alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### C. Reiss Coal Company, Appellant, vs. Stroik, Defendant: Lorbiecki, Garnishee Defendant and Respondent.

*February 25*

April *8, 1947.*

*202For the appellant there was a brief by *A. H. Eberlein*of Wausau, attorney, and *Buchen, Currie, Federer & Grote*of Sheboygan of counsel, and oral argument by *George R. Currie.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Smith, Okoneski, Puchner & Tinkham*of Wausau, and oral argument by *Richard P.Tinkham.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

The plaintiff argues that if the defendant’s contention is sound, then the trustee in bankruptcy should *203have been joined as a plaintiff, that he was not joined, therefore there is a defect of parties plaintiff and the question not having been raised by demurrer or answer, it is waived.

It is well established by the decisions of the United States supreme court that the trustee in bankruptcy gets the title to all property which has been transferred by a bankrupt in fraud of creditors, or which prior to the petition he could by any means have transferred, or which might have been levied upon or sold under judicial process against him. *Moore v. Bay*(1931), 284 U. S. 4, 52 Sup. Ct. 3, 76 L. Ed. 133. See also 6 Am. Jur., Bankruptcy, p. 596, sec. 150, and cases cited in note 17.

Sec. 70a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA, sec. 110a, provides that—

> “the trustee of the estate of a bankrupt and his successor or successors, if any, upon his or their appointment and qualification, shall in turn be vested by operation of law as of the date of the filing of the petition with the title of the bankrupt to all the property,” etc. 4 Collier (14th ed.), Bankruptcy, p. 943, sec. 70.04, and cases cited.

> “It was generally held that the right conferred by former section 67e to recover property transferred by the bankrupt in fraud of his creditors belonged exclusively to the trustee in bankruptcy, and that the grant of concurrent jurisdiction to bankruptcy and state courts found in the last sentence of that subdivision extended only to suits instituted by the trustee against adverse claimants.” 4 Collier (14th ed.), Bankruptcy, p. 406, sec. 67.48, and cases cited in notes 6 and 7. See also *Thomas E.*Hogan, *Inc., v. Berman*(1941), 310 Mass. 259, 37 N. E. (2d) 742.

There are exceptions to these rules, none of which apply to the facts in this case. It appears therefore that the exclusive jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine controversies relating to the fraudulent transfer by the bankrupt is in the proper bankruptcy court.

*204The proceeding in this case is a straight garnishment action in which the plaintiff asks that the proceeds be applied to the liquidation of its claim. Under these facts it would be futile for this court to proceed to consider a case of which neither the trial court nor this court has jurisdiction.

*By the Court.*— The judgment appealed from is vacated, and cause remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for want of jurisdiction.
KNL-EX.10.3_2014.6.30






EXHIBIT  10.3




Summary of Benjamin A. Pardo 2014 Compensation




Effective July 1, 2014, the Knoll, Inc. compensation committee approved an annual base salary of $285,000 for Benjamin A. Pardo, with a bonus target of one hundred percent (100%) of his base salary as of January 1, 2014.  Mr. Pardo is also entitled to participate in the benefit plans provided by Knoll that are generally available to Knoll employees.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                       SATELITES MEXICANOS, S.A. DE C.V.
 
          COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES
                          (IN THOUSANDS OF US DOLLARS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             PERIOD FROM
                                                                             NOVEMBER 17,
                                                               YEAR ENDED      1997 TO
                                                              DECEMBER 31,   DECEMBER 31,
                                                                  1998           1997
                                                              ------------   ------------
<S>                                                           <C>            <C>
EARNINGS:
Loss before income tax, minority interest and extraordinary
  item......................................................    $(17,206)      $(2,003)
Add: Interest expense.......................................      52,119        14,792
                                                                --------       -------
  Earnings..................................................      34,910        12,789
                                                                --------       -------
 
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense............................................      52,119        14,792
Add: Capitalized interest...................................      20,500         2,909
                                                                --------       -------
  Fixed charges.............................................      72,619        17,701
                                                                --------       -------
Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges...............    $ 37,709       $ 4,912
                                                                ========       =======
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2944 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2944

To clarify that certain penalties provided for in the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1990 are the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity 
that may arise or occur in connection with certain discharges of oil or 
                         a hazardous substance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2000

  Mr. Breaux  introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that certain penalties provided for in the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1990 are the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity 
that may arise or occur in connection with certain discharges of oil or 
                         a hazardous substance.

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

SECTION 1. AFFIRMATION OF PENALTIES UNDER OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of 
law, section 4301(c) and 4302 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
Law 101-380; 104 Stat. 537) and the amendments made by those sections 
provide the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity 
that may arise or occur in connection with a discharge of oil or a 
hazardous substance referred to in section 311(b)(3) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)).
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to limit, or otherwise exempt any person from, liability for 
conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States, for fraud 
and false statements, or for the obstruction of justice.
                                 <all>
```
# Leif Erikson Day, 2024

On Leif Erikson Day, we celebrate the history and heritage of Nordic communities in the United States, whose contributions and cultures have helped shape our Nation.

Many believe that roughly a millennium ago, Leif Erikson—a Norse explorer—and his crew were the first Europeans to reach the shores of North America. His spirit of adventure, curiosity, and resilience would inspire generations of Danes, Finns, Icelanders, Norwegians, and Swedes to sail across an ocean and begin new lives in America. These immigrants built bustling homes and enriched their communities, supporting and realizing the American Dream. They fought for our freedoms in the military; built new churches, businesses, and schools; and spearheaded social movements. Today, Nordic communities continue to enrich the fabric of the Nation.

Nordic-American communities in the United States are foundational to our partnership and friendship with our Nordic Allies and their people. These nations share our vision for a world based on freedom, security, and opportunities for all. Together, we are working in lockstep to tackle the climate crisis and pioneer the next generation of technology that will power everyone's economies. We are also standing with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia's brutal assault. I am proud that the United States supported the ratification process for Finland to join NATO, which was the fastest ratification in history. And I was honored to welcome Sweden as NATO's 32nd Ally earlier this year. Together, I know that we will continue to stand for freedom and democracy for generations to come.

Today, may we celebrate the important contributions and vibrant cultures of Nordic Americans to our Nation. And may we continue the work that so many Nordic communities in this country began: ensuring every American has an opportunity to reach the American Dream.

To honor Leif Erikson, son of Iceland and grandson of Norway, and to celebrate Nordic-American heritage, the Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-566) approved on September 2, 1964, has authorized the President of the United States to proclaim October 9 of each year as “Leif Erikson Day.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 9, 2024, as Leif Erikson Day. I call upon all Americans to celebrate the contributions of Nordic Americans to our Nation with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 2024-23812

Billing code 3395-F4-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofGreenChek Technology Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Lincoln Parke, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 22ndday of July, 2009.

LINCOLN PARKELincoln ParkeChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer












---
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2010 of Vitacost.com, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ira P.
Kerker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.




/s/
      Ira P. KerkerIra
      P. KerkerChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
              May 17, 2010
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 302

For the relief of Kerantha Poole-Christian.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 25, 1999

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

For the relief of Kerantha Poole-Christian.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION AS A CHILD UNDER THE IMMI4 GRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the administration of the Im6 migration and Nationality Act, Kerantha Poole-Christian

7 shall be classified as a child within the meaning of section

8 101(b)(1)(E) of such Act, upon approval of a petition filed

9 on her behalf by Clifton or Linette Christian, citizens of

10 the United States, pursuant to section 204 of such Act.

11 (b) LIMITATION.—No natural parent, brother, or sis12 ter, if any, of Kerantha Poole-Christian shall, by virtue
2

•S 302 IS

1 of such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or

2 status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Æ
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3028

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide a transitional

adjustment for certain sole community hospitals in order to limit any

decline in payment under the prospective payment system for hospital

outpatient department services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. JEFFORDS, and Mr. LEVIN)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

a transitional adjustment for certain sole community hospitals in order to limit any decline in payment under

the prospective payment system for hospital outpatient

department services.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Hospital and

5 Health Network Preservation Act of 2000’’.
2

•S 3028 IS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SOLE COM2 MUNITY HOSPITALS TO LIMIT DECLINE IN

3 PAYMENT UNDER THE OPD PPS.

4 (a) HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.—Section

5 1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

6 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(or not more

7 than 400 beds if such hospital is a sole community hos8 pital (as defined in section 1886(d)(5)(D)(iii)) and is clas9 sified as a rural referral center under section

10 1886(d)(5)(C))’’ after ‘‘100 beds’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the

13 amendments made by section 202(a) of the Medicare,

14 Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act

15 of 1999 (113 Stat. 1501A–342), as enacted into law by

16 section 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106–113.

Æ
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2871

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, to prohibit the sale and purchase

of the social security number of an individual by financial institutions

and to include social security numbers in the definition of nonpublic

personal information.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 14, 2000

Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, to prohibit the sale

and purchase of the social security number of an individual by financial institutions and to include social security numbers in the definition of nonpublic personal information.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Num5 ber Privacy Act of 2000’’.
2

•S 2871 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RESTRICTING THE SALE AND PUR2 CHASE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 502 of the Gramm-Leach4 Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6802) is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub6 section (f); and

7 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol8 lowing:

9 ‘‘(e) REGULATION OF THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF

10 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY AC11 COUNT NUMBERS.—

12 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other

13 provision of this title, no financial institution may

14 sell or purchase a social security number or a social

15 security account number in a manner that violates

16 a regulation promulgated by the Federal functional

17 regulators under paragraph (2).

18 ‘‘(2) REGULATIONS.—

19 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6

20 months after the date of enactment of the So21 cial Security Number Privacy Act of 2000, the

22 Federal functional regulators shall promulgate

23 regulations restricting the sale and purchase of

24 social security numbers and social security ac25 count numbers by financial institutions.
3

•S 2871 IS

1 ‘‘(B) RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS.—In

2 promulgating regulations under subparagraph

3 (A), the Federal functional regulators shall im4 pose restrictions and conditions on the sale and

5 purchase of social security numbers and social

6 security account numbers that are no broader

7 than necessary—

8 ‘‘(i) to provide reasonable assurances

9 that social security numbers and social se10 curity account numbers will not be used to

11 commit or facilitate fraud, deception, or

12 crime; and

13 ‘‘(ii) to prevent an undue risk of bod14 ily, emotional, or financial harm to an indi15 vidual.’’.

16 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 509(4)(A) of the

17 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809) is amended

18 by inserting after ‘‘information’’ the following: ‘‘, including

19 a social security number or social security account num20 ber’’.

Æ
#### Estate of Michel: Michel, Appellant, vs. Department of Taxation, Respondent.

*October 9*—

November *5, 1952.*

*434For the appellant there were briefs by *Hale, Skemp, Nietsch, Hanson & Schnurrer*and *Lees & Bunge,*all of La Crosse, and oral argument by *Quincy H. Hale.*

For the respondent there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Harold H. Persons,*assistant attorney general, and *Neil Conway,*inheritance tax counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Persons*and *Mr. Conway.*

Gehl, J.

We have recited only such of the facts as we deem necessary to be considered for a determination of the issue presented.

It appears from the contents of a note found in 5 A. L. R. (2d) 1122, that unless a peculiar factual situation exists so as to make both inapplicable, two rules have been followed in determining the effect of an agreement such as is present here upon the valuation of property made for the purpose of the assessment of an inheritance or estate tax. The so-called “federal rule” appears to be that the contract price determines the value; the so-called “Pennsylvania rule” is that the contract price does not determine value but requires that the appraisers take it into consideration.

Appellant contends that one or the other of the rules must be applied and that, therefore, the court was in error in requiring the appraisers to ignore the contract price.

The case, because of its peculiar facts, does not require the application of either rule. It will be observed that Carl did not buy the stock. He will acquire it, not by purchase under the provisions of the contract, but as a legatee under the terms of the will. *Will of Jones,*206 Wis. 482, 240 N. W. 186. The value of his legacy is not affected by the fact that the contract exists. It is not as though the purchaser named in the contract were a stranger whose right to buy the stock *435would manifestly affect its purchase price and the amount which might come to the estate as a result of its sale. Nor is the situation the same as would have resulted had Carl exercised his right under the contract tq demand transfer of the stock to him and thus bring to the estate an amount less than what appears to be its value. In other words, because of the peculiar facts existing, the value of the stock is not affected by the terms of the contract.

The Wisconsin inheritance tax is imposed by the provisions of sec. 72.01, Stats., upon the clear market value of the property transferred, and “is based on the interest to which the living succeeds,” *Estate of Ogden,*209 Wis. 162, 167, 244 N. W. 571, and the value of the right which he receives, *Estate of Levalley,*191 Wis. 356, 210 N. W. 941, *Will of Merrill,*212 Wis. 15, 248 N. W. 909. That value is in this case the clear market value of the stock unaffected by the existence of the contract.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
#### Videkovich, Respondent, vs. Valek, Appellant.

*November 9*—

December *5, 1950.*

*149For the appellant there was a brief by *Sydney M. Eisen-berg*and *I. B. Shapiro,*both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Eisenberg.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Rubin & Ruppa,*attorneys, and *Norman W. Wegner*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Nathan Ruppa.*

Hughes, J.

The case was submitted to the jury upon a general verdict, and the evidence warrants the finding for the respondent. Appellant contends, however, that she is entitled to a new trial upon the ground that the award of the jury is excessive. She cites no authorities upon this point, and it would appear self-evident that if the husband were worth enticing away from respondent, appellant should not be heard to say that he could not have been worth $2,000 to the respondent.

It is next contended that respondent entrapped appellant by knowingly encouraging her to associate with the husband, and that the damages to respondent should be mitigated. The acquaintance of the parties extended over several years. Appellant worked in a shop as a drill or press-punch operator and was induced by Mr. and Mrs. Videkovich to advance loans from time to time to enable them to engage in business. Appellant lived with them for a time and because of this counsel contends that respondent connived to bring about the situation which developed.

Inferences could have been drawn either way from the record. It was within the jury’s province to determine whether respondent was encouraging appellant’s association with her husband for personal financial gain, or whether appellant in the role of friend to both was guilty of treachery toward respondent. The determination of the jury is final as to the issues in this case.

*150The damages awarded are not excessive and the verdict does not'appear in any other respect to be the result of prejudice.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 17143.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 2, 1935.

. Henry Klepalc, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of an aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for a term of sixty days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals 'and approved by the court.