alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frederick Coats v. Benjamin F. Farrington.

*Decree in bankruptcy superseding common-la/io asdgn/ment.*

A trustee in bankruptcy can maintain replevin for property of tbe bankrupt sold on an execution against him after tbe decree of bankruptcy.

Error to St. Clair.

Submitted June 22.

Decided June 29.

Replevin by Farrington, wbo was trustee in bankruptcy for Roe Stephens, against Coats, wbo bad purchased a Standard organ at a sale on execution against tbe said Stephens. Tbe organ bad been sold by Stephens in 1876 to Anna M. Keery, but by tbe terms of tbe sale she was not to acquire title until it bad been fully paid for. On default in payment it was taken from her in 1878 by Farrington’s attorney and 'was left at D. M. Church’s, where it was afterwards seized on execution for costs against Stephens in a suit began by him in bis own name, and was sold to tbe defendant Coats. Stephens bad made a common-law assignment to one Swartz, which was dated April 10, 1877, but be was adjudicated bankrupt October 6, 1877, by a decree of tbe district court, and Farrington was appointed bis trustee on tbe following fourteenth of November. Tbe court set aside tbe assignment and directed that all of tbe property of Stephens, including that covered by tbe assignment, should be transferred to Farrington and that tbe trustee should be invested witb title thereto. Tbe court directed a verdict for Farrington. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*423
      *Elliott G. Stevenson*and *O'Brien J. Atkinson*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles K. Dodge*for defendant in error.

An order of the bankruptcy court setting aside a common-law assignment and putting a trustee in charge of the bankrupt’s property establishes the trustee’s title thereto: U. S. Rev. Stat. §§ 5103-4; if the bankrupt court obtained jurisdiction subsequent proceedings are presumed regular: Bump’s Bankruptcy (9th ed.) 682; *Smith v. Engle*9 Chic. Leg. News 46; a purchaser on execution gets no title unless the property bought belonged to the judgment debtor: Benj. Sales § 17; *Champney v. Smith*15 Gray 512; *Johnson v. Babcock*8 Allen 583; *Symonds v. Hall 31*Me.*354; Coombs v. Gorden*59 Me. 111; *Boggs v. Fowler*16 Cal. 560; replevin lies against the vendee: *Huber v. Sharck*2 Browne (Pa.) 160: 6 id. 2; *Ward v. Taylor*1 Penn. St. 238.

Marston, C. J.

It clearly appears in this case that under and by virtue of the bankruptcy proceedings all the property, of which the organ in controversy was a part, of Roe Stephens passed to and became vested in Barrington, who was then entitled to the possession of the same. There was no evidence given on the trial below tending to show that Barrington had parted with the title he thus acquired in this organ, or that he had done or permitted anything to be done which would revest title thereto in Stephens, or that would tend to show that Stephens had any title thereto or interest therein subject to levy and sale under an execution at the time of the levy and sale by the sheriff.

.The court committed no error and the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2215 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2215

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
 Agencies, Executive Office of the President: Council on Environmental 
   Quality and Office of Environmental Quality for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
 Agencies, Executive Office of the President: Council on Environmental 
   Quality and Office of Environmental Quality for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED AGENCIES, 
              EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT: COUNCIL ON 
              ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 
              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, 
Executive Office of the President: Council on Environmental Quality and 
Office of Environmental Quality for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$2,994,000.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2232 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2232

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
   of Agriculture, Processing Research, and Marketing, Office of the 
                    Secretary for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
   of Agriculture, Processing Research, and Marketing, Office of the 
                    Secretary for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, PROCESSING RESEARCH, AND MARKETING, OFFICE 
              OF THE SECRETARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Processing Research, and Marketing, Office of the 
Secretary for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $46,603,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WYATT LEE RICKRODE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 75 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned certify that, to their knowledge on the date of this certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: | March 30, 2015 |  | By: | /s/ James R. Clarkson                        | 
|----- | -------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------- | 
|      |                |  |     | James R. Clarkson                            | 
|      |                |  |     | President and Chief Executive Officer        | 
|      |                |  |     | (Principal Executive Officer)                | 
|      |                |  |     |                                              | 
|Date: | March 30, 2015 |  | By: | /s/ Edward L. Loehr, Jr.                     | 
|      |                |  |     | Edward L. Loehr, Jr.                         | 
|      |                |  |     | Chief Financial Officer                      | 
|      |                |  |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

vs. ) Criminal Action No. 2:14-000135-KD

)

TAKASHA STEVENSON, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l)(B) and dated May 22, 2015 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

Accordingly, Takasha Stevenson’s motion for waiver of transcript fee (doc. 581) is 

GRANTED, subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)(3).1

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose__

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 “(3) Maximum amounts.--Compensation to be paid to a person for services rendered by him to 

a person under this subsection, or to be paid to an organization for services rendered by an 

employee thereof, shall not exceed $2,400, exclusive of reimbursement for expenses reasonably 

incurred, unless payment in excess of that limit is certified by the court, or by the United States 

magistrate judge if the services were rendered in connection with a case disposed of entirely 

before him, as necessary to provide fair compensation for services of an unusual character or 

duration, and the amount of the excess payment is approved by the chief judge of the circuit. The 

chief judge of the circuit may delegate such approval authority to an active or senior circuit 

judge.”

Case 2:14-cr-00135-KD-N Document 606 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

<pageID>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         927,624
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,766,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                   103,075
<INVENTORY>                                  2,833,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,367,960
<PP&E>                                       3,817,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                 803,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,178,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,891,375
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,246,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,178,322
<SALES>                                      4,809,714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,809,714
<CGS>                                        3,090,075
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,572,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,989,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                40,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             414,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,832
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,247
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.47
 MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK AND
OPTION COMPENSATION PLAN
 ELECTION FORM
 Stock Election
  
 (please circle one)
 Deferral Elections
  o
 þ
  
     By:
    
    /s/ Michael Goldstein
    
    Date: 7/1/04Name:
    
    MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN




---



##### 



DEFERRAL ELECTION FORM CLARIFICATION
   Re:
    
    DEFERRAL ELECTION FORM
  Company Election Form Stock Non-Employee
Director Plan Code
 Deferred Stock Separation
  Omnibus Plan




---



##### 



no later than December 31,
2008.
 Very truly yours,

MARTHA STEWART LIVING
OMNIMEDIA, INC.By:

    /s/ William C. Stern(Signature)Name:  William C. SternTitle:    GC ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
Michael Goldstein/s/ Michael Goldstein(Signature)12/23/2008Date
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2207 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2207

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
         of Agriculture, Land Acquisition for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
         of Agriculture, Land Acquisition for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, LAND ACQUISITION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Land Acquisition for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anonymous, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 687]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered on or about March 21, 2006, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2313 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of State, 

International Commissions, American Sections, International Commissions for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of State, International Commissions, American 

Sections, International Commissions for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, INTERNATIONAL 

5 COMMISSIONS, AMERICAN SECTIONS, INTER6 NATIONAL COMMISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

7 2024. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

9 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:06 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2313.IH H2313

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2313 IH

1 able for Department of State, International Commissions, 

2 American Sections, International Commissions for fiscal 

3 year 2024 may not exceed $13,258,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 19, 

2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00148-CV

ATTARCO, LLC, Appellant

V.

TRUDO PROPERTIES, LLC AND KEVIN BRENT ROBERTS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-90628

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed February 15, 2019. On March 6, 2019, 

appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion 

is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.
EPC 10Q 6.30.15 EX 10.13






Exhibit 10.13


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
2010 Restatement 




WHEREAS, Energizer Holdings, Inc. (“Parent” or “Company”) previously adopted the Energizer Holdings, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“Plan”); 


WHEREAS, Parent intends to separate its household products business from its personal care business by means of a spin-off of a newly formed subsidiary named Energizer SpinCo, Inc. (“Spinco”), in accordance with that certain Separation and Distribution Agreement by and between the Parent and the Spinco (“Spin-Off”); 


WHEREAS, in connection with the Spin-Off, the Parent will be renamed from “Energizer Holdings, Inc.” to “Edgewell Personal Care Company,” and Spinco will be renamed from “Energizer SpinCo, Inc.” to “Energizer Holdings, Inc.;”


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to reflect the Spin-Off;     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, effective July 1, 2015 and contingent on the Spin-Off, the Plan is amended as follows:


1.    Any reference to “Energizer Holdings, Inc.” in the Plan shall be replaced with “Edgewell Personal Care Company (formerly known as Energizer Holdings, Inc.).”


2.    Any reference to “Energizer Plans Administrative Committee” in the Plan shall be replaced with “the Benefits Governance Committee.”


3.    All liabilities relating to benefits of individuals listed on Appendix B (attached hereto) are hereby transferred to and assumed by Energizer Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Energizer SpinCo, Inc.), and the Company shall have no further liability relating thereto.


    



4551439.2












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Plan amendment to be executed effective as of the ___27___ day of ___July____, 2015.




ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.




By:  /s/ Peter J. Conrad    




Its:  Chief Administrative Officer    





4551439.2
tnet-ex101_516.htm


 

Exhibit 10.1 

June 22, 2015

ATTN: Greg Hammond

RE: Advisor Position

Dear Greg:

This letter indicates the conclusion of your role as Chief Legal Officer for TriNet effective 6/21/2015. Effective 6/22/2015 your new position at TriNet HR Corporation (the “Company”) will be Advisor, with a planned end date of 12/31/2015.

Below are the specifics of this new role:

Compensation: Effective 7/1/2015 you will receive a base salary of $2,500.00 monthly, less applicable taxes, deductions and withholdings.

Additional Compensation: You will not be eligible to receive a bonus in accordance with the Corporate Bonus Plan or any other additional compensation.

Benefits: You will continue to be eligible for those TriNet standard Company benefit plans that are available to employees generally, including continued participation in the Company’s employee benefit plans.

Stock Options: Your equity will continue to vest as long as you remain an employee of TriNet.

Employment Agreement: Your employment agreement dated 11/9/2009 is terminated as of 6/21/15, including special benefits in Section 2.4(b) of your employment agreement, more specifically the supplemental life insurance and reimbursement for up to $10,000 annually for special planning and income tax services. Further, you will not receive any severance benefits on any type of termination of employment under any other contract or agreement with the Company including, but not limited to, the severance benefit provisions set forth in Section 4 of your employment agreement dated 11/9/2009 with the Company.

Of course, this letter is only a confirmation of your new role, and does not alter the at-will nature of your employment. Thus, you or TriNet may terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause and with or without prior notice, and TriNet may change, among other things, benefits and compensation from time to time, as well as other terms and conditions of your employment.

Also, please note that you continue to be subject to the policies in TriNet’s Employee Handbook, the terms and conditions of TriNet’s Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, and your EULA/TCA.

This letter supersedes any conflicting agreements or promises made to you by anyone, whether oral or written.

You need not take any affirmative action to accept the changes referenced above. Your continued employment in the position to which you will be transferred constitutes your acceptance.

Sincerely,

 


	
/s/ Jing Liao

	
 

	
Jing Liao

	
SVP, Human Resources

	
 

	
Cc: Colleague File




 

1100 San Leandro Blvd., Suite 400 • San Leandro, CA 94577

Phone 510 352 5000 • Fax 510 352 6480 • Web www.trinet.com
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 08-6049

________________ In re: * * Larry Gene Englund and Marianne * Englund, * * Debtors. * * Larry Gene Englund and Marianne * Englund, * * Appeal from the United States Debtors - Appellants, * Bankruptcy Court for the District of * South Dakota v. * * SBS Financial Services, Inc., * * Creditor - Appellee. *

_____ Submitted: January 30, 2009 Filed: February 19, 2009

_____ Before MAHONEY, SCHERMER, and VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judges.

_____ Per Curiam. This an appeal of the bankruptcy cour t’s order denying the Debtors’ motion for contempt against creditor SBS Financial Serv ices, Inc. for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. The motion was denied on purely procedural grounds; the1 See, e.g. , In re Zumbrun , 88 B.R. 250, 252 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1988); In re Bock , 297 B.R. 22, 32 (Bankr. D. N.C. 1976). See also Budget Service Co. v. Better Homes of Virginia , 804 F.2d 289, 291 (4th Cir. 1986) (granting motion for monetary sanctions for violation of automatic stay). 2 bankruptcy court concluded that the Debtor s were required to file an adversary proceeding under Federal Rule of Bankrupt cy Procedure 7001 – instead of a motion – because they sought to recover monetary damages from SBS Fi nancial. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9020 specifically states that motions for contempt are governed by Rule 9014 – the rule under which contested motions are brought. The fact that a motion for contempt seeks monetary damages does not transform the action into one that must be pursued as an adversary proceeding. 1 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014 pr ovides essentially the same due process requirements for contested matters that are applicable to adversary proceedings and should alleviate any concerns the bankruptcy court might have for the creditor’s due process protections. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s order is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.