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




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         165,781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  226,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    148,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               577,366
<PP&E>                                         317,906
<DEPRECIATION>                               (159,039)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,266,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,030,299
<BONDS>                                        245,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,057
<OTHER-SE>                                     235,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,266,398
<SALES>                                      1,361,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,361,036
<CGS>                                        1,116,870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,116,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               562,208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (352,881)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (352,881)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  33,137
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (319,744)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9330]



[[Page 27311]]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants

Scotia Ocean Services, LTD, 15550 Vickery Drive, Suite 100, Houston, TX 
77032, Michael K. McGovern, Sole Proprietor.
Caribbean Ocean Corp. (JA), 8005 NW 80th Street, Unit 4, Miami, FL 
33167. Officers: Hugh Osborne, Vice President. (Qualifying Individual), 
Dean Osborne, President.
Total Forwarding LLC dba Norse Ocean Lines, dba Total Forwarding, 130 
Grandview Trace, Fayetteville, GA 30215. Officer: Johnny S. Flaten, 
Director (Qualifying Individual).
Aarid Enterprise Corp., 1340 Chesapeake Ave., Baltimore, MD 21226. 
Officers: William Donald Dailey, President, Anita Lynn Knapp, Vice 
President, Betty Lee Lewis, Secretary (Qualifying Individuals).

    Dated: May 10, 2007.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9330 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
**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 Certified Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for  the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date hereof (the “Report”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,  as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Rick  Steen, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that to the best  of my knowledge:

| (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. |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                           |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                           |

| /s/ Rick Steen                 |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
| Name: Rick Steen               |   |
| Acting Chief Financial Officer |   |
| April 30, 2004                 |   |

_______________________

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CERTIFIED SERVICES,  INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CERTIFIED SERVICES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

Note: The certification the Registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed  “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as otherwise  expressly stated in such filing.

----
(Reap. Dec. 8423)

Entry No. 210.

#### American Import Co. *v.*United States

(Decided April 28, 1955)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief 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, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeal for reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *United States*v. *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.,*A. R. D. 17, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the invoices the subject of the above appeal for reappraisement, less the item of a buying commission of 5% as shown on the invoice, are equal to the prices at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeal for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the item of a buying commission of 5 per centum as shown on the invoice.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

May 4, 1950

No. 54306.

#### Berg, Hedstrom & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 110705-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature leather articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 32, C. A. D. 415), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
ex10-1.htm


    SECOND
      AMENDMENT TO THE DEBENTURE

    


    Reference
      is made to that certain 15% Debenture issued as follows:

    


    
      	 	
              Issuer:

            	
              Theater
                Xtreme Entertainment Group, Inc. (the “Company”)

            
	 	
              Issued
                to:

            	
              ___________________________
                (the “Payee”)

            
	 	
              Principal
                Sum

            	
              $______________

            
	 	
              Maturity
                Date:

            	
              November
                30, 2007

            
	 	
              Original
                Issue date:

            	
              November
                __, 2006

            
	 	
              First
                Amendment Date:

            	
              November
                21, 2007 (the “Debenture”)

            


    

    


    Whereas,
      the Company is in the process of raising additional capital, and

    


    Whereas,
      the Company desires that certain of its existing debentures be amended to
      facilitate this capital raise, and,

    


    Whereas,
      the Payee agrees to further amend said Debenture,

    


    Now,
      therefore, for and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and
      valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
      acknowledged, the Company and Payee hereby agree that the Debenture be and
      hereby is amended as follows:

    


    Paragraph
      1, as amended, be deleted in
      its entirety and replaced by the following, effective on November 22,
      2007:

    


    “1.  Maturity.
      All
      principal, accrued interest and other amounts due hereunder shall be due and
      payable on March 17, 2008 (the “Maturity Date”). The Company may prepay the
      amounts due and payable due under this Debenture at any time in whole or in
      part
      without any prepayment penalty.”

    


    All
      other
      provisions of the Debenture remain in full force and effect, other than any
      provision that conflicts with the terms of this amendment.

    


    Agreed
      and Accepted:

    


    
      	 	 	
              Theater
                Xtreme Entertainment Group, Inc.

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
              by:
                ___________

            	 	
              by:
                James J. Vincenzo

            
	
              its:____________

            	 	
              CFO

            
	 	 	 
	
              Dated:
                ___________

            	 	
              Dated:
                ___________
No. 6129.

#### SUCCESSION OF SAMUEL THOMPSON.

Syllabus.

1. Under the jurisprudence the “widow’s homestead” claim allowed by Article 3252, Civil Code, primes and outranks *25both the lessor’s privilege and the vendor’s privilege on movables.

2. The fees of the attorney employed to open a succession and the law charges for doing so are part of the necessary costs of selling the property and as such prime the “widow’s homestead” claim allowed by Article 3252, Civil Code.

Appeal from tlie Twenty-eigthth Judicial District Court, Parish, of S-t. John the Baptist, No. 156. Hon. P. E‘. Edrington, Judge.

L. H. Marrero, Jr., for plaintiff and appellee.

James E. Chenet, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The main question presented in this case is the relative rank of the so-called “widow’s homestead” claim under C. C., 3252, the vendor’s privilege upon movable property, and the privilege of the lessee.

The very same question arose in Succession of Wm. Cooley, 26 An., 166, and the Supreme Court held that the “widow’s homestead” claim w.as superior in rank to the other two. There is nothing left to us but to follow this decision.

It is further claimed that the fees of the attorney employed to open the succession and the law charges for doing so are not part of the “necessary costs of selling the property” and hence do not prime the “widow’s homestead.” But we think that they do form part of these “necessary charges,” since without these steps being taken the property could not have been sold.

They have been so recognized by the Supreme Court in Succession of Negeloua, 52 An., 1495, and Salaun vs. Creditors, 106 La., 219.

*26Opinion and decree, November 9th, 1914.

The Succession of Campbell, 115 La., 1035, does not appear to us to loe in conflict with the two oases just mentioned. That case does not deny that attorney’s fees are part of the expenses necessary to affect the sale of the property. It simply holds that the expenses of last illness do not prime the widow’s homestead, not being part of such necessary expenses.

In this case, however, part of the services rendered by the .attorney were in a contest over who should be ¡appointed administrator of the Sucecssion and therefore concerned the party interested alone. Succ. of Kernan, 105 La., 592; Succ. of Benton, 106 La., 494.

The above considered, and in view of the small amount involved in this succession we think the attorney’s fees should be reduced to fifty dollars.

It is therefore ordered that the fees herein allowed to the attorney be reduced to fifty dollars.

It is further ordered that the “widow’s homestead” claims of the appellant herein be recognized as superior to, and be paid by preference over, the lessors privilege of Francis Desroches and the vendor’s privilege of the Toledo Computing Scale ‘Company.

And as thus amended the judgment is affirmed at the cost of the succession.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 141 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 141

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the Coverdell 
education savings accounts to allow home school education expenses, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the Coverdell 
education savings accounts to allow home school education expenses, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ALLOWANCE OF HOME SCHOOL EXPENSES AS QUALIFIED EDUCATION 
              EXPENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS 
              ACCOUNT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 530(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Private school.--For purposes of this 
                section, the term `private school' includes any home 
                school that meets the requirements of State law 
                applicable to such home schools, whether or not such 
                school is deemed a private school for purposes of State 
                law.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

SEC. 2. COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT CONTRIBUTIONS INDEXED TO 
              INFLATION.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 530 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(5) Adjustment for inflation.--In the case of a taxable 
        year beginning in a calendar year after 2010, the dollar amount 
        in paragraph (1)(A)(iii) shall be increased by an amount equal 
        to--
                    ``(A) such amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by 
                substituting `calendar year 2009' for `calendar year 
                1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF EDUCATION SAVINGS INCENTIVES MADE PERMANENT.

    Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the amendments 
made by section 401.''.
                                 <all>
```
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 342 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Food and Drug Administration’s 

(FDA) new policy restricting women’s access to medications containing 

estriol does not serve the public interest. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2008 

Mr. ROSS (for himself, Mrs. EMERSON, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. 

FARR, Mr. CARTER, and Ms. GIFFORDS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Food and Drug 

Administration’s (FDA) new policy restricting women’s 

access to medications containing estriol does not serve 

the public interest. 

Whereas menopause is often a challenging transition for millions of women that requires specialized medications and 

medical treatments; 

Whereas physicians prescribe a variety of pharmaceutical 

treatment options to treat women experiencing the symptoms of menopause; 

Whereas individual women respond differently to different 

treatment options; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 342 IH 

Whereas women’s physicians determine on a case-by-case 

basis which treatment option is optimal for each woman; 

Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen and 

other bioidentical hormone treatments for patients for a 

variety of reasons; 

Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen 

treatments that contain estriol to treat menopausal and 

perimenopausal women; 

Whereas estriol is one of three estrogens produced by the 

human body; 

Whereas estriol has been prescribed and used for decades in 

the United States; 

Whereas Congress has long recognized active pharmaceutical 

ingredients meeting standards set by the United States 

Pharmacopeia as permissible options for physician prescribing and pharmacy compounding; 

Whereas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it will no longer permit compounding pharmacists to prepare medications containing estriol pursuant to a doctor’s prescription; 

Whereas insurers are now denying women reimbursement for 

compounded medications containing estriol as a result of 

the FDA’s announcement; and 

Whereas the FDA has acknowledged that it is unaware of 

any adverse events associated with use of compounded 

medications containing estriol: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 342 IH 

1 (1) physicians are in the best position to deter2 mine which medications are most appropriate for 

3 their patients; 

4 (2) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

5 should respect the physician-patient relationship; 

6 and 

7 (3) the FDA should reverse its policy that aims 

8 to eliminate patients’ access to compounded medica9 tions containing estriol that their physicians pre10 scribe for them. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1

                           School Specialty Inc.
               Valuation and Qualifying Accounts and Reserves
 The Fiscal Years Ended April 26, 1997, April 25, 1998 and April 24, 1999

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 Balance      Charged    Charged
                                   at           to         to                                         Balance
                                Beginning    Costs and    Other                                     at End of
Description       Date          of Period     Expenses   Accounts    Deductions       Date            Period
  <S>             <C>              <C>          <C>        <C>          <C>            <C>             <C>
Allowance for
doubtful
accounts        May 1, 1996     $ 202,000      27,000    243,000(b)   (1,000)(a)   April 26, 1997     471,000
                April 27, 1997    471,000     274,000    293,000(b) (322,000)(a)   April 25, 1998     716,000
                April 25, 1998    716,000     266,000  1,579,000(b) (327,000)(a)   April 24, 1999   2,234,000


Accumulated
amortization
of intangibles  May 1, 1996     2,817,000     566,000                 (59,000)(c)  April 26, 1997   3,324,000
                April 27, 1997  3,324,000   2,061,000                 (24,000)(c)  April 25, 1998   5,361,000
                April 25, 1998  5,361,000   4,656,000                (119,000)(c)  April 24, 1999   9,898,000
____________

</TABLE>

(a)  Represents write-offs of uncollectable accounts receivable.
(b)  Allowance for doubtful accounts acquired in purchase acquisitions.
(c)  Represents (write-offs) / recoveries of fully amortized intangible assets.
No. 74-919.

#### Crookshanks *v.*Crookshanks.

Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.