alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(173 La. 689)

#### VIDRINE v. VIDRINE et al.

No. 30537.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1931.

J. Hugo Dore, of Ville Platte, for appellant..

Wm. Alex Robertson, of Opelousas, for ap-pellee Dr. Fred Vidrine.

Morton I-I. Thompson, of Opelousas, for appellee Federal Land Bank of New Orleans.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff’s father died insolvent some thirty odd years ago. Among the assets of his estate was the plantation which is the subject of this controversy.

Plaintiff’s father-in-law, father of her husband, held the first mortgage on the plantation, and was appointed administrator of the succession.

*510But, upon consideration, the heirs agreed to settle the succession and pay its debts in a more informal manner than through the administrator. Accordingly, the administrator was discharged and the heirs put in' possession.

Meanwhile plaintiff’s mother had claimed the widow’s allowance, or so-called “Widow’s Homestead,” as the widow in necessitous circumstance of the deceased.

Thereupon fifty acres of land, cut off from the plantation, were assigned to the widow, plaintiff’s mother, in settlement of her claim as widow in necessitous circumstances, and the rest of the plantation was assigned to plaintiff’s father-in-law in settlement of his first mortgage claim upon the plantation; he assuming the second mortgage.

On the same day bn which plaintiff’s father-in-law acquired the plantation in settlement of his. mortgage debt, he sold it on terms of credit to plaintiff’s husband and brother, who were then in partnership.

Eater on the partners sold the plantation to the present defendant.

I.

The present suit is brought by this plaintiff to reclaim a share in the plantation on the ground that' the sale by the heirs to the father-in-law and by the latter to the partnership, composed of her husband and brother, were mere simulations intended to convey her share in the plantation from herself to her husband in violation of the provisions of the article 2446 of the Civil Code of 1870, which forbids a contract of sale between husband and wife.

II.

The evidence in the case does not establish the claim of plaintiff that the sale to her father-in-law and by the latter to her husband was a simulation. We are satisfied, .as was the district judge, that both sales were bona fide transactions. In our opinion, article 2446 has not the slightest application to this case. Her father’s succession being insolvent, plaintiff acquired nothing from him, the maxim “Ex nihilo nihil fit” applies; out of nothing, nothing comes. Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 178, 221. She never owned any part of the plantation, and therefore could not sell any part of it. The sale to her father-in-law was, in substance and effect, merely a sale by her father’s succession and not by herself.

Plaintiff’s claim is without merit whatsoever, and the district judge very properly rejected it.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Exhibit 99.01

                                                                CITIGROUP [LOGO]


For immediate release
Citigroup Inc. (NYSE symbol: C)
February 28, 2000


               Citigroup Announces the Retirement of John S. Reed
                         Chairman and Co-Chief Executive

New York -- Citigroup announced today that John S. Reed, Chairman and Co-Chief
Executive Officer, has informed the Board of Directors of his decision to retire
from his positions effective at the company's annual meeting of shareholders on
April 18th, 2000.

"My 35 years at Citigroup and Citicorp have been both exciting and rewarding. I
have been very proud to play a part in the tremendous transformation that has
taken place in our industry and our company, from globalization and the advent
of electronic banking, to the creation of Citigroup, a new breed of financial
services firm."

"From the moment we announced the merger, I committed myself to seeing through
our transition from two companies into one. With the progress we have made -
highlighted by the strong financial performance we achieved in our first full
year as a combined company - I feel that I can now move on. My decision was a
deliberate one that I have discussed fully with the Board, and I leave the
company knowing we have put into place a truly outstanding management team and a
sound strategy that will serve as the foundation for our future growth."

Mr. Weill will become the Chairman and sole Chief Executive Officer of the
company, effective at this year's annual meeting. Further, Mr. Weill has advised
the Board of Directors that, in light of his own plans for retirement, he
intends to work with a committee of the Board on a plan of succession with the
objective of coming up with a successor within two years.

"John is a visionary leader who saw Citicorp through some of its most stressful
and challenging years and finally fulfilled his goal of creating a premier
global financial services company in joining me in the creation of Citigroup,"
said Mr. Weill. "We have created great shareholder value since the merger, and
my focus will be to continue to execute the Citigroup strategy to achieve even
higher levels of performance for our clients, employees and shareholders. I
respect John's decision and wish him great happiness and success in the years
ahead."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11146 Conference Calendar

FLYNOIND FLOYD DEMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TAYLOR COUNTY ADULT DETENTION FACILITY, Medical Staff; CAROLYN HAVINS; IRBY FOX, Doctor, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-171-BA

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Flynoind Floyd Demery, Texas prisoner #807670, appeals the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Demery argues that the magistrate judge abused its discretion by dismissing his claim and by denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Demery does not argue the merits of his complaint nor does he address the magistrate judge’s reasons for dismissing his claim and denying his motion. Therefore, he has abandoned these issues onNo. 97-11146 -2- appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
Base Salary and Annual Incentive Plan Target for the Company's CEO


 EXHIBIT 10.4 
  
 BASE SALARY AND ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN TARGET 
 FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
  

										
	 Executive Officer

	  	 New Base
 Salary*

	  	 Percentage Increase
 from 2004

	 	 	 2005 Annual Incentive
 Plan Target Percentage**

	 
	 Jon A. Marshall
President and
Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	655,000	  	4.8	%	 	100	%

  

	*	This base salary does not go into effect until April 1, 2005. 

  

	**	Expressed as a percentage of annual base salary.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL COLELLA, JR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0091 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201801921

The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

Anthony Michael Colella, Jr., Buckeye

Petitioner

FILED 2-28-2023
STATE v. COLELLA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge 

David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Anthony Michael Colella, Jr. seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s fifth successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         245,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  286,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    768,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,351,181
<PP&E>                                         833,957
<DEPRECIATION>                               (509,682)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,840,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          732,865
<BONDS>                                     17,722,095
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,167
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                (16,617,974)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,840,393
<SALES>                                        871,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               871,559
<CGS>                                          470,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  470,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               260,281
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             388,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (247,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (247,811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 62,159
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (309,970)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1882. REEVES v. THE STATE.

On March 28, 2019, this Court granted Malcolm Jamal Reeves’s applications

for discretionary appeal of the trial court’s order revoking his probation. Thereafter,

Reeves filed a timely notice of appeal. After careful review of the record in this case,

we conclude that the applications for discretionary appeal were improvidently

granted, and it is ordered that this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 28, 2020

01/28/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11009

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MILTON EUGENE ROBINS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:90-CR-127-1

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Previously, this court determined that Milton Eugene Robins1 was 

eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. United States v. Robins, 703 F. App’x 271, 272-74 (5th Cir. 2017). 

We remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. Id. at 

274. On remand, the district court granted the motion for a sentence reduction 

and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 389 months. 

 

* 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.

1 Federal prisoner # 02993-078.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11009 Document: 00514892552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2019
No. 18-11009

2

Although Robins initially expressed his gratitude for the district court’s 

grant of relief, he subsequently filed a motion styled Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for 

Error Correction, asserting that the original sentence and the adjusted 

sentence were not comparable because the original sentence was within the 

original guidelines range of 360 months to life and the adjusted sentence varied 

upward from the adjusted guidelines range of 292-365 months. A comparable 

sentence, he contended, would have been within the adjusted guidelines range. 

The motion was denied, and Robins’s motion for reconsideration was also 

denied. Robins has appealed both orders. 

We have construed Robins’s Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Error Correction 

as a successive motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. 

Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710-11 (5th Cir. 2018). The district court was not 

obligated to reduce Robins’s sentence at all and was therefore “under no 

obligation to reduce it even further within the recalculated range.” United 

States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). The record shows that the 

district court gave due consideration to the motion as a whole and considered 

the statutory sentencing factors; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See 

United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). The district court’s orders are AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 18-11009 Document: 00514892552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2019
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-32065

                                 $1,000,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
                Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing Supplement, dated August 19, 1997 (To Prospectus Supplement, dated May
21, 1997, to Prospectus, dated May 21, 1997).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

         The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement
and modify, to the extent applicable, the description of general terms and
provisions of Citicorp's Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E, set forth in
the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement. Capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:         7.00% Subordinated Notes Due August 15, 2009 (the
                        "Notes").
Aggregate
Principal Amount:       $7,971,000.00.

Price to Public:        100.00%.

Issue Date:             August 27, 1997.

Stated Maturity Date:   August 15, 2009.

Interest Rate:          7.00%.

Interest Payment Dates: Monthly, on the 15th day of each month, commencing in
                        September 1997, and at Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:   The first day of the month in which the related Interest
                        Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:           None.

Redemption:             The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole but not in
                        part, at the option of Citicorp, on not more than 60 or
                        less than 30 days' notice, on any Interest Payment Date
                        on or after August 15, 2000, at a redemption price of
                        100% of their principal amount plus accrued and unpaid
                        interest to the redemption date.


<PAGE>

Selling Agent:          J.W. Korth & Company.

Agent's Commission:     1.750%.

Minimum Denomination:   $1,000.

CUSIP Number:           17303 MHD 4.
#### CROCHET v. DE LUCA et al.

No. 19471.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 12, 1951.

*204Wilkinson & Wilkinson, New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

Clem H. Sehrt, Edward J. Boyle, and Thomas M. Brahney, Jr., all of New Orleans, for defendants and appellants.

McBRIDE, Judge.

This is the appeal taken by the defendants from the judgment in favor of Edward L. Crochet for $3,500.00, in his suit for damages arising out of the same accident which was involved in the case of Richardson v. DeLuca, La.App., 53 So.2d 199, an opinion and decree in which was handed down by us this day.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion in the Richardson case, it follows that there is no liability on the part of the defendants as to Crochet, and his demands must fall.

An agreement of compromise was entered into between the defendants and Crochet a few days after the accident, which was attacked on several grounds by Crochet. There is no reason to discuss the merits or demerits of the compromise, and

For the reasons stated in the Richardson case the judgment in favor of Edward L. Crochet is reversed, and it is now ordered that his suit against the defendants be dismissed at his cost.

Reversed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 6, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00663

- CV

IN RE Brandy Kara KRATZER

Original Mandamus Proceedi ng 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On October 11 , 201 7

, R elator filed a petition for wr it of mandamus. The court has

considered the petition and the respon se and is of the opinion that R elator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition f or writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

52.8(a). In addition, Relator’s motion for temporary relief filed on November 13, 2017 is denied.

It is so ORDERED on December 6, 2017

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 12

- 2153

- CV , styled In the Interest of C.A.S and T.A.S

. , pending in the

25 th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorabl e Robin V. Dwyer presiding.
So 3-31-14 Q Ex 10(c)1






EXHIBIT 10(c)1






BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


GEORGIA POWER COMPANY


The following are the annual base salaries, effective March 1, 2014 unless otherwise noted, of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Georgia Power Company and certain other executive officers of Georgia Power Company who served during 2013.




	
			
	W. Paul Bowers
President and Chief Executive Officer
	$787,338
	 

	W. Ron Hinson
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
And Treasurer
	$358,799
	 

	Ronnie R. Labrato*
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, and Treasurer
	$307,114
	 

	W. Craig Barrs
Executive Vice President
	$327,144
	 

	Joseph A. Miller
Executive Vice President
	$551,050
	 

	Anthony L. Wilson
Executive Vice President
	$353,266
	 






*Retired March 31, 2013. Salary shown was Mr. Labrato’s salary effective March 1, 2013.
AGEN-Exhibit 10.3.2 Q1 14




Addendum No. 4 to the Lease Agreement from 01/28/2011 between


4-Antibody AG, Hochbergerstr. 60C, 4057 Basel 
(Sublessee)




and 


Technologie Park Basel AG, Hochbergerstr. 60C, 4057 Basel 
(Principal Lessee)




The parties mentioned above agree as follows with regard to the maintenance of air-conditioners in the rooms rented by 4-Antibody AG and concerning the provision of the autoclave and ice machine to other tenants of Technologie Park Basel:


		
	1.
	The autoclave and the ice machine can be installed in Room C3_67 and used in agreement with 4-Antibody AG by all tenants of the Technologie Park (as of May 2013) within regular scope. 4-Antibody AG may charge them for the operating costs.




		
	2.
	The responsibility for the autoclave and the ice machine lies with 4-Antibody AG. For example, the costs of maintenance and repairs of these devices shall be covered by 4-Antibody AG. However, if one of these devices breaks and cannot be repaired anymore, 4-Antibody AG is not obliged to purchase a new device.




		
	3.
	The air-conditioners in Rooms C3_23, C3_25, C3_31 belong to 4-Antibody AG. The costs of repair, replacement, or the costs resulting from the breakdown of these devices shall be borne by 4-Antibody AG.




		
	4.
	In return for 4-Antibody AG providing the autoclave and ice machines at the disposal of the other lab tenants, TPB AG shall assume the costs of regular maintenance of the air-conditioners in these rooms. (As of May 2013, this is performed by Johnson Controls)








	
		
	4-Antibody AG


	Technologie Park Basel AG

	Basel, on [hw:] 06/06/2013


	Basel, on [hw:] 06/24/2013

	[signature]
Dr. Robert Burns
Chief Executive Officer


	[signature]
Samuel Hess
VR1

	[signature]
Melanie Princip
Group Head of HR
	[signature]
Nina Ryser
VR2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Shermen WSCAcquisition Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                            | By:    |  /s/ Francis P.  Jenkins, Jr.          |
|----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Name:  | Francis P.  Jenkins, Jr.                    |
|                       | Title: | Chairman, Chief  Executive Officer and President |
| Date: March 11,  2009 |   |
|                            |        |                                                  |  |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Willow Creek Golf Club, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 0 0 553

- C V

Date Motion Filed: July 27, 20 22

Party Filing Motion: Relator

It is ordered that relator’s request for en banc consideration is denied

. See T EX

. R.

A PP . P. 41.2, 49.5.

Judge’s signature:

_____ /s/ Sherry Radack

_______  Acting for the En Banc Court

Date:

___ August 23, 2022

____

En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Ke lly

, Goodman

, Landau

, Hightower, Countiss , Rivas

- Molloy, and Farris.

Justice Guerra, not sitting

.