United States v. Sanders, J 60 C 12.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. J 60 C 12.,J 60 C 12. |
| Citation | 194 F. Supp. 955 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Lawrence Elmo SANDERS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
James W. Gallman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.
W. Slater Hollis, West Memphis, Ark., for defendant.
This cause came on for consideration by the court upon the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, with exhibits and affidavits, from all of which the court finds:
Findings of Fact.
1. The defendant was duly served in the manner required by law and filed herein an answer in the nature of general denial of the allegations in the complaint.
2. The defendant, during the year 1957 and subsequently, did business as L. E. Sanders and Company in West Memphis, Crittenden County, Arkansas, and obtained a sub-contract from Wallin-Dickey and Rich Lumber Company to perform roofing and sheetmetal work in its construction of a National Guard Armory at West Memphis, Arkansas, under Contract No. DA03-055-NG-148, the cost of construction of which was to be paid jointly by the plaintiff to the extent of 75 percent and the City of West Memphis, Arkansas, to the extent of 25 percent.
3. The defendant was required to submit weekly payrolls for the work performed on the Armory building on the basis of which the general contractor would claim payment from the plaintiff for the percentage of work completed on the project.
4. On November 8, 1957, defendant submitted to plaintiff a false payroll for L. E. Sanders and Company for the week ending November 8, 1957, which payroll was false in that it purported to show that certain employees received $1.40 per hour for labor on the Armory when in truth and fact such persons received only $1 per hour.
5. On January 7, 1958, defendant submitted to plaintiff a false payroll for L. E. Sanders and Company for the week ending January 7, 1958, which payroll was false in that it purported to show that certain employees received $1.40 per hour for labor on the Armory when in truth and fact such persons received only $1 per hour.
6. On May 19, 1958, defendant entered a plea of guilty in Criminal Action 16322, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to an Information charging in two counts the making and presenting of the payrolls described in the two preceding paragraphs hereof which were characterized in such Information as violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, and upon such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Greenberg
...States v. Hochstein, Civil No. 1273 (S.D.Fla.1963); United States v. Hochstein, Civil No. 1236 (S.D.Fla.1962); United States v. Sanders, 194 F.Supp. 955 (E.D.Ark. 1961). Cf. United States v. Ueber, 299 F.2d 310 (6th Cir. That there was submission to the Navy of false payroll reports is not ......
-
United States v. Cherokee Implement Company
...the penalties under 31 U.S.C.A. § 231 may be collected. United States v. Cato Brothers, 273 F.2d 153 (4th Cir., 1959); United States v. Sanders, D.C., 194 F.Supp. 955; United States v. Rohleder, 3 Cir., 157 F.2d 126; United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 907; United State......
-
Winnick v. SAGANOV
... ... WINNICK, Plaintiff, ... Henry SAGANOV, Defendant ... Civ. A. No. 60"-789 ... United States District Court D. Massachusetts ... June 14, 1961.\xC2" ... ...
-
United States v. Annicchiarico
...Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 63 S. Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943). Research on the above statute discloses the recent case of United States v. Sanders, 194 F.Supp. 955 (E.D.Ark.1961). This case is extremely analagous to the instant situation and clearly indicates the result which must be By virtue of ......