alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC.

SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

FISCAL YEARS ENDED APRIL 24, 2010, APRIL 25, 2009 AND APRIL 26, 2008



|                                |  |                |  |                              |  |                             |  |                         |      |  |            |   |  |                        |  |               
|------------------------------- |  | -------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ---- |  | ---------- | - |  | ---------------------- |  | --------------
|Description                     |  | Date           |  | Balance atBeginningof Period |  | Charged toCosts andExpenses |  | Charged toOtherAccounts |      |  | Deductions |   |  | Balance atEnd ofPeriod |  | Date          
|Allowance for doubtful accounts |  | April 28, 2007 |  | 4,801,000                    |  | 1,101,000                   |  | (926,000                | )(a) |  | (741,000   | ) |  | 4,235,000              |  | April 26, 2008
|                                |  | April 26, 2008 |  | 4,235,000                    |  | 1,411,000                   |  |                        |      |  | (1,314,000 | ) |  | 4,332,000              |  | April 25, 2009
|                                |  | April 25, 2009 |  | 4,332,000                    |  | 597,000                     |  | (1,398,000              | )(b) |  | (1,427,000 | ) |  | 2,104,000              |  | April 24, 2010
|                                |  |                |  |                              |  |                             | 
|Restructuring reserve           |  | April 28, 2007 |  | 225,000                      |  |                            |  |                        |      |  | (225,000   | ) |  |                       |  | April 26, 2008
|                                |  | April 26, 2008 |  |                             |  | 3,912,000                   |  |                        |      |  | (2,467,000 | ) |  | 1,445,000              |  | April 25, 2009
|                                |  | April 25, 2009 |  | 1,445,000                    |  | 4,010,000                   |  |                        |      |  | (3,929,000 | ) |  | 1,526,000              |  | April 24, 2010



|(a) | Represents the allowance for doubtful accounts reduced as a result of the disposal of the School Specialty Media business unit.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(b) | Represents the allowance for doubtful accounts reduced as a result of the divestiture of the majority of the School Specialty Publishing business unit.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Notices]               
[Page 1660]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-98]                         

[[Page 1660]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7290]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Reconfiguring an African Icon: Odes to the Mask by 
Modern and Contemporary Artists From Three Continents''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Reconfiguring an African Icon: Odes to the 
Mask by Modern and Contemporary Artists from Three Continents,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about March 8, 
2011, until on or about August 21, 2011, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 4, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-361 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
No. 96-5806.

#### Hunter *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### LAFARGE CORPORATION v. Steven H. GAAR d/b/a Logging Contractor & Equipment Sales, Orlin “Shortie” Rogers and Hammond Ready Mix, Inc.

No. 98-CC-2870.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Lafarge Corporation; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 9801251; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW98 1806.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.
# C_2012217EN.01000902.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Fastweb SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

(Case C-229/12)

2012/C 217/18

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fastweb SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

1

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00314-CV

In re Gerald Anthony Wright

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Gerald AnthonyWright has petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus directing the

board of pardons and paroles to release him to mandatory supervision. The Court is authorized to

issue all writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in its district, but the Court’s

mandamus authority is otherwise limited to the enforcement of its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). Wright’s claim against the parole board does not implicate the Court’s

jurisdiction. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: June 24, 2010
2002 Cows and Baseline VOC Emissions (t/d)

Milking Cows (MC) Dry Cows (DC) Heifers (H) Calves (C) Total Cows VOC Emiss. Factor (EF, lb/head/yr) VOC Baseline Emissions (t/d)

204,846 36,201 75,582 77,320 393,949 12.8 6.91

Projected Headcount (with 2% decrease/yr)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

386,070 378,191 370,312 362,433 354,554 346,675 338,796 330,917

Projected Cows By Category (with 2% decrease/yr)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Milking Cows 200,749 196,652 192,555 188,458 184,361 180,264 176,168 172,071

Dry Cows 35,477 34,753 34,029 33,305 32,581 31,857 31,133 30,409

Heifers 74,070 72,559 71,047 69,535 68,024 66,512 65,001 63,489

Calves 75,774 74,227 72,681 71,134 69,588 68,042 66,495 64,949

Projected Future-Year VOC Emissions (t/d)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

6.77 6.63 6.49 6.35 6.22 6.08 5.94 5.802002 manure (tons) - Based on milking cows only 1,075,835 (Assumption: each milking cow produces 5.25192 tons manure/yr)

Projected Manure (tons) - Milking Cows only

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1,054,318 1,032,801 1,011,285 989,768 968,251 946,735 925,218 903,701

VOC Emiss. Factor 0.002343551 t VOC/t manure

Manure Disposal (t/yr) using milking cows only and same percentage in Staff Report -2% decrease per year - Our data

2002 2006 2010

Local Land Application 687,028 755,193 670,185

Out of Region 206,238 206,367 205,502

Windrow Composting 182,569

Rule 1133.2 Composting 6,038 6,055

Digester (Feed Lane Cleaning 22,072 21,960

Total Manure Removal (t/y) 1,075,835 989,669 903,701VOC Emiss. (t/d) - Current Practices (Without R 1127)- Using same percentages and EF in Staff Report - Our data

2002 2006 2010

Local land application 0.51 0.56 0.49

Out of region 0.66 0.66 0.66

Windrow composting 0.44

Rule 1133.2 Composting 0.02 0.02

Digester 0.14 0.14

VOC Reduction (t/d) 1.61 1.38 1.31

Remaining VOC (t/d) 5.30 4.97 4.49

Baseline VOC (t/d) 6.91 6.35 5.80

% Reduction 23.3 21.7 22.6

Manure Disposal With Rule 1127 - Using same percentages of Staff Report - Our data

2006 2010

Local land application 574,461 488,451

Out of region 205,674 205,682

Windrow composting

Alternative Compostingh (Fabric in-vessel) 181,523 181,554

Rule 1133.2 Composting 6,028 6,055

Digester 21,973 22,050

Total 989,659 903,792VOC Reduction (t/d) - With Rule 1127 - Using same percentage of Staff Report - Our data

2006 2010

Local land application 0.64 0.54

Out of region 0.99 0.99

Windrow composting

Alternative Composting 0.77 0.77

Rule 1133.2 Composting 0.03 0.03

Digester 0.14 0.14 VOC reduction (t/d)
with Rule 1127 2.57 2.47

VOC Remaining (t/d)
with Rule 1127 3.79 3.33

VOC reduction (t/d)
from Rule 1127 Alone 1.19 1.16 % Reduction from R
1127 Alone 31.3 34.8
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2007-28027.                 

*Date Filed:*                     April 23, 2007.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     Mail Vote 534—Resolution 010q, TC3/TC23 Special Passenger Amending, Resolution from Sri Lanka, (Memo 1084), Intended effective date: 1 May 2007.                 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2007-28038.                 

*Date Filed:*                     April 24, 2007.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     PSC/RESO/137 dated March 20, 2007, Finally Adopted Resolutions & Recommended Practices, PSC/MINS/019 dated March 20, 2007, Intended effective date: 1 June 2007.                 

Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.

 [FR Doc. E7-9081 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,613-01

EX P ARTE JES US RODRIG UEZ, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. D-1-D C-14-200034- A IN THE 450TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenc ed to life in prison. The Thirteenth Court of Appea ls aff

irmed his conviction. Rodriguez v. State , No. 13-16-00396- CR (Tex. App.—C orpus Christi del. May 1 7 , 2 0 1 8 ). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus and an amende d habea s application in the county of conviction, and t h e district cler k forwa rded the pleading s to this C ourt. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant raises many claims, including claims of ineffe ctive assistance of trial and appellate

co u n s el

. There is no response from counsel in the rec ord provided to this Court, and there ar e n o finding s from the trial court. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The2

trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial and appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance by explaining counsels’ repr esentat i o n of Applicant, including applicable strateg y and tactica l decisions. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may u s e an y m ea n s set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear i n g, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or r etained, the trial court sha ll imm ediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial co urt shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law reg arding the claims Applicant has raised. The trial court may make any other finding s and conclusions th at i t deems appropr iate. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions o f law withi n ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motio n s, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: January

15, 2020 Do not publish
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                   OTHER NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARRANGEMENTS

      The named executive officers who do not have employment agreements with
the Company are Michael A. Floyd and Thomas J. Francis. The following is a
summary of the compensation agreement between the Company and these named
executive officers:

      -     Annual salaries for Mr. Floyd and Mr. Francis are $180,000 and
            $150,000, respectively

      -     Eligibility for bonus based on the Company's EBITDA performance
            against the 2004 plan approved by the Company's Board of Directors

      -     Eligible for benefits available to Company employees, including:
            Medical Insurance, Dental Insurance, Vision Insurance, Prescription
            Drug Benefits, Supplemental Life & AD&D, Long Term Disability, Short
            Term Disability, Basic Life and Basic AD&D, Employee Assistance
            Program, 401(k) Plan, Paid Time Off, Wellness Program and
            Educational Assistance
# C_2012287EN.01002801.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/28

---

Action brought on 25 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-353/12)

2012/C 287/54

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Thomas, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision C(2009) 8123 of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA (notified on 29 October 2009 and published in OJ 2010 L 167, p. 39), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision C(2009) 8123 of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA (notified on 29 October 2009 and published in OJ 2010 L 167, p. 39), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject of the Commission’s action is the non-implementation by the Italian Republic of the Commission’s decision on State aid in the form of a guarantee provided by the Ministry of Economic Development for a loan taken out by Ixfin with Banca Apulia SpA.

The Commission points out that the Italian Republic should have ensured fulfilment of its obligation to recover the aid by 1 March 2010 and, in addition, should have informed the Commission by 29 December 2009 of the measures taken to implement the decision.

At the time the present action was brought, the Italian Republic had not yet taken all the measures necessary for discharging those obligations.

---
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 





Exhibit 10.26




Summary of Verbal Arrangement for Compensation for

Steve Watkins





	 	1.	 	Annual salary of $110,000, which is payable bi-monthly; and






	 	2.	 	Benefits and perquisites on the same terms and conditions as available to all employees of Immediatek,
Inc. and its subsidiaries.





Page 1





Exhibit 10.26



 


8
J

- A08011

- 18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

AND TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS

CURACAO N.V.

v.

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.

,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2920 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Dated August 23, 2017

I n the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No(s): February Term, 2017, No. 03632

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J. , and STRASSBURGER, J. *

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER,

J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02 , 2018

I disagree with the learned Majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s

order is a collateral order . However, since a majority of the panel has held

that t he order is collateral and thus appealable, I join the Majority in affirming

the order on the merits.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1385 

To terminate the $1 presidential coin program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2011 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. DEMINT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To terminate the $1 presidential coin program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL $1 COIN PRO4 GRAM. 

5 Section 5112 of title 31 United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking subsection (n) and inserting the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(n) [Reserved.]’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 45260.

#### Protest 27565-K of Ying Chong Lung Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of sliced wai san the same as that the subject of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(C. D. 372). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
TAVORIS SIMMONS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5626

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Virginia Norton, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Henry Hardman *vs.*Aaron Chamberlin

*Error to Cedar.*

The statute, which exempts the plaintiff from the necessity of proving the signature of a note, &c., unless denied under oath, does not extend to the endorsement. That must in all cases be proved.

The facts of the case will appear from the opinion of the court.

Lowe & Whicher, for plaintiff in error.

Hastings, for defendant in error.

Br the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

This action was brought on two promissory notes, executed by the plaintiff in error, to one Ransford, and by him assigned to the defendant in error. On the trial, the counsel for the plaintiff below, offered to read the assignment without proof of the signature of Ransford. This was objected to by the defendant’s counsel, but the objection was overruled by the court.

We think the court erred in permitting the assignment to be read, without proof. The statute renders proof of the signature of a note unnecessary, unless denied under oath. This statute is an encroachment on the common law, and should not therefore he extended beyond the fair import of its terms: Besides, the defendant must be presumed to know, whether he has signed the note himself, and may therefore be reasonably required to make the affidavit denying the signature. But he cannot with so much justice be called on to deny the endorsement, in the same manner or else to admit its genuineness.

The judgment below will therefore be set aside, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
No. 47663.

#### Protest 78793-K of Kissen Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial a sample of the merchandise was received in evidence but no testimony was introduced. From an examination of the sample it was found that instead of rebutting the classification of the collector, it supports his finding. The protest was therefore overruled.