alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                                          June 24, 1998

Mr. Al Indelicato
118 Woodland Road
Hampton, NH  03842

Dear Al:

      I am pleased that you have made the decision to join us at Amtrol, Inc. on
July 27, 1998. This letter confirms your employment.

* POSITION: President and CEO of Amtrol Inc., as well as a director.

* SALARY: $300,000 per annum. Guaranteed bonus for the first twelve (12) months
of employment of $200,000 payable one-half on 12/31/98 and the balance on
6/30/99. This would be in addition to any earned bonus for 1999 performance.

* Participation in any company bonus/incentive/stock option plans subsequently
offered by Amtrol, Inc.

* Cypress LLC/Amtrol Inc. will allow Al Indelicato and management team to
purchase up to seven percent (7%) of the equity of Amtrol Inc. at the current
valuation based on the recent purchase of stock by Cypress LLC. This option
extends until 1/31/99.

* The opportunity of the management team to earn an additional seven percent
(7%) of the full equity ownership based on the approved operating statistics,
such statistics to be mutually agreed upon by 10/31/98. ?Amtrol Inc. will rent
an apartment and supply an automobile to you.

* Amtrol Inc. will gross up earnings for any Rhode Island state income tax
liability until such time as you establish residency in Rhode Island.

* When relocation to Rhode Island is contemplated, Amtrol Inc. agrees to
negotiate a comprehensive relocation allowance package.

* Should you be severed (except for cause) or should there be a change of
control during your period of employment, you shall be entitled to eighteen (18)
months of the annual compensation (salary and bonus) payable monthly.

* You will be reporting to Andrew M. Massimilla.


                                       
<PAGE>   2

      Al, we at Cypress have heard many good things about you and your career
and are very pleased that you have chosen to join us. I am sure we will enjoy a
cordial and mutually beneficial relationship.

                                          Sincerely,
20457

#### State v. Whitby

Affirmed, Vacated and Remanded
#### Fritz v. Tanaka

17204

10/03/94

Affirmed
#### Savoy Shirt Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Er*ror, v. Callaway Clothing Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed January 15, 1915.

In an action for goods sold and delivered, where the evidence as to the amount of the goods ordered is conflicting, and it clearly appears that when received the goods were placed on the vendee’s shelves by mistake and without authority, and that when the amount of the shipment was discovered, all the goods were promptly returned because they were in excess of the order, there being no acceptance of the goods or any act of the vendee inconsistent with the ownership of the vendor, a verdict for the defendant vendee will not be disturbed, no harmful errors of law or procedure appearing.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court for St. Johns County; George Couper Gibbs, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

*Marks, Marks é Holt,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*E.*A. *Calhoun,*for Defendant in Error.

Whitfield, J.

In an action under common counts for goods sold and delivered and a plea of never was indebted, there was a verdict and a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff took writ of error.

There is a conflict in the testimony as to the amount of the goods ordered, the plaintiff contending that the order amounted to $617.13 for shirts, while the defendant insists that the amount was about $300.00. The evidence shows that the goods were received at the defendant’s *12store and some of them were placed on the shelves by mistake and without authority; but when the excessive shipment was discovered, all the goods were promptly returned. The evidence does not show an acceptance of the goods by the defendant, or any act of the defendant inconsistent with the ownership of the plaintiff. The conflict in the testimony as to the amount of the order was settled by the jury. As the evidence is not such as to justify this court in disturbing the verdict, and as errors of procedure, if any, could not reasonably have injured substantial rights of the plaintiff, the judgment is affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis JJ., concur.
**Annex 6. Item 7.3. – Article 9.5.2. of Chapter 9.5. Infection with IMNV**

CHAPTER 9.5. INFECTION WITH INFECTIOUS MYONECROSIS VIRUS 

[...]

Article 9.5.2.

Scope

The recommendations in this chapter apply to the following species that meet the criteria for listing as susceptible in accordance with Chapter 1.5.: ~~brown tiger prawn *(Penaeus esculentus)*,~~ banana prawn (*Penaeus merguiensis*)*,*brown tiger prawn (*Penaeus esculentus*) and whiteleg shrimp (*Penaeus vannamei*).

[...]

___________________________
Exhibit 10.19 - 1996 OFFICER BONUS PLAN


The Company has adopted a 1996 Officer Bonus Plan under which all executive
officers are awarded cash bonuses based on the Company's operating results.
The respective bonus payments are calculated with reference to the actual
pre-tax income (and revenue for the Senior Vice President Sales and Customer
Support) results as measured against the 1995 Operating Plan presented
and approved at the Board of Directors meeting on January 26, 1996.  The
pre-tax income level is measured prior to any accruals reflecting the
Company's bonus payments.  The pre-tax income bonus payments are calculated
on a linear basis and are not capped at the "on-plan" level.  Revenue
commissions are calculated at .04% of annual revenue without regard to a cap.
Payment of the pre-tax income bonuses are payable in February 1997 and
payment of the revenue commissions is made monthly at the above rate upon the
qualification of the revenue amount.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of American Media Operations, Inc.

Name                                                               Jurisdiction
----                                                               ------------
AM Auto World Weekly, Inc.                                           Delaware
AMI Books, Inc.                                                      Delaware
AMI Film, Inc.                                                       Delaware
American Media Consumer Entertainment Inc.                           Delaware
American Media Consumer Magazine Group, Inc.                         Delaware
American Media Distribution & Marketing Group, Inc.                  Delaware
American Media Property Group, Inc.                                  Delaware
American Media Mini Mags, Inc.                                       Delaware
American Media Newspaper Group, Inc.                                 Delaware
Country Music Media Group, Inc.                                      Delaware
Distribution Services, Inc.                                          Delaware
Globe Communications Corp.                                           Delaware
Globe Editorial, Inc.                                                Delaware
MediaFit SARL                                                        France
Mira! Editorial, Inc.                                                Delaware
National Enquirer, Inc.                                              Florida
National Examiner, Inc.                                              Delaware
NDSI, Inc.                                                           Delaware
Star Editorial, Inc.                                                 Delaware
SYL Communications                                                  California
Weider Publications, LLC                                             Delaware
Weider Publications, Group Ltd.                                   United Kingdom
Weider Publishing Ltd.                                            United Kingdom
Weider Publishing Italia SRL                                          Italy
Mr. Dennis Devany, Chief 

Essential Air Service Division 

US DOT 

1200 SE New Jersey Avenue 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Devany: 

August 29, 201{:~!1 

In Sioux Falls, South Dakota a few days ago, the keynote speaker said " ••• economic rebound lies within 

America's heartland ... " The speaker was Suresh Kumar, the assistant secretary of commerce for trade 

promotion and director of the US and Foreign Commercial Service. As a executive for an 8,000 member 

international trade association with an office in America's heartland, I agree. 

My office is in the heartland, but in the last 18 months my job has taken me to Spain, Costa Rica, Mexico 

(twice), Equador, France, and 35 US cities. All on Delta.* So, I am disheartened and upset to hear that the 

airline upon which I fly tens of thousands of miles each year is leaving many cities here in the heartland. 

I'm not the only one disheartened at the news: a Delta gate agent in a major hub city told me she'd been to 

meetings where Delta management cheered "we're taking New York!" A Delta gate agent in Minneapolis 

bemoaned the fact that "we don't get the big planes .. only the tiny jets now ... " And in the Atlanta airport, huge 

billboards promote the newest Detroit to Beijing direct route. 

It's nice that Delta is making inroads in the New York market. And, Detroit to Beijing is great. But what afxJut 

the U.S. business travelers who need to go from Pierre to Washington, DC several times a year? Or Brainerd to 

Chicago? Or Charleston, WV to Dallas? I have spoken to several business travelers from a few of the cities 

listed as "underperforming." What are they/we going to do? 

A man from Brainerd told me on a recent flight to DC that the closest airport is 200 miles. In Pierre I face a 

similar plight. (Great Lakes is here with a couple flights to Denver, but the schedules/destinations don't mesh 

with my schedule/destinations.) 

My husband is a state employee, paid hourly. By the time he drives to Sioux Falls or Rapid Oty, half of the 

allowed hours of a work day are gone. Often you often have to go the day before, stay in a hotel, and leave 

early in the morning. Companies, state and federal government entities will have more expense and less 

employee productivity if Delta leaves Pierre. 

While it is true that many times the Saab may have 6 passengers, there are also times when it's filled to 

capacity. Last fall, Delta had to bring in jets to support the passenger load. Our small state's second largest 

industry is tourism. The billions - yes, BIWONS - of dollars pumped into our economy each year by hunters 

and other visitors is essential to our economic health. 

Good air service is also essential to the economic health of our community and state. I hope we can maintain 

that important transportation service here in the heartland of the country. 

Respectfully, 

Jeane 

~~ Wharton 

*I know here in Pierre that Mesaba/Pinnade is actually the code share partner, but I use Delta for simplicity sake.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: R.H., A MINOR

:

:

:

:

:

No. 636 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# C_2019305EN.01005101.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2019 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO — Ingram (WKU)

(Case T-389/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark WKU - Earlier EU word marks WKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 61(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 305/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Nonnemacher (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: C. Zierhut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Paul Ingram (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2018 (Case R 399/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Ingram and Mr Nonnemacher.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Klaus Nonnemacher to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Klaus Nonnemacher to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
# C_2019044EN.01004601.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)

(Case T-59/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA - Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 44/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 280/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Endoceutics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1112 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

9) ll-B-2f 

Docket Number: 

A-83-22 

Printed 4/16/2008 9:12:06 AM Sheet 9 of 97 
P.2 

ARCONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY z-n^/ 

9700 Soinrk CASS AVENUE, ARQOWE, llfi\ois 60459 TEIECJIHONE 512/972- 8430 

April 1, 1985 

Dr. Claire Ernhart 

Metropolitan General Hospital 

Department of Psychiatry 

3395 Scranton Rd. 

Cleveland, OH 44109 

Dear Claire: 

On behalf of the U.S. EPA, I would like to thank you for your willingness to participate in the lead risk assessment study. Your judgments about 

possible effects of lead on the IQ of children are critically needed. Tom 

Wallsten and I are very much looking forward to discussing these issues at our 

meeting with you on Friday, April 19. Thank you for offering to meet us at 

the Sheraton in the morning. 

Enclosed is a copy of the latest version of our IQ protocol which will 

be the basis of our interview session with you. Should you have any questions 

before we meet, please do not hestiate to give me a call. 

Respectfully, 

Ronald G. Whitfield 

Decision and System Sciences Section 

Energy and Environmental Systems Division 

RGW:bf 

Enclosure 

U.S. DEPARTMENT of ENERQV T k IhivERSiTy of CHJCAQO
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Importing Nonregulated Germplasm

for Breeding Purposes

Last Modified: 

Print

Germplasm includes semen, embryos, oocytes, and tissue for cloning.

The following germplasm categories can enter the United States without an APHIS

import permit:

1. Dog/canine germplasm imported for breeding purposes

2. Germplasm for breeding purposes from certain uncommon regulated species

like rhinos or elephants

3. Germplasm from nonregulated species for breeding purposes like exotic

carnivores, cats, rodents, or rabbits

Recommended Process for Nonregulated

Germplasm Imports

Include a valid health certificate from an accredited or licensed veterinarian in

the exporting country.

The health certificate must state the germplasm’s species of origin to

validate it is not sourced from an APHIS-regulated species.
Document the germplasm’s species of origin on manifests, invoices, foreign

producer or shipper statements on letterhead, or other shipping documents.  

Do not leave the documentation inside the shipping container.   

Present the documentation for review when your shipment arrives at the

U.S. port of entry. 

Provide a copy of these materials to your foreign producer or shipper.

Make sure your germplasm import meets the destination State requirements.

Disinfect germplasm containers and tanks originating from foot-and-mouth

disease-affected regions at the airport in the exporting country before

departure and again once the containers arrive in the United States.

Other Federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, may have additional

requirements for importing germplasm from certain species.

Visit APHIS’ Guidelines: Animal Products That Do Not Require an Import Permit for

more information about animal products that do not require a permit, including

canine semen and other animal materials imported into the United States for

research purposes.

Need Help?

Live Animal Import Permit Team

Contact APHIS' Live Animal Import Permit team if you have questions before you

apply for a permit.

For questions about import permits or permit applications:

Live Animal Import Permit Team

Email: laipermits@usda.gov

Phone: 301-851-3000

APHIS Port Services
For questions about import inspections at a port of entry, quarantine of animals

arriving from a foreign country, or requesting approval as a private animal import

quarantine facility, contact APHIS Port Services.

- Select a State - ▾

Loading...

Live Animal Import and Export

Contact APHIS' Live Animal Import and Export team for questions about current

trade restrictions, or other questions not related to permits.

For general questions related to the import of a live animal:

Live Animal Import and Export

Email: laie@usda.gov

Phone: 301-851-3300

All Contacts
25517

#### State v. Higa

Vacated and Remanded
FILED

August 5, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appe llate Court C lerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

 ______________________________________________

LINDA JANIECE WRIGHT-MILLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Vs. Dyer Circuit No. 96-234

C.A. No. 02A01-9708-CV-00196

HARVEY GRANVILLE MILLER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________________________________

CONCURRENCE IN PART, DISSENT IN PART

____________________________________________________________________________

I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the judgment of the trial

court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which reverses the trial

court’s decision concerning the division of the increase in value of the Heartland stock.

The trial court accredited the testimony of Husband’s CPA that without the consolidation

of Miller’s assets with those of Heartland there was a small loss in Heartland’s book value. The

proof showed that the Heartland increase in book value resulted from the consolidation of

Miller’s assets with those of Heartland. While, as the majority opinion states, the parties agree

that Wife contributed during the marriage to the increase in the value of the Heartland stock, I

construe this to mean normal increases in value to which Wife could have been said to have lent

her assistance in preserving and appreciating the stock. It does not appear that the parties

contemplated the agreement to apply to an unexpected or fortuitous event, with which the Wife

had nothing to do and did not in any manner participate. In Harrison v. Harrison, 912 S.W.2d

124 (Tenn. 1995), our Supreme Court stated on this point:

The statute does not permit the conclusion that any increase in

value during marriage constitutes marital property. The increase

in value constitutes marital property only when the spouse has

substantially contributed to its preservation and appreciation.

Id. at 127 (emphasis in original).

I do not believe that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that any

increase in value was not marital property and, therefore, would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

_________________________________

W. FRANK CRAWFORD, 

PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.
#### Meligakes, Appellant, *v.*Meligakes.

Argued October 5, 1942.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

*2*Franklin R. Bighorn, of Keith, Bighorn & Markley*for appellant.

*Richard A. Brown,*of *Stooge, Brown & Swope,*for appellee.

November 11, 1942:

Opinion by

Baldbige, J.,

A reading of the record in this divorce action convinces us, as it did the court below, that the appellant failed to establish by clear, satisfactory and preponderant evidence that he is entitled to be relieved of his marital obligations: *LaClair v. LaClair,*128 Pa. Superior Ct. 469, 471, 194 A. 224.

The parties were mai’ried February 14, 1919, and lived together without any serious differences until the beginning of the year 1928. The husband was then conducting a business in Gettysburg which consisted of operating a soda fountain, selling books, magazines, cards, etc. One of the clerks in his employ was a girl by the name of Elizabeth Gallagher. The evidence shows that at numerous times, not only in the privacy of their home, but in her husband’s store and in public places, the wife accused him in loud and profane language of being intimate with this girl and associating with lewd women. We have no trouble concluding that the wife’s conduct amounted to such indignities as to warrant the granting of a divorce, providing. the husband is an innocent and injured spouse:. *Esenwein v. Esenwein,*312 Pa. 77, 167 A. 350; *Sleight v. Sleight,*119 Pa. Superior Ct. 300, 181 A. 69; *Grasso v. Grasso,*143 Pa. Superior Ct. 293, 18 A. 2d 112. But that is not the case. The conduct of the husband and this female employee gave the wife ample reasons to be suspicious and to arouse her ire and resentment. The *3court below in its opinion fully recites circumstances which support the wife’s charges, refers also to the physical assaults made on the wife by the husband, including his striking her in the face which resulted in the loss of her eye, and it ably discusses the issues involved. We do not deem it necessary, as we fully concur in what was there said, to elaborate on those matters. The alleged indignities, having been provoked by the husband’s conduct, do not furnish grounds for divorce unless the retaliation was excessive: *Richards v. Richards,*37 Pa. 225, 228; *Esenwein v. Esenwein,*supra, p. 79; *Welsh v. Welsh,*142 Pa. Superior Ct. 421, 422, 16 A. 2d 672.

The real basis of the wife’s conduct and accusations are directly traceable to the illicit relationship with Elizabeth Gallagher, which evidently existed, and continues to exist, at least until the date of the hearing. The wife could have been more temperate in her accusations, but it was expecting too much of her to remain calm and complacent. Under the attending circumstances the husband is not in a position to complain that the retaliation of the incensed wife was excessive.

A careful review of this entire record fails to convince us that there is merit in this appeal.

Judgment is affirmed.