alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,814.

#### In re MORITZ et al.

[5 Law Rep. 325.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug., 1842.

VOLUNTART PETITION BT PARTNERS — CONSTRUCTION of the 14th Section of the Act of 1841.

[In the matter of Moritz and Pinner, bankrupts.)

Various objections were interposed by creditors to a decree of bankruptcy being rendered, only two of which were particularly pressed in this stage of the case. The petitioners, many years since, were bankers and partners in Germany, where it is charged, they became insolvent fraudulently, and afterwards absconded to the United States. Their partnership was dissolved before they left Germany, and was never renewed in this country, nor have they contracted any joint debts here. All their partnership debts were contracted in Europe, to foreign creditors. The petition was * joint and several, praying a decree of bankruptcy in their favor as copartners, and also in behalf of each partner, individually.

James F. Brady, for petitioners.

P. J. Joachemssen and Charles Edwards, for creditors.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

The court did not discuss the point, whether foreign partners could become voluntarily bankrupt here in respect to debts, creditors, and estate, entirely foreign, but decided, that partners, as such, could not by voluntary petition be declared bankrupts, except under the 14th section; that, if the provisions of that section are applicable at all to the case of voluntary bankruptcy, they are so only in the case of those who, at the time the petition is presented,are partners; that nonum-ber less than the whole of a firm can petition for a decree of voluntary bankruptcy under the 1st section, and that it is at least doubtful whether the application of that section is not lithTted to cases of compulsory bankruptcy in respect to copartnerships; that in case of compulsory bankruptcy, the same reasons would not exist for restricting proceedings to cases of existing partnerships, and, accordingly, the decision in this case is not to be considered as prejudging that point. The court further decided that proceedings in bankruptcy as at law, and in equity, could not be conducted in the united names of parties who have no common' interest, and do not seek a common decree, that individuals cannot associate and make a joint and several petition, with a view to a separate decree, in favor of each applicant, and that accordingly the petition, in this case being disallowed as to the two petitioners conjointly, could not avail them individually; and it was dismissed with costs; with leave, however, to amend it, if that could be done without varying, its essential structure and statements, so as to retain it as the sole petition of one of the parties, at their election, between themselves.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D18-1895 

_____________________________ 

TORAY ANTHONY RICKETTS, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Russell Healey, Judge. 

April 30, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 
2 

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and David A. Henson, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# Table 25. TEs in whole sediment

Table 26	&P
No. 48560.

#### Protest 820922-G of R. U. Delapenha & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that the importation consisted of prepared peas in tins, the product of Belgium, and that at the time of importation the immediate containers, the tins, were marked “Belgique.” The importer was required to mark them with the words “Product of Belgium” before they were released. Following *Vandegrift*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 328, T. D. 41235) the court found that the merchandise was not legally marked. The protest was therefore overruled.
#### OTIS H. WHARTON, SR., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FLOYD KNOX, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND BOARD, APPELLANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*61.

*Mr. H. Hurlburt Tomlin*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Salvatore. J. Avena*for the respondents.

January *29,*1968.

Denied.
FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORP.

As of and for the year ended June 30, 1999, Fairbanks Capital Corp. has complied
in all material respects with the minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period, Fairbanks Capital Corp. had in
effect a  fidelity  bond and  errors  and  omissions  policy  in the  amount  of
$2,500,000.



                                   August 26, 1999


                                   /s/ Mark S. Finston
                                   ------------------------------
                                   Mark S. Finston
                                   President


                                   /s/ Kim A. Stevenson
                                   ------------------------------
                                   Kim A. Stevenson
                                   Vice President


                                   /s/ Lee Ervin
                                   ------------------------------
                                   Lee Ervin
                                   Senior Operations Manager
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO "APPENDIX A" OF THE


ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.


SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN












THIS AMENDMENT to "Appendix A" of the Astec Industries, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as amended and restated as of January 1, 2008 (the "Plan"), is adopted by Astec Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), effective as of October 27, 2016.







WHEREAS, Article 2 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") to designate participants in the Plan from time to time, whose names and effective dates of participation shall be set forth on Exhibit A to the Plan;







NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends "Appendix A" of the Plan in the form attached hereto, to update the same for changes in Plan participation approved by the Board, by action taken on October 27, 2016.







Except as amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.







ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.







Date: October 27, 2016          By /s/ Stephen C. Anderson


Name Stephen C. Anderson


Title Corporate Secretary

















"APPENDIX A"


Each Participant's Date of Participation







	
Name of Participant

	 	
Effective Dates of Participation

	 
	
W. Norman Smith

	 	
January 1, 1995

	 
	
Richard Patek

	 	
January 1, 1995

	 
	
Jeff Elliott

	 	
January 1, 2002

	 
	
Tim Gonigam

	 	
August 1, 2000

	 
	
Richard Dorris

	 	
January 3, 2005

	 
	
Ben Brock

	 	
January 1, 2007

	 
	
Michael A. Bremmer

	 	
January 1, 2007

	 
	
Stephen C. Anderson

	 	
January 1, 2003

	 
	
Lawrence R. Cumming

	 	
January 1, 2008

	 
	
Neil Peterson

	 	
January 1, 2008

	 
	
David C. Silvious

	 	
July 1, 2005

	 
	
Joe Cline

	 	
February 1, 2008

	 
	
Chris Colwell

	 	
May 31, 2011

	 
	
Robin Leffew

	 	
August 1, 2011

	 
	
D. Aaron Harmon

	 	
November 1, 2011

	 
	
Matthew B. Haven

	 	
January 1, 2013

	 
	
Jeff May

	 	
October 1, 2013

	 
	
Malcolm Swanson

	 	
January 1, 2014

	 
	
Tom Wilkey

	 	
January 1, 2014

	 
	
Jeff Schwarz

	 	
July 1, 2014

	 
	
Steven L. Claude

	 	
August 24, 2015

	 	 
	
John Irvine

	 	
April 28, 2016

	 	 
	
Jaco Van Der Merwe

	 	
October 1, 2016
No. 60910.

#### Central Manufacturing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 285896-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

“Douglas” valve assemblies in question operate the same in all material respects as the articles the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C. D. 1778); that said valve assemblies constitute one of the components in a complete toilet-box mechanism, represented by exhibit 2 in C. D. 1778; and that said unit must have all of the components in said exhibit 2 to function as a toilet-box mechanism, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
-1-



    	 



    

 


  






    	-2-



    	 



    

 





 






    	-3-



    	 



    

 


  






    	-4-
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.6





October 7th  2015




Dear Josep,




This Letter of Understanding confirms the terms and conditions applicable to your new position.




General:
		
	Position Title: 
	Executive Vice President Enterprise Business Initiatives


		
	Reporting to:
	Brian Kesseler


		
	Effective Date: 
	October 1st 2015




Compensation :
Your gross compensation - short term and long term - will remain unchanged, as per below overview:


		
	Base Pay
	457.000 Euro


		
	Bonus
	388.450 Euro (85 % of base pay)


		
	Long Term Performance Cash Plan
	650.000 US$


		
	Restricted Stock Plan
	12726 Shares 




Company Car:
You remain eligible for a company car according to Tenneco Europe company car policy.  Current company car to be driven till lease end.


Benefits:
Your medical insurance for you and your spouse, currently covered by Swiss 
Life/Henner, will remain in place.   Your Company pension plan, life and disability insurance will remain applicable. 


Tax Equalisation:
You will continue to benefit from the tax equalization policy; as per latest agreement, your ultimate annual tax liability, applicable to your Tenneco professional income, will remain applicable at 40 % maximum.
Tenneco’s tax advisor will continue to assist you in your required tax reportings; the Company will pay tax preparation fees.



















Notice Period:
In case of dismissal by the Company, for a reason different than serious negligence or serious misconduct, a 2 year severance program will be provided. 
As per current regulations, the notice period that will be applied to go on retirement is in place, and is determined as per below: 
		
	•
	Employer gives notice : If the employment relationship will be ended earliest on the first of the day following the month in which you will achieve the retirement age (currently 65), the maximum Employer notice will be 26 weeks


		
	•
	Employee gives notice : The regular notice period will be applied, currently capped at 13 weeks




This Agreement represents the final and complete understanding governing the employment relationship existing between the Employer and the Employee, and the terms of this Agreement cannot be substituted, superseded, waived, or modified in any manner whatsoever except by means of a written instrument. 


This Agreement supersedes and cancels all prior agreements, written or oral, and the written terms cannot be explained, supplemented or contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement, manner of dealing, manner of performance, usage or trade.


If the terms of this letter are agreeable with you, please sign and return one copy of this letter, preceding your signature with the handwritten mention of “read and approved”, to the Human Resources department.  A copy is enclosed for your personal file.  




Sincerely,






/s/ WOLFGANG FRIES    /s/ DANNY POLLARIS


Tenneco








	
											
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	/s/  JOSEP FORNOS
	 
	29/10/2015

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	.............................................
	 
	...................

	ACCEPTED :
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Josep Fornos
	 
	Date
| (1)   | the              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cash 4 Homes 247. for the quarter              ended              June 30, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the              quarter ended June 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects,              the              financial condition and results of operations of Cash 4 Homes              247. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/                Gordon                Forgey                                 |   |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:     |       Gordon                Forgey                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|  Title:    |                       Principal Executive Officer,                     Principal Financial Officer and Director                                                                                      |
|  Date:     |                       August 22, 2005                                                                                                                                                                                         |
#### In the Matter of Matthew Sangiuolo et al., Petitioners, v Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 162]

—Determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, dated December 21, 1993, which dismissed petitioners as officers in the New York City Police Department, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Edward Lehner, J.], entered May 10, 1994), is dismissed, without costs.

We find that there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the Commissioner, after a full evidentiary hearing, that petitioners were guilty of departmental charges and specifications and terminating petitioners from their employment. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that petitioners, who served as police officers in the 30th Precinct in Manhattan, had, on December 31, 1991, extorted a sum of money from the complainant by instilling a fear that criminal charges for gun possession would be instituted should the complainant not comply.

The penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Alfieri v Murphy,*38 NY2d 976; *Matter of Collins v Codd,*38 NY2d 269). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.
No. 52065.

#### Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 93150-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Certain items of the merchandise stipulated to consist of books of *bona fide*foreign authorship similar in all material respects (except title in some instances) to the books which were the subject of *Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 C. C. P. A. 11, C. A. D. 309), were held dutiable at *7%*percent under paragraph 1410, as modified by T. D. *18249753. Other items stipulated to consist of books of *bona fide*foreign authorship, composed in chief value of india paper, weighing over ten pounds and less than twenty and one-half pounds to the ream of 288,000 square inches, similar in all material respects (except title) to the books which were the subject of *Oxford University Press, New York, Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 63, C. D. 663), were held dutiable at 2 cents per pound and 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1404, as modified by T. D. 49753. Items stipulated to consist of maps containing additional text conveying historical,- geographic, and similar information, chiefly with respect to places outside the continental United States, were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1410, as modified by the trade agreement with Canada (T. D. 49752). The protests were sustained to the extent indicated.
#### Prime Care, Inc., Respondent, v Estelle Baumgarten et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 310]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered July 21, 1994, awarding plaintiff damages in an action to recover for nursing services rendered, and bringing up for review an order which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ acceptance of services rendered after the alleged act of incompetence, failure to adduce expert opinion in support of their claim of incompetence, and execution of various documents acknowledging their responsibility to pay for services not covered by insurance show that the issues defendants seek to raise are not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover the price for the services *215stipulated in the parties’ contract. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

E. ROBERT WRIGHT

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2702

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS

COUNCIL and KLAMATH FOREST

ALLIANCE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GALE NORTON, Secretary of the

United States Department of

Interior; KATHLEEN CLARKE,

Director of the Bureau of

Land Management; STEVEN 

ANDERSON, Redding Resource

Area Manager; DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR, and BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT,

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-S-04-2583 LKK CMK

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs and Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and Local Rule 83-143

hereby stipulate to an Order to modify the briefing schedule for cross motions for

summary judgment as follows:

Plaintiffs Opening Brief September 12, 2005

Defendants’ Combined Opposition Brief and 

Opening Brief October 11, 2005

Plaintiffs’ Combined Opposition and Reply Brief October 20, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02583-LKK -CMK Document 37 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In support of this Stipulation showing good cause, the parties through Counsel

advise the Court of the following:

This stipulation would not change the hearing date of November 7, 2005, at 10:00

a.m. in Courtroom 4, set by Order of this Court on July 21, 2005. This stipulation also

would not change the dates for briefing established by the same Order. The only change

effected by this new schedule would be to change the briefing from concurrent to

sequential. The stipulated change would allow the parties to focus on the challenges to

the agency action actually pursued by Plaintiffs and would eliminate unnecessary briefing

of issues by the agency in a separate, concurrent summary judgment motion, that are not

actually the focus of Plaintiffs’ challenges, as reflected and guided by what Plaintiffs will

actually assert in their Opening Brief. The change would lead to one less brief and also to

shorter briefs, focused solely on the issues actually pursued and as articulated by plaintiffs

following their review of the Administrative Record (which Record was lodged May 4,

2005, and supplemented June 22, 2005).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 22, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: /s/ E. Robert Wright 

E. ROBERT WRIGHT

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ William H. Sherlock 

William H. Sherlock

Hutchinson, Cox, Coons, DuPriest,

Orr and Sherlock, P.C.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02583-LKK -CMK Document 37 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 2
AAM-12-398-E June 25, 2012

Exemption No. 10574 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0567

Mr. William Richards

45 Sand Hill Road Gardiner, NY 12525

Dear Mr. Richards:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the list of conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 18, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow you to cover your safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to you.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant you an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow you, who is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover your safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and

limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Your employees are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of your part 135 operations, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/
James R Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure