alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
226 La. 873

#### Lawrence C. VATH, d/b/a City Appliances, v. Charles A. GAY.

No. 40886.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 10, 1955.

James J. Morrison, iNew Orleans (Rudolph R. Schoemann, New Orleans, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

McGiehan & Bagot, New Orleans (Morris B. Phillips, New Orleans, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

Lawrence C. Vath, the plaintiff, brought suit against Charles A. Gay, his employee, seeking to recover $2,996.25 alleged to have been received by the defendant employee during the course of his employment in excess of the amount of compensation due him. The defendant reconvened alleging that he is due $1,752.38 under an oral contract of employment. On trial the lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and dismissed the reconventional demand. The plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff contends that under the oral contract of employment the defendant was to receive $350 per month and 25% of the net earnings of the business. The defendant contends that he was to receive, under the contract, 10% commission of the gross sales as compensation for his services. The dispute in this case is over the terms of the contract of employment.

The contention of the plaintiff and the defendant as to the terms of the contract are in hopeless conflict. It appears that prior to the time the defendant was promoted to the position of manager, under the oral contract in dispute, that he was employed as a salesman by the plaintiff whereby he received 10% of the gross sales made by him.

Under the provisions of Article 2277 of the LSA-Civil Code a person is required to establish his claim by one credible witness and other circumstances for the breach of a verbal contract involving more than $500. Hannay v. New Orleans Cotton Exchange, 112 La. 998, 36 So. 831; Davilla v. Boswell, 197 La. 488, 1 So.2d 703; Holloway v. Geo. L. Squier Mfg. Co., 203 La. 611, 14 So.2d 462; During v. Thibodeaux, 224 La. 814, 70 So.2d 882.

It appears that there was no one present at the time- the contract was entered into and that the plaintiff and defendant’s testimony .as to its terms is in conflict. It is impossible, under the testimony in this case for us to determine the exact terms of the contract. The plaintiff introduced a witness who testified that he heard the plaintiff tell the defendant that he was overdrawn and that his salary was $350 per month plus 25% of the sales. The plaintiff’s bookkeeper testified that the defendant had told her, shortly after the con*520tract was entered into, that the contract was on a 10% commission basis. The plaintiff’s books show that the defendant withdrew various amounts at various times but the amounts do not reflect that they were based on a salary basis or a commission basis.

The trial judge was of the opinion that the terms of the contract were not established and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and the defendant’s reconventional demand. We cannot say from the evidence that he was in error in his conclusions.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment is affirmed at plaintiff-appellant’s cost.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAYLOR LASHAE STALLINGS, a/k/a Taylor Leshae Stallings,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:17-cr-00008-NKM-2)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Lisa M. Lorish, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel P. Bubar, Acting United States Attorney, Kari K. Munro, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Taylor Lashae Stallings entered a conditional guilty plea to Hobbs Act robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). She was sentenced to a total term of 72 months’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, Stallings’ sole argument is that Hobbs Act robbery does not 

qualify as a proper predicate for the § 924(c) charge under § 924(c)(3)’s “force clause” 

because Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a crime of violence. However, as Stallings 

concedes in her brief, this argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States 

v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that Hobbs Act robbery categorically 

qualifies as “crime of violence” under “force clause” of § 924(c)(3)). Accordingly, we 

affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  September 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Salomon International Limited
Address:   Victoria Plaza, 111 Buckingham Road
           London, England SW1W OSB

Form 13F File Number:              28-7566

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Royce Miller
Title:     Company Secretary
Phone:     011.44.171.721.2026

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Royce Miller                London, England       November 12, 1999
----------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ VALENCIA

, Appellant,

v.

ELDORADO PLAZA WEST ASSOCIATION INC.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 1334

[ February 24, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; David A. Haimes , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19015157

.

Mark L. Pomeranz of Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., Hallandale Beach

, for appellant.

Steven B. Katz of Law Office of Steven B. Katz, P.A., Lauderhill

, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          875366
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         3488833
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   34263207
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        12643276
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          12839698
<LOANS>                                       50090763
<ALLOWANCE>                                     200000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               105199280
<DEPOSITS>                                    65413207
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1685564
<LONG-TERM>                                     660461
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25921
<OTHER-SE>                                    37414127
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               105199280
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                3006795
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2619007
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                170540
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               5796342
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2211511
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2258555
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3537787
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2569284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1613052
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1613052
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    925829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.57
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     12000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                200000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               200000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            200000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### AMERICAN CONTINENTAL, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Nat J. Greb, Appellants, v. David M. BLOOMBERG and Robert L. Bloomberg, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

July 25, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1956.

Rosenhouse & Rosenhouse, Miami, for appellants.

B. C. Fuller, Miami Beach, and Leonard Pepper, Tallahassee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Corsentina v. McPherson, 111 Fla. 616, 150 So. 609.

' TERRELL, Acting C. J., THORNAD and BUFORD, JJ., and CROSBY, Associate Justice, concur.
Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 3Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 3Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7272

ROBERT WILKINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DAVID SHAW, Administrator; JAMES MCVIGOR, Sheriff; PHIL CORBETT, Chief; ELAINE TANSKI, Nurse , Defendants

- Appellees , and
UNITED STATES MARSHALS , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:20

- ct

- 03031

- D )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston

- Sale m, North Carolina; Christina Jansen Banfield, HARRIS,2 CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Robert Wilkins appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of four individually named defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the dis trict court. Wilkins v. Shaw , No. 5:20

- ct

- 03031

- D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2021)

. We grant Wilkins’ motion to amend in part, insofar as he seeks to supplement the arguments in his informal brief, but deny the motion to amend in part, insofar as Wilkins
seeks s ubstantive relief from the district court’s order. We deny Wilkins’ request for
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
dec isional process.
AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-184-01-SM

Jerrell Cryer

O R D E R

Defendant Cryer’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 15). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2007 trial

period. Defendant Cryer shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

December 25, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 27, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00184-SM Document 16 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 15, 2006

cc: Sandra Bloomenthal, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00184-SM Document 16 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph M . LeDoux

V . No . 06-fp-268

Rockingham County House of Correction, Superintenden t

O R D E R

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows : the sum of $4 .20 is due no later than

September 1, 2006 . In addition, 20% of each preceding month's

income credited to plaintiff's account to be remitted by the

Rockingham County House of Correction when the amount in the

account exceeds $10 .00 until the sum of $350 .00 has been paid .

Failure to pay the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the

action without prejudice . In all other respects plaintiff's

request for in forma pauperis has been granted .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-268-PB .

SO ORDERED .

R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : July 27, 200 6

cc : Joseph M . LeDoux, pro s e

Bonnie S . Reed, Financial Administrato r

Rockingham County House of Correction, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-cv-00268-PB Document 5 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 38 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141757) and Amendment No. 502 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763),
      and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity
      Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1517 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1517

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the per 
 resident payment floor for direct graduate medical education payments 
                      under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Shaw (for himself and Mr. Bachus) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition 
      to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the per 
 resident payment floor for direct graduate medical education payments 
                      under the Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASING TO 100 PERCENT OF THE LOCALITY ADJUSTED NATIONAL 
              AVERAGE PER RESIDENT AMOUNT THE PAYMENT FLOOR FOR DIRECT 
              GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 1886(h)(2)(D)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395ww(h)(2)(D)(iii)), as amended by section 511 of Medicare, Medicaid, 
and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (113 Stat. 
2763A-533), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-
554, is amended by striking ``85 percent'' and inserting ``100 
percent''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-85-03-PB

Dedra Scott, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 3, 2006

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time for

recently appointed counsel to complete discovery and prepare a

defense. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from October 3, 2006 to December 5, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00085-PB Document 30 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on November

21, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 28, 2006

cc: Douglas Miller, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

Sven Wiberg, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00085-PB Document 30 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2
227 La. 25

#### M. L. HARVEY v. Noel THOMAS.

No. 41367.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 14, 1955.

Leon A. Picou, Jr., St. Francisville, for appellant.

Woodrow W. Overton, Clinton, for ap-pellee.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

The appellant, M. L. Harvey, did not appear at the time set for argument of the appeal in this court and did not file a brief in support of his appeal. It is well settled that under these circumstances the appeal will be dismissed. Di Martino v. O’Brien, 225 La. 329, 72 So.2d 749, and authorities there cited.

It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.
MAY 8 0 2023 

CLERi( 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

I 

U\ c; , D~ (J Grv-r\ nt~r a. 

~ ~: 23cv .2_ 2 7 

t Cl'{ 3 c \ v, l ~ 

8:23-cv-00227-JFB-PRSE Doc # 1 Filed: 05/30/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 1
8:23-cv-00227-JFB-PRSE Doc # 1 Filed: 05/30/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 2
#### Ault *v.*Karch, Appellant.

*Wills*— Estate *in fee*— Life *estate*— Devise.

A devise of a fee simple absolute in the first instance will not be reduced to an estate for life unless the intention to do so is clear.

Where there is a plain devise of a fee simple to take effect immediately in possession, a devise over in case of the death of the first taker does not mean death generally, whenever it may happen, but death in the lifetime of the testator.

Testatrix devised her real estate to her three daughters with the proviso that none should alien without the written consent of the others. In the final clause of her will she provided that “in the event of any of my said daughters dying without issue to survive her or them, then and in that case, I give and devise the share or shares” of the one so'dying to the others or their heirs in equal shares as tenants in common, subject to the same proviso as to alienation. *Held,*that the daughters took an estate in fee simple.

Submitted Feb. 18, 1908.

Appeal, No. 27, Jan. T., 1908, by-defendant, from judgment of O. P. Lebanon Co., Dec. T., 1907, Ho. 92, on case stated in suit of Emma L. Ault, Clara C. Haumañ and her husband, Harry A. Hauman, and Minnie E. Karch and her husband, William S. Karch, v. Ralph Karch.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestbezat, Potteb and Elkin, JJ.

Affirmed.

Case stated to determine the marketable title to real estate.

Before Ehbgood, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was in entering judgment for plaintiff' on case stated.

*Eugene D.*Siegrist, for appellant.

*Chas. M. Zerbe,*for appellees.

March 2, 1908:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

The testatrix devised her real estate to her three daughters with the proviso that none should alien without the written consent of the others. In the final clause of her will she pro*367vided that: *“*In the event of any of my said daughters dying without issue to survive her or them, then and in that case I give and devise the share or shares ” of the one so dying to the others or their heirs in equal shares as tenants in common, subject to the same proviso as to alienation. The effect of the restraint on the power of alienation need not be considered, since all the daughters have joined in the deed to the defendant. The only question is whether they took a fee simple under the will.

There is nothing in the general scheme of the will or in the words used that indicates an intention to cut down, the estate given to a life estate, and to take it out of the rule that a devise of a fee simple absolute in the first instance will not be reduced to an estate for life unless the intention to do so is clear, and that, where there is a plain devise of a fee simple to take effect immediately in possession, a devise over in case of the death of the first taker does not mean death generally whenever it may happen, but death in the lifetime of the testator : Biddle’s Estate, 28 Pa. 59 ; Mickley’s Appeal, 92 Pa. 514 ; Stevenson v. Fox, 125 Pa. 568 ; Mitchell v. Railway Co., 165 Pa. 645 ; Richards v. Bentz, 212 Pa. 93.

The judgment is affirmed.