alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 99.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Balance at    Charged to  Charged to
                                                Beginning     Costs and      Other
Description                          Date       of Period      Expenses    Accounts 
----------------                -------------  -------------- ----------- ----------------
<S>                            <C>             <C>           <C>         <C>
Allowance for doubtful
   accounts.................... January 1, 1994   $ 137,000    $ 121,000     $   -      
                                January 1, 1995     239,000        2,000                
                                January 1, 1996     211,000       10,000                  
                                May 1, 1996         202,000       27,000      243,000  (b)
                                April 27, 1997      471,000      (64,000)     293,000  (b)

Accumulated amortization of
   intangibles..................January 1, 1994   1,540,000      757,000
                                January 1, 1995   2,297,000    1,098,000
                                January 1, 1996   2,614,000      203,000
                                May 1, 1996       2,817,000      566,000
                                April 27, 1997    3,324,000    2,061,000



                                         Balance
                                        at End of
 Deductions              Date             Period 
----------------    ----------------- -----------
<C>               <C>                <C>
$ (19,000) (a)   December 31, 1994    $ 239,000
  (30,000) (a)   December 31, 1995      211,000
  (19,000) (a)   April 30, 1996         202,000
   (1,000) (a)   April 26, 1997         471,000
   16,000  (a)   April 25, 1998         716,000

                 December 31, 1994    2,297,000
(781,000) (c)    December 31, 1995    2,614,000
       -  (c)    April 30, 1996       2,817,000
 (59,000) (c)    April 26, 1997       3,324,000
 (24,000) (c)    April 25, 1998       5,361,000

</TABLE>

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

(a)  Represents write-offs of uncollectible accounts receivable.

(b) Allowance for doubtful accounts acquired in purchase acquisitions.

(c) Represents (write-offs) / recoveries of fully amortized intangible assets.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130855 & (49) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MICHAEL EUGENE DRAKE,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130855 

 COA: 257800 

Hillsdale CC: 03-000318-NF 

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On October 3, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to 

appeal the February 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The motion to permit 

defendant to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. On order of the Court, the 

application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1023 

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

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

October 26, 2007 

Clerk
No. 55533.

#### Samuel S. Perry *v.*United States,

protest 834109-G (Los Angeles).

Opinion b3^

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the fees assessed upon the merchandise in question are of the same character as the fees or duties involved in *Akawo*v. *United States*(68 Treas. Dec. 890, T. D. 48067) and Abstracts 33086 and 33087, which were therein held to have been illegally ■exacted, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Emmanuel B., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Cardinal McCloskey Services, Respondent; Jose M., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[700 NYS2d 145]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about October 15, 1997, terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the subject child and committing the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, following a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports the findings that petitioner agency made diligent efforts to strengthen respondent’s parental relationship with the child, but that respondent repeatedly failed to attend scheduled visits with the child, and also failed to plan for the child’s future by availing himself of services meant to help him obtain housing separate from the child’s mother, whose mental illness made her unable to care for the child *(see, Matter of Kimberly Rosemarie S.,*211 AD2d 594, *lv denied*85 NY2d 809). A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the child’s best interests would be served by freeing him for adoption by his foster parents *(see, Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148). We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
No. 50734.

#### Protests 103156-K, etc., of Adjmi Importing Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9453)

#### American Roland Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. WH 92853.

*672(Decided June 9, 1959)

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for re-appraisement, consists of Pas Sodium, a coal-tar product, which was appraised on the basis of American selling price, as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and subject to duty thereunder by reason of Paragraph 28(e) of said Act.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the American selling price on the date of exportation for said Pas Sodium as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of said act, is $1.90 per pound, net weight, less 1% packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for reap-praisement is abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoice, and that this appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts herein, I find, and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is $1.90 per pound, net weight, less 1 per centum, packed.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        Sec.1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of O2Diesel Corporation (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Alan
        Rae, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, David H. Shipman, Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
        best of my knowledge 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:
        May
        15 ,
        2007
 By:
                Name:
              
              /s/
                  Alan Rae
                Alan Rae
              
              
              
              By:
                Name:
              
              /s/
                  David H. Shipman
                David H. ShipmanTitle:
              
              Chief
                  Executive Officer
              
              Title:
              
              Principal
                  Financial and Accounting Officer(Principal
                  Executive Officer)
 This
        certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the
        Chief
        Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the
        requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not
        be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than
        as
        specifically required by law.
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to O2Diesel Corporation and will be retained by O2Diesel Corporation
        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
 Created by
                  10KWizard
 www.10KWizard.com
 _______________________________________________
33477.

#### KIPLINGER v. KIPLINGER.

Submitted April 14, 1978

Decided October 31, 1978.

*Fred W. Minter,*for appellant.

Charles T. Kiplinger, *pro se.*

Jordan, Justice.

On September 2, 1977, appellant filed an action for contempt against her former husband for nonpayment of support. Appellant now appeals portions of the trial court’s order of November 30, 1977, which reduced the amount of attorney fees allegedly owed by appellee and which did not increase appellee’s support payments.

1. Appellant first alleges that the trial court erred when it absolved appellee from paying $350 in attorney fees awarded appellant in a previous contempt action. This claim is without merit.

Evidence presented during the hearing on this action established that this debt of appellee’s had been discharged in bankruptcy. In *Manuel v. Manuel,*239 Ga. 685, 686 (238 SE2d 328) (1977), this court held that when "an application for a determination of dischargeability is filed and adjudicated in the bankruptcy court, that judgment is res judicata in other courts.”

2. Appellant’s second enumeration of error attempts to review a previous contempt order dated October 19, 1976, which reduced an award of attorney fees from $450 to $350. No notice of appeal was ever filed after entry of this judgment, and it cannot be now raised for review. Code § 6-803 (a).

3. A final enumeration of error claims that the trial court erred in refusing to increase appellee’s support payments. This enumeration is also meritless. A trial judge has no authority in a contempt proceeding to modify the terms of a divorce and alimony judgment. *Herrington v. Herrington,*231 Ga. 177 (200 SE2d 867) (1973).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
(Reap. Dec. 8442)

Entry No. 782397, etc.

#### Chas. L. Huisking Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided May 26, 1955)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

Presented for determination is the proper value for duty purposes of certain steel drums, exported from Iceland, filled with duty-free cod-liver oil during the years 1947 to 1954, *512inclusive, which are covered by the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made part of the decision herein.

It has been stipulated and agreed by the parties hereto that the issues involved in said appeals are similar in all material respects to those in *United States*v. *E. R. Squibb*& *Sons et al.,*42 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 23, C. A. D. 564, wherein it was held that the steel drums were properly dutiable in their condition as imported on the basis of United States value, as defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and that the record in said case may be incorporated into the records of the present appeals for a reappraisement.

The parties have further stipulated and agreed that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved steel drums to the United States, at which such or similar drums were freely offered for sale for domestic consumption, packed ready for delivery, in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, was as follows:

> During the year Value per drum

> 1947 $1. 50

> 1948 1. 00

> 1949 1. 25

> 1950 1. 00

> 1951 1. 00

> 1952 0. 75

> 1953 1. 25

> 1954 0. 75

Plaintiffs waive and claim no allowance for cost of transportation, insurance, expenses from the place of shipment to the place of delivery, commission, profits, or general expenses.

It was also agreed that, on or about the dates of exportation of the steel drums here involved, such or similar drums were not freely offered for sale in Iceland either for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

Upon the uncontroverted facts, the court holds that the proper basis for determining the value of the imported drums in issue is United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (e) of the tariff act, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and that such value was $1.50 per drum during the year 1947, $1 per drum during the year 1948, $1.25 per drum during the year 1949, $1 per drum during the years 1950 and 1951, 75 cents per drum during the year 1952, $1.25 per drum during the year 1953, and 75 cents per drum during the year 1954, less the item of duty in each instance.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<NAME> Werner Holding Co. (DE), Inc.
<CIK> 0001056112

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,900
<INVENTORY>                                     58,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,731
<PP&E>                                         175,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                  91,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 255,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,194
<BONDS>                                        277,434
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (143,877)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   255,440
<SALES>                                        484,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               484,646
<CGS>                                          348,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,067
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   709
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,966
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,649
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,317
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8

----

|   | Randall A.    Wotring |                             |
|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------------|
|   |                  |                             |   |
|   | By:                   | /s/ Randall      A. Wotring |   |
|   |                  | Randall      A. Wotring     |   |
|   |                  |                             |   |
|   |                  |                             |   |

|   | EG&G Technical Services,      Inc.,a Delaware corporation |                                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                          |                                      |   |
|   | By:                                                           | /s/ H.      Thomas Hicks             |   |
|   |                                                          | Name:      H. Thomas Hicks           |   |
|   |                                                          | Title:      Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   |                                                          |                                      |   |

----
33783.

#### WHITE v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Justice.

Appellant, William Paul White, appeals his conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment, alleging that his in-custody statement was not voluntarily made, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and other errors.

1. After a Jackson-Denno hearing the trial court ruled that appellant’s statement was voluntarily made, and this determination by the trial court will be accepted unless it is shown to be clearly erroneous. *Pierce v. State,*235 Ga. 237 (219 SE2d 158) (1975). Before an in-custody statement may be introduced as evidence the state is *22required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was freely and voluntarily given. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618) (1972); *High v. State,*233 Ga. 153 (210 SE2d 673) (1974). This standard was clearly met by the evidence presented in this case, and appellant’s claim that his statement was involuntary is without merit.

2. We have carefully reviewed the evidence and find it sufficient to support the verdict.

3. It was not error for the trial court to allow into evidence several photographs of the victim’s body, over the objection that the photographs were of no probative value and were calculated merely to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury.

4. Appellant objected to testimony relating to previous incidents of animosity between the appellant and victim on the ground that it was not relevant to any issue in the case. A trial court does not err in admitting evidence of a previous difficulty between a defendant and victim which illustrates the state of feeling between them. *Evans v. State,*227 Ga. 571 (181 SE2d 845) (1971).

5. The complained portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument was a comment on the appellant’s failure to produce evidence, not a prohibited comment on the appellant’s failure to testify. *Wood v. State,*234 Ga. 758 (218 SE2d 47) (1975); *Dorsey v. State,*204 Ga. 345 (3) (49 SE2d 886) (1948).

Further, after making his objection, appellant’s counsel requested that the court not take the precautionary step of charging the jury that it should draw no adverse inference from appellant’s failure to testify.

6. The trial court correctly charged on lesser included offenses, but chose to use its own standard charge rather than appellant’s requested charge. It is not error for a trial court to refuse to instruct the jury in the exact language of a request. *White v. State,*230 Ga. 327, 339 (196 SE2d 849) (1973).

7. It was not error for the trial judge to refuse to give a requested charge on involuntary manslaughter where the evidence did not authorize same. *State v. Stonaker,*236 Ga. 1 (222 SE2d 354) (1976).

*23Submitted July 7, 1978

Decided September 5, 1978.

*Robert M. Coker,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, R. David Petersen, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                           PRIME RESPONSE GROUP INC.

           AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 1998 STOCK OPTION/STOCK ISSUANCE PLAN

                              dated July 15, 1999


1.    Purpose. The purpose of this Amendment is to amend the Prime Response
      -------
   Group Inc. 1998 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (the "Plan") in such
   respects as are necessary to account for options presently issued and to be
   issued in excess of allowances under the Plan as currently written.

2.    Stock Subject to the Plan
      -------------------------

   Section V.A. of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting that subsection in its
   entirety and replacing it with the following:

   The stock issuable under the Plan shall be shares of authorized but unissued
   or reacquired Common Stock. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock
   which may be issued or made available over the term of the Plan shall not
   exceed 2,514,300 shares, it being understood that (a) options to purchase (i)
   848,300 shares were granted to and exercised by Peter Boni, (ii) 1,299,658
   shares have been granted to certain employees of the Corporation and (iii)
   366,342 shares remain available for future grant and (b) options to purchase,
   or grants of, the aggregate 1,666,000 shares referred to in the foregoing
   clauses (ii) and (iii) will be satisfied by the exercise by the Corporation
   of its option to purchase 1,666,000 shares from Nevin Prakash.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The PBSJ Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, W. Scott DeLoach, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                                             
|----------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|February 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Scott DeLoach                        
|                  |  |     |  | W. Scott DeLoach                            
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)