alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cooper v. King.

1. Promissory Hotos: failure of consideration. Plaintiff agreed to convey to defendant certain lands upon the payment of $1,000 in cash, and the execution of the notes in suit. Defendant paid the $1,000, and executed the notes. Plaintiff conveyed a portion of the lands, worth less than the $1,000 paid, and refused to convey the remainder, and defendant was not in possession thereof. *Held*that the consideration for the notes had failed, and that plaintiff could not recover thereon.

*Appeal from, Des Moines District Court*— Hon. Charles H. Phelps, Judge.

Tuesday, October 25.

Action by Martha A. Cooper, appellee, upon a promissory note. A demurrer to defendant’s answer being sustained, he refused to plead further, and thereupon a judgment was rendered against him, from which he appeals.

*AnProbus &*McArthur, for appellant.

*Kelly do Cooper*and *Power do Huston,*for appellee.

Reck, J.

I. The answer alleges, in substance, that defendant bargained with plaintiff for the purchase of her interest in certain tracts of land containing 240 acres, agreeing to pay therefor $1,000 cash, and gave his notes for the balance of the consideration for the land; that defendant performed his part of the agreement by paying the $1,000 cash, and executing the notes in suit; that plaintiff'agreed to convey her interest in the land to defendant upon the payment of the $1,000, and the execution of the notes; that she has conveyed her interest in a part of the land, less than one-half of it, to defendant, and refuses to convey to him her interest in the other part; and that the interest conveyed is not of the value of $1,000, the cash paid by defendant on account of the purchase. He alleges upon these facts that the consideration of the notes has failed. It does not appear that defendant is in possession of the land purchased of plaintiff.

*137II; We. think the demurrer was erroneously sustained, for these reasons: (1) As the conveyance of the land was to be made upon the execution of the notes, the obligation of the defendant to pay the notes is dependent upon the performance of, or an offer to perform, her contract. *(Berryhill v. Byington,*10 Iowa, 223.) (2) The answer shows that no part of the consideration of her notes has been received by defendant, for it is alleged that the land conveyed is not of the value of $1,000, the cash paid. Defendant, therefore, has received nothing for the notes, and plaintiff, as is alleged in the answer, refuses to convey the land as she obligated herself to do. The conveyance of the land is the consideration of the notes. It has not been made. Defendant, therefore, has received nothing for the notes. The answer shows a failure of consideration.

The judgment of the court below sustaining the demurrer is Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 79 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 79

     To require the Secretary of Agriculture to extend a nutrition 
     assistance program to American Samoa, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Secretary of Agriculture to extend a nutrition 
     assistance program to American Samoa, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO AMERICAN SAMOA.

    The first sentence of section 601(c) of Public Law 96-597 (48 
U.S.C. 1469d(c)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
the following: ``, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall extend a 
nutrition assistance program conducted under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
(7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) to American Samoa''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,335,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,002,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,665,000
<PP&E>                                           7,074,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,038,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,910,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,888,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           103,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,510,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,910,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,955,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,163,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 326,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,469,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       105,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,574,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,574,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.36)
        


</TABLE>
#### Tribble *vs.*Frame.

November 15.

Error to the Clarke Circuit; George Shannon, Judge.

*Sheriff’s return. Habere facias possessionem. Restitution.*

Motion. Case 22*

Statement,

Grounds of the moli-'ii qui«h n writ of restitution. *52Sheriff’s retuvo o*' the execution of a *writ*of *habere. fades possessionem,*afterwords quashed, on which a writ of *restituí ion was*awarded, cannot be questioned in a motion,at a subsequent form,to quash the writ of *restitution, -*

*51Chief Justice

Boyle delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to a judgment of the-Clarke circuit court, overruling a motion of the plaintiff in error, to quash a.writ of *restitution*awarded in favor of the defendant, at a previous, term of tlr- court, upon quashing a writ of *habere facias possessionem,*which had been returned by the sheriff, executed,

Sundry grounds were taken by the plaintiff, on. his motion- in the court below, to quash the writ of restitution, but they may all be- reduced to two-classes. 1st. such as question the truth of the sheriff's return upon the writ of *habe.re facias possessionem;*and 2nd such as question the correctness of tli» decision of the court, at its firmer term,, in quashing the *habere facias*possessionem, and awarding the writ of restitution.

*52In such case, the correctness of the judgment quashing the ivric *of habere facias possessionem,*and awarding the writ of restitnfi in, cannot he enquired into.

The grounds of the first of these classes, evidently cannot be sustained, for so high is the verity of the sheriff’s return regarded inlaw, that in general 'no averment is admitted against it, and although there are exceptions *to this*general rule, none of these exceptions apply to a case of this sort, where it is attempted to question the sheriff’s return, in a proceeding in the same ease in which the return has been uiade, as was held by this court, in the case of Smith vs. iiornbeck, 3 Marshall, 392.

Nor are we.of opinion that, the grounds of the second class can be sustained. The adjudication of the court, quashing the *habere facias possessionem,*and awarding the writ of restitution, was final in its nature, and having been rendered at a former term of the court, it ceased to have any power over the judgment, and, if erroneous, Ifie proper remedy was, not by motion to that court, but by a writ of error to this The, circuit court therefore, correctly overruled the plaintiff’s motion, and the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

*Haggin*for plaintiff; *Hanson*for defendant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JAN-2-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-4-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUL-4-1998
<CASH>                                               10,299
<SECURITIES>                                          7,210
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                           3,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     22,968
<PP&E>                                                2,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       28,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 5,266
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 21
<OTHER-SE>                                           23,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         28,730
<SALES>                                              10,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     10,544
<CGS>                                                 5,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         5,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      8,602
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (841)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (841)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        ($0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        ($0.09)

         

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13170-13171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0130]

Safety Zone; Spirit Lake Dredging

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the USX Superfund Site Safety 
Zones: St. Louis River, and this notice of enforcement serves as a 
reminder to mariners this is still an enforced safety zone under Coast 
Guard regulations. Our regulation for safety zones within the Ninth 
Coast Guard District identifies this area as a regulated area within 
Spirit Lake Duluth, MN.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.905(a)(1) and (2) will be enforced 
from April 4, 2022, through September 15, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notice of enforcement, call or email LTJG Joseph R. McGinnis, MSU 
Duluth Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 218-725-3818, 
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the USX 
Superfund Site Safety Zone: St. Louis River, and this notice of 
enforcement serves as a reminder to mariners this is still an enforced 
safety zone under 33 CFR

[[Page 13171]]

165.905(a)(1) and (2). The USX Superfund Site Safety Zone: St. Louis 
River, includes Safety Zone #1 (North Spirit Lake): North Boundary 
46[deg]41'33'' W, South Boundary 46[deg]41'18'' W, East Boundary 
92[deg]11'53'' W, West Boundary 92[deg]12'11'' W, and Safety Zone #2 
(South Spirit Lake): North Boundary 46[deg]40'45'' N, South Boundary 
46[deg]40'33'' N, East Boundary 92[deg]11'40'' W, West Boundary 
92[deg]12'05'' W. Transit of vessels through the waters covered by 
these zones is prohibited. Swimming (including water skiing or other 
recreational use of the water which involves a substantial risk of 
immersion in the water) or taking of fish (including all forms of 
aquatic animals) from the waters covered by these safety zones is 
prohibited at all times. Our regulation for safety zones within the 
Ninth Coast Guard District identifies this area is a regulated area 
within Spirit Lake Duluth, MN. In addition to this notice of 
enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide 
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to 
Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: March 3, 2022.
Frances M. Smith,
Captain of the Port MSU Duluth, CDR, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-04905 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bryant Park Building, Inc., Respondent, against William S. Miller et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.

Argued May 17,1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*529*Robert H. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Arthur H. Goldberg, Arthur A. Segall*and *Edmund B. Hennefeld*of counsel), for appellant.

*Henry H. Harhavy*and *Sidney B. Moshovitz*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, no opinion.*

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.

*

 See footnote to *People eco rel. Chemical Bank & Trust Co.*V. *Miller,*291 if. Y. 507, 508 — [Rep.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Augustine MORENO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11212 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

*362James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Augustine Moreno, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Augustine Moreno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Moreno has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents . no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04799]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-123, OMB Control No. 3235-0105]


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
     Form T-3

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for approval.
    Form T-3 (17 CFR 269.3) is an application for qualification of an 
indenture under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa et 
seq.). The information provided under Form T-3 is used by the 
Commission to determine whether to qualify an indenture relating to an 
offering of debt securities that is not required to be registered under 
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form T-3 takes 
approximately 43 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 11 
respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 43 burden hours (11 hours per 
response) is prepared by the filer for a total reporting burden of 121 
hours (11 hours per response x 11 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication by May 9, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John 
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e2e2c3f21331f17121c11063e0d1b1d50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="affffdeef0e2cec6c3cdc0d7efdccacc81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 2, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04799 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Tyrone RICHARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*924Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed September 29, 2017

Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Bryan R. Whittaker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Chad Wright, Attorney, Hooks & Wright, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Tyrone Richard appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Richard contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record makes clear that the district court imposed Richard’s sentence, and later reduced Richard’s sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Richard’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano,*855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, contrary to Richard’s contention, the district court had no cause to consider his argument that a reduction was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

Richard’s motion for remand or summary reversal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3


                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement is made as of this 1st day
of April, 2002, by and between Stewart Enterprises, Inc., a Louisiana
corporation (the "Company"), and Kenneth C. Budde (the "Employee").

                                  WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company has entered into an Employment Agreement with the
Employee dated as of November 1, 2001 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have agreed to eliminate certain
benefits payable to Employee upon termination of employment in consideration of
the inclusion of Employee as an initial participant in a Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the "SERP").

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the continued employment of
Employee by the Company, the payment of wages, salary and other compensation to
Employee by the Company and the benefits potentially payable to Employee under
the SERP, the parties hereto agree as follows, effective as of April 1, 2002:

         SECTION 1. Except as expressly amended herein, all of the terms and
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         SECTION 2. Article IV, Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

         SECTION 3. Article IV, Section 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
renumbered as Article IV, Section 5.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed and signed as of the date indicated above.

                                 STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.


                                 By:
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                          James W. McFarland
                                          Compensation Committee Chairman

                                 EMPLOYEE:


                                 --------------------------------------------
                                              Kenneth C. Budde