alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00029-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF L.A.

On Appeal from the County Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. M15-00051

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

L.A. appeals from a June 9, 2015, order authorizing the administration of psychoactive 

medication.1 L.A.’s notice of appeal was filed June 11, the clerk’s record was filed June 16, and 

no reporter’s record is to be filed in this matter.2 The Texas Health and Safety Code requires that 

mental health commitment appeals be given absolute priority over all other cases and authorizes 

this Court to adjust the briefing deadlines and docketing timetables to achieve that end. TEX. 

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.070(e) (West 2010).

Due to the accelerated nature of this appeal, we establish the following briefing schedule 

for this matter: (1) the appellant’s brief to be received by this Court on or before June 26, 2015, 

and (2) the appellee’s brief to be received by this Court on or before July 3, 2015. See id. No 

extensions of time will be granted.

The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Section 574.070(e) of the Texas Health 

and Safety Code, the case will be submitted, without oral argument, to the panel of Chief Justice 

Josh R. Morriss, III, Justice Bailey C. Moseley, and Justice Ralph K. Burgess one day after the 

appellee’s brief is filed.

 

1This order was entered contemporaneously with an order committing L.A. to a state mental health facility for 

extended in-patient mental health services not to exceed ninety days. L.A. appeals from the commitment order under 

our cause number 06-15-00028-CV.

2Based on a letter from court reporter Jana Atchison Rushing contained in the clerk’s record, it appears that an effort 

was made to create a record in this case by electronically recording the trial court proceedings. L.A. apparently 

requested the transcription of a small, but specific, excerpt of those proceedings, and Hopkins County retained Rushing 

to transcribe the requested portions. However, after Rushing reviewed the audio storage devices provided to her by 

the county, she discovered that the portion of the proceedings requested by L.A. had not been captured. Rushing 

informed L.A. of the issue and advised that no reporter’s record would be prepared unless and until he made a further 

request for the transcription of other portions of the proceedings that actually had been recorded. We are aware of no 

further request submitted to Rushing, and, to date, we have received no motion or other request for assistance with 

respect to the reporter’s record.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: June 17, 2015
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

STATE OFTEXAS " m*&&.-aw

PENALTY FOR

PRIVATE USE y

7/29/2015

HAWKINS, QUINCY DALEON Tr. Ct. No. W11-17596-R (A) WR-83,519-01

The Court has dismissed your application forwrit of habeas corpus without written

order; the sentence has been discharged. See Ex parte Harrington, 310

S.W.3d452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

LU

o"

Ml W

a. u.

w

ZIP 78701

02 W

0001401623 AUG 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

LEON HAWKINS

V •d

^

1899651
#### In the Matter of Darryl Clayton T., III, an Infant. Adele L., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 519]—

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2011, which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother failed to preserve her argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the agency’s petition was jurisdiction-ally defective for failing to specify the diligent efforts the agency had made to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship *(see Matter of Toshea C.J.,*62 AD3d 587 [2009]). Moreover, Family Court properly determined that the agency was excused from demonstrating diligent efforts as such efforts would be detrimental to the child’s best interests *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *Matter of Milan N.,*45 AD3d 358, 359 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 703 [2008]). Indeed, an expert in child psychology and early childhood trauma testified that the child had been traumatized by witnessing the mother’s alleged killing of the child’s father, and that after supervised visits and telephone contact, the child had experienced intense flare-ups of his post-traumatic stress disorder, to the point where visits and calls had to be terminated.

In any event, the agency demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that it had exercised diligent efforts by scheduling supervised visits and implementing a service plan that included therapy and classes in domestic violence, parenting skills, and *563anger management. Further, the finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence that, despite the agency’s diligent efforts, the mother had failed to obtain housing, complete anger management or therapy, and gain insight into the reasons for her child’s placement (see *Matter of Alexander B. [Myra R.],*70 AD3d 524, 525 [2010], *lv denied*14 NY3d 713 [2010]).

A preponderance of the evidence supported the determination that it was in the child’s best interest to terminate the mother’s parental rights to free the child for adoption by his foster parents, who wished to adopt him and provided loving and appropriate care *(see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). Given that the child had not seen the mother since their final visit in November 2009, he no longer asked for her, and the medical expert opined that reunification would be harmful to the child, a suspended judgment would not have been appropriate (s*ee e.g. Matter of Jay den C. [Michelle R.],*82 AD3d 674, 675 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Charito Nepomuceno, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Beth Israel Medical Center, Appellant,

[941 NYS2d 593]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2011, which denied defendant hospital’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Plaintiff, a registered nurse employed by defendant, alleges that she was injured when she slipped on a piece of fruit that had fallen behind a fruit stand on the sidewalk abutting the hospital. Plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, she was on her way to start her morning shift, but had first gone to the fruit stand to buy some fruit.

In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the motion court relied on the “dual capacity” doctrine, which has been rejected by the Court of Appeals *(see Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp.,*51 NY2d 152, 159-160 [1980]), and found *454that this action was not barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. However, where, as here, “the availability of workmen’s compensation hinges upon the resolution of questions of fact or upon mixed questions of fact and law,” the matter must, in the first instance, be determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board *(Liss v Trans Auto Sys.,*68 NY2d 15, 20-21 [1986], quoting *O’Rourke v Long,*41 NY2d 219, 228 [1976]; *see also Valenziano v Niki Trading Corp.,*21 AD3d 818 [2005]). Accordingly, instead of resolving the motion, the motion court should have referred the matter to the Board for a hearing and determination as to the availability of workers’ compensation *(see Liss,*68 NY2d at 21; *Valenziano,*21 AD3d at 818; *Mattaldi v Beth Israel Med. Ctr.,*297 AD2d 234 [2002]). The motion court may stay the matter pending resolution by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-45

)

DEVONTE TRAVIER )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on April 15, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of Count 2 as charged in the two-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 15th day of April, 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### ARNOLD, Respondent, v. NATIONAL STARCH CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

September 25, 1907.)

Action by Anna Arnold, an infant, etc., against the National Starch Company.

No opinion. Motion to amend order of reversal herein denied, without costs. See 105 N. Y. Supp. 420.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, David R. Brown, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Mercantile Bancorp;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The small business issuer’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The small business issuer’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 13, 2005 | /s/ DAVID R. BROWN      |   |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                          | David R. Brown          |   |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.29
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 
 This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (this " Agreement ") is made and entered into as of March 12, 2004, by and between Citadel Security Software Inc., a Delaware corporation (the " Company "), and Richard Connelly (the " Employee ").
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have entered into an Employment Agreement between the Company and the Employee (the " Employment Agreement "), and the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
 
 1. Bonus.  Following a Change in Control (as defined in the Employment Agreement) of the Company, the Employee shall have the option to require the Company to pay to the Employee a bonus in an amount equal to the exercise price of up to 50,000 options (if vested) that the Company granted to the Employee on or about September 30, 2003. The Bonus, if any, shall be subject to withholding for all applicable taxes.
 
 2. No Further Amendment.  Except as amended by this Agreement, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
 
 COMPANY
 
 CITADEL SECURITY SOFTWARE INC.
 
 
 By:      ______________________________
 Name: ______________________________
 Title:   ______________________________
 
 
 EMPLOYEE
 
 __________________________________________
 Print Name:     Richard Connelly
 Address:   8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 100
 Dallas, Texas 75231
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory Docs





- Molecular Plant Pathology Main Page
- MPPL retired scientists
- Pseudomonas kuykendallii - new!
- 'Candidatus Phytoplasma pruni' - new!
- MPPL's Retired Scientists
- Spiroplasma kunkelii
- Phytoplasma Resource Center
- Phytoplasma classification database
- Grapevine Yellows
- Xylella fastidiosa
- viroids
- Potato spindle tuber viroid
- viruses
- Potato Yellow vein virus
- Beet mosaic virus
- peach
- sugarbeet root maggot
- citrus
- Grapes
- Alfalfa
- plant-bacterial recognition

Viroidsheadline bar  Viroids  Viroids: New and Continuing Risks for Horticultural and Agricultural Crops(Article) Interactions Between Viroids and their Plant Hosts  **Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid (PSTVd)** PSTVd Movement Novel Infectious Form of PSTVd Mutations Destabilizing PSTVd PSTVd in Avocado Transencapsidation of PSTVd PSTVd Pathogenicity  **Citrus Viroid III (CVdIII)** CVd-III sequence variation


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
John DANIEL, petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL ENSCO, INC.

No. 13-24.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### Frederick A. Collins, Individually and as a Member of and in the Right of the S & H Foundation, Inc., et al., Appellants, v William S. Beinecke et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Ford, J.), entered on May 1, 1984, unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellants $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Upon the court’s own motion, the appeal with respect to Edwin J. Beinecke, Jr., is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction *(see, Chimenti v Hertz Corp.,*25 AD2d 562). No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Fein and Rosenberger, JJ.
# Iris Oifigiúil C 87I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | C 087I |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 6523 Feabhra 2022 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 087I

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

6523 Feabhra 2022

---

| Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Fógraí |
| | FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH |
| | An Coimisiún Eorpach |
| 2022/C 87 I/01 | Fógra d’allmhaireoirí — Allmhairiú táirgí isteach san Aontas Eorpach faoin gComhaontú Comhlachais idir an tAontas agus an Úcráin ó na limistéir nach bhfuil faoi rialú an rialtais i gcúigí na hÚcráine Donetsk agus Luhansk | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

IV   Fógraí

FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH

An Coimisiún Eorpach

2022/C 87 I/01

Fógra d’allmhaireoirí — Allmhairiú táirgí isteach san Aontas Eorpach faoin gComhaontú Comhlachais idir an tAontas agus an Úcráin ó na limistéir nach bhfuil faoi rialú an rialtais i gcúigí na hÚcráine Donetsk agus Luhansk

1

---

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

IV Fógraí

FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH

An Coimisiún Eorpach

| 23.2.2022 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | CI 87/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2022

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

CI 87/1

---

Fógra d’allmhaireoirí

Allmhairiú táirgí isteach san Aontas Eorpach faoin gComhaontú Comhlachais idir an tAontas agus an Úcráin ó na limistéir nach bhfuil faoi rialú an rialtais i gcúigí na hÚcráine Donetsk agus Luhansk

(2022/C 87 I/01)

Cuireann an Coimisiún Eorpach allmhaireoirí ar an eolas nach bhfuil na coinníollacha is gá i bhfeidhm chun gur féidir le húdaráis chustaim na hÚcráine bainistiú agus rialú éifeachtach a dhéanamh ar an gcóireáil fhabhrach taraife arna deonú faoin gComhaontú Comhlachais idir an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, de pháirt, agus an Úcráine, den pháirt eile, le haghaidh táirgí a tháirgtear sna limistéir nach bhfuil faoi rialú an rialtais i gcúigí na hÚcráine Donetsk agus Luhansk, nó le haghaidh earraí a onnmhairítear ó na limistéir sin.

In éagmais na féidearthachta go gcuirfeadh údaráis chustaim na hÚcráine forálacha ábhartha an Chomhaontaithe i bhfeidhm chun a ráthú go bhfuil táirgí ó na limistéir sin i dteideal cóireáil fhabhrach taraife agus chun a fhíorú go gcomhlíonann siad na ceanglais ar fad is gá, dá bhforáiltear go háirithe faoi Airteagal 33 de Phrótacal 1 den Chomhaontú Comhlachais, ní comhlíontar na coinníollacha chun gur féidir na hearraí sin tairbhiú den chóireáil fhabhrach taraife.

Dá bhrí sin, moltar d’oibreoirí san Aontas Eorpach gan cóireáil fhabhrach a éileamh le haghaidh allmhairiú isteach san Aontas Eorpach gach earra a tháirgtear sna limistéir nach bhfuil faoi rialú an rialtais i gcúigí na hÚcráine Donetsk agus Luhansk, nó gach earra a onnmhairítear ó na limistéir sin, toisc go n-eascraíonn fiach custaim as scaoileadh na n-earraí sin i saorchúrsaíocht amhail ó dháta foilsithe an Fhógra seo.

---