris CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN GEORGE FERRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C091500

(Super. Ct. No. CRF177922)

In December 2017, Woodland police encountered defendant traveling in Yolo 

County in a vehicle that contained over 1,300 grams of methamphetamine. Officers 

tracked the vehicle as it moved between Alameda County and Yolo County, passing 

through other counties along the way. 

In December 2019, and in exchange for the dismissal of all other allegations in a 

March 2018 information, defendant pled no contest to one count -- transportation for sale 

of a controlled substance from one county to a noncontiguous county.

In January 2020, and consistent with the terms of the negotiated disposition, the 

trial court imposed a sentence of six years (the middle term) to be served in county 
2

prison. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $40 court operations assessment 

and a $30 conviction assessment. 

The trial court calculated five days of credit toward his sentence.

Defendant appealed. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 

days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and 

defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the record, we find an error that must be 

corrected. The trial court did not dismiss the remaining counts and enhancements as 

contemplated by the parties’ agreement. We will modify the judgment to dismiss those

allegations. (Pen. Code, § 1260; see People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860-

861.) Pursuant to Wende, we find no other arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to dismiss count 1 and count 2 and all enhancements 

alleged. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

/s/ 

Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/ 

Raye, P. J.

/s/ 

Murray, J.
Before the Second Division,

April 2, 1947

No. 51643.

#### Protests 121492-K, etc., of J. Berbecker & Sons, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-60031

_____________________

LAMAR ISHEE and ANGELA N. ISHEE, individually and on behalf of CAITLIN S. ISHEE, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants,

versus GRUMMAN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellants. ******************************************************************* ANGELA N. ISHEE, Individually and on behalf of Caitlin S. Ishee, a Minor and as Administratrix of the Estate of Lamar Ishee, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants,* Pursuant to Rule 47.5, the co urt has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

-2- McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT COMPANY, ET AL.,

versus JERRY KEUCHMAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-474-BrN)

_________________________________________________________________ April 12, 1996 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
In an earlier unpublished opinion, we remanded this ca se to the district court for further proceedings on the narrow question whether McDonnell Douglas properly removed the case based on the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C . § 1442 (the "FORS"). The district court, in an unpublished opinion dated March 27, 1996, determined that McDonnell Douglas was not entitled to remove this

case under the FORS. It thus held that it did not have subject1 The district court also relie d on its earlier opinion and

order dated December 15, 1994, in which it determined that no other party had properly removed the case to federal court.

-3- matter jurisdiction over the case 1 and remanded it to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Because the district court remanded the case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review this order. Hook

v. Morrison Milling Co. , 38 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 1994). The appeal is therefore
D I S M I S S E D.
The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20010109090600/http://www.census.gov:80/industry/ma36l...

CURRENT INDUSTRIAL REPORTS

ELECTRIC LIGHTING FIXTURES - 1995

MA36L(95)-1

Issued November 1, 1996

Revised November 12, 1996 (Table 3)

Contact: Jack Matthews 301-457-4842

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

 During 1995, the total value of shipments of electric lighting fixtures was

$5,831.1 million. This represents a 5 percent increase from the 1994 total value of

$5,548.0 million. The 1995 figure includes residential type fixtures, $1,003.1

million, a decrease of 2 percent from 1994; commercial and institutional type fixtures,

$2,776.4 million, an increase of 5 percent from 1994; industrial type fixtures, $616.7

million, an increase of 11 percent from 1994; and outdoor lighting equipment, $1,434.9

million, an increase of 8 percent from 1994. Vehicular lighting equipment data were

discontinued in 1992.

Table 1. VALUE OF SHIPMENTS OF ELECTRIC LIGHTING FIXTURES: 1985 TO 1994

(Millions of dollars)

Product

code Product description 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 

1989 1988 1987 1986

 Electric lighting fixtures 1/. 5,831.1 5,548.0 5,115.0 4,720.1 4,426.0 4,798.2 

4,738.0 4,571.8 4,417.8 4,102.8

36451 Residential type..................... 1,003.1 1,025.1 996.5 898.2 760.9 827.6 

858.5 877.1 916.1 844.9

36462 Commercial and institutional

 type, except spotlight............. 2,776.4 2,633.7 2,390.8 2,221.2 2,164.8 2,379.7 

2,316.7 2,242.7 2,094.8 1,940.2

36463 Industrial type...................... 616.7 554.9 493.4 442.1 446.4 529.4 

504.6 430.6 419.1 400.9

36470 Vehicular lighting equipment......... (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 1,616.1 1,620.7 

1,570.5 1,564.4 1,368.5 1,222.4

36485 Outdoor lighting equipment........... 1,439.4 1,334.2 1,234.2 1,158.6 1,053.9 1,061.5 

1,058.2 1,021.4 987.8 916.8

 1/ Excludes Product Class 36470, Vehicular Lighting Equipment, which will not be available

after 1991.

 NA Not available.

Table 2. QUANTITY AND VALUE OF SHIPMENTS OF ELECTRIC LIGHTING FIXTURES: 1995 AND 1994

(Quantity in 1,000 units. Value in $1,000)

 No. 1995 

1994

Product Product description of

 code cos. Quantity 

Value Quantity Value

36451 -- Electric lighting fixtures, residential type.................. 124 (X) 

1,003,081 (X) 1,025,073

 Incandescent, excluding PAR lampholders and

 floodlights:

 Interior, including bath or kitchen:

36451 11 Ceiling or pendant...................................... 74 b/ 15,448 b/

284 907 b/ 16 681 b/ 312 842