alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             School Specialty, Inc.
                       Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
   The Fiscal Years Ended April 24, 1999, April 29, 2000, and April 28, 2001


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Balance at  Charged to   Charged 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.................  April 25, 1998     716,000     266,000    1,579,000 (a)    (327,000) (b)  April 24, 1999  2,234,000
                              April 24, 1999   2,234,000     171,000      200,000 (a)    (861,000) (b)  April 29, 2000  1,744,000
                              April 29, 2000   1,744,000     545,000    3,569,000 (a)  (2,336,000) (b)  April 28, 2001  3,522,000


  Restructuring reserve.....  April 25, 1998     472,000   4,200,000            -      (1,920,000)      April 24, 1999  2,752,000
                              April 24, 1999   2,752,000           -            -      (2,687,000)      April 29, 2000     65,000
                              April 29, 2000      65,000   4,500,000            -      (2,052,000)      April 28, 2001  2,513,000
</TABLE>

____________

(a)  Allowance for doubtful accounts acquired in purchase acquisitions.
(b)  Represents write-offs of uncollectable accounts receivable.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1               5446987.36      25257215.92                0        73875716.07
A2               1355299.86       6666879.25                0        18167120.76
A3                 82483.61                0                0            1333068
A4                660569.14                0                0           10675865
A5               2081137.55          1238331                0           32948704
APO                       0         45895.01                0          725927.94
AR                    53.75              100                0                  0
B1                 64040.56          38105.8                0          1013894.2
B2                 26663.27         15865.35                0          422134.66
B3                 32020.28         19052.89                0           506947.1
B4                 16010.14          9526.45                0          253473.55
B5                  21385.9          9274.35           3450.8          338582.86
M                 106713.96         63497.59                0         1689502.41


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9467)

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 11564.

(Decided June 17, 1959)

*Sharretts, Pa-ley & Garter*forth.© plaintiff.

*George OoehranDoub,*Assistant Attorney General, fox tlie defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain Christmas tree ornaments exported from the Western Zone of Germany and entered at the port of San Francisco, Calif.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise exported from the Western Zone of Germany by Lauscher Glasindustrie, to which this appeal has been limited, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, and I so hold.

The appeal, having been abandoned as to all other merchandise, is dismissed as to all articles, except those hereinabove identified.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Daniel Myers, the Registrant's Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Carsunlimited.com,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the
effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether
or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 23, 2005

/s/Daniel Myers
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### Robert D. DeSANTO, Appellant, v. Pamela M. DeSANTO, Appellee.

No. 97-03083.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 14, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1998.

*7Robert D. DeSanto, pro se.

Pamela M. DeSanto, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Robert D. DeSanto appeals the final order of “Support, Attorney Fees, and Recoupment” following an evidentiary hearing. The hearing was necessary because this court, in *DeSanto v. DeSanto,*621 So.2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), reversed the awards of alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees and remanded this case with instructions to the trial court to redetermine Mr. DeSanto’s ability to meet his financial obligations.

Because Mr. DeSanto raises several issues in this appeal which were resolved in the first appeal, this court will not reconsider them now. Further, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in resolving the remaining issues in this case.

Affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and THREADGILL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
#### John and Jane DOE, et al. v. CUTTER BIOLOGICAL, et al.

No. 99-CC-0075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1999.

In re Doe, John Et Al; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “L”, No. 93-8088; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 98CW-3058.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.
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 Annual Report of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M. Koeninger, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 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.

A signed original of this written certification required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ DAVID M. KOENINGER       
|David M. Koeninger           
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(principal financial officer)
|February 15, 2007
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                                   AMENDMENT
                           TO THE QUANEX CORPORATION
              1996 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN


          THIS AGREEMENT by Quanex Corporation (the "Company"),

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

          WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan known as the "Quanex
Corporation 1996 Employee Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan" (the "Plan");

          WHEREAS, the Company retained the right in Section 12 of the Plan to
amend the Plan from time to time; and

          WHEREAS, the directors of the Company have approved resolutions to
amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of the Company's Common Stock,
$.50 par value, by 600,000 shares;

          NOW THEREFORE, effective February 23, 2000, the Company agrees that,
subject to and contingent upon the approval of this Agreement by the Company's
stockholders, Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read
as follows:

          SECTION 3. STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

          The total amount of the Common Stock with respect to which Awards
     may be granted shall not exceed in the aggregate 1,350,000 shares.  The
     class and aggregate number of shares which may be subject to the Options
     granted under the Plan shall be subject to adjustment under Section 7. The
     class and aggregate number of shares which may be subject to the
     Restricted Stock Awards granted under the Plan shall also be subject to
     adjustment under Section 8. Shares may be treasury shares or authorized
     but unissued shares. If any Award under the Plan shall expire or terminate
     for any reason without having been exercised in full, or if any Award
     shall be forfeited, the shares subject to the unexercised or forfeited
     portion of such Award shall again be available for the purposes of the
     Plan.
33819.

#### RIDDLE v. MILLER.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

This is the second appearance of this case before this court. *See Riddle v. Riddle,*240 Ga. 515 (241 SE2d 214) (1978). After this case was remanded to the trial court for further consideration, the appellant filed an amendment *232to his complaint in equity to set aside the 1970 divorce decree.

Submitted July 14, 1978

Decided September 5, 1978

Rehearing denied September 26, 1978.

*J. Melvin England,*for appellant.

W. *Burton Cowley, Richard K, Greenstein,*for appellee.

After enumerating exceptions not applicable to the present case Code Ann. § 81A-160 (f) states the general rule that all other motions, complaints or proceedings to set aside or attack judgments shall be brought "within three years from entry of the judgment complained of.” The appellant’s complaint in equity originally was filed more than three years after the entry of the challenged divorce decree.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint is affirmed. *Johnson v. Johnson,*230 Ga. 204 (196 SE2d 394) (1973).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
CARSUNLIMITED.COM


EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carsunlimited.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB of the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Daniel Myers, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the quarterly report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: May 23, 2005


                                                         /s/ Daniel Myers
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                        |   |                         |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
| August      19th,      2008 | By:    | /s/ Peter      Voss     |   |
|                        |   | Peter      Voss              |   |
|                        |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                        |   |                         |   |
No. 96-7880.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

Schedule to Form of Indemnification Agreement for Executive Officers and
Directors.


                                 Indemnitee

                                 E. T. Bigelow, Jr.

                                 R. S. Evans

                                 R. S. Forte

                                 Dorsey R. Gardner

                                 Barry J. Kulpa

                                 Gregory D. Lambert

                                 James L. L. Tullis
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Cyber Defense  Systems,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
William C. Robinson,  CEO, Chairman and Principal  Executive  Officer,  certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   ss.1350,   as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                               CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.

                               By: /s/ William C. Robinson
                                   -----------------------
                                   William C. Robinson
                                   CEO, Chairman and Principal Executive Officer

                               August 22, 2005
No. 54962.

#### Cooper & Brase, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142163-K, etc. (New York).

*339Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DARREN J. EDMONDS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1281

)

MONIKA S. EDMONDS, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 18, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Donna Padar Berlin, Judge.

W. Matthew Kowtko of Kowtko Law Group, 

P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.

Angela D. Flaherty of Flaherty Law Firm, 

Sarasota, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
No. 54953.

#### Samuel Ehrman & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 152483-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the-entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are-similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
#### INQUIRY COMMISSION, Movant, v. Robert Michael STEVENSON, Respondent.

No. 99-SC-322-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

June 17, 1999.

Gardner L. Turner, Sturgill, Turner & Truitt, Lexington, KY, for movant.

Robert Michael Stevenson, Louisville, KY, for respondent.

*ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION*

Pursuant to SCR 3.165(l)(a) and SCR 3.165(l)(b), on April 5, 1999, the Inquiry Tribunal of the Kentucky Bar Association filed a petition for temporary suspension against respondent, Robert Michael Stevenson, of 4809 Bardstown Road, Louisville, KY 40291. An order directing respondent to show cause why he should not be suspended was entered on April 6,1999. No response has been filed by respondent or anyone on his behalf.

This Court concludes that reasonable cause exists to believe that respondent has misappropriated funds held for others to his own use, in violation of SCR 3.130-1.15(a) and SCR 3.130-8.3(c). It further appears from the record that reasonable cause exists to believe that unless such an order is entered, a real and present danger exists to the public should respondent be permitted to continue to practice law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondent, Robert Michael Stevenson, be and is hereby temporarily suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1.Within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this order of suspension, respondents shall notify all clients in writing of his inability to continue to represent them.

2. The temporary suspension of respondent shall be effective with the entry of this order and shall continue in effect until such time as the merits of this disciplinary proceeding can be finally determined by this Court in accordance with SCR 3.370 or SCR 3.480 or until such time as respondent can show good cause why the order of temporary suspension should be amended or dissolved.

3. Such portion of this proceeding as contained in this order shall be deemed a matter of public record at this time. All other portions shall be afforded the confidentiality required under SCR 3.150 unless otherwise directed by this Court.

4. Respondent shall pay the costs of the proceeding.

All concur.

ENTERED: June 17,1999.

/s/ Joseph E. Lambert CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2015302EN.01005302.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/53

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 June 2015 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

(Case T-259/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction of a central energy unit - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))

(2015/C 302/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium) and Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers and J.-L. Teheux, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Rantala, M. Mraz and F. Poilvache, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decision of 19 March 2015 by which the Parliament rejected the bid which the applicants had submitted following the call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 relating to the public works contract concerning Lot No 73 (central energy unit) of the ‘Project for the extension and modernisation of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ and of the decision of the same day by which the contract at issue was awarded to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---