alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(121 App. Div. 714.)

#### RICE v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Death—Excessive Damages.

Under Code Civ. Proe. § 1904, limiting the recovery in an action for negligent death to just compensation for the pecuniary injury to decedent’s next of kin, in such an action a verdict for more than $2,500 was excessive, where defendant was only liable for the damage to decedent’s mother, who resides abroad, and the evidence as to what he paid towards her support was indefinite.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Death, §§ 125-130.]

Appeal from Trial Term.

Action by Margaret Rice, administratrix, against the Interurban Street Railway Company for negligent death. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce recovery, in which case judgment will be modified, and order affirmed.

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, SCOTT, and LAMBERT, JJ.

*464Bayard H. Ames, for appellant.

M. L. Malevinsky, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

We think that upon the evidence the case was properly submitted to the jury, both as to the defendant’s negligence and the deceased’s freedom from contributory negligence, and that no error was committed which would justify a reversal of the judgment. While upon the record we would have been better satisfied if the verdict had been for the defendant, and would not have interfered if the learned trial justice had set aside the verdict as against the weight of evidence, we do not think that the evidence preponderates so strongly in favor of the defendant as to justify us in granting a new trial upon that ground.

We think, however, that the verdict is excessive. The recovery under section 1904 of the Code of Civil Procedure was limited to a fair and just compensation for the pecuniary injuries resulting from the decedent’s death to the person or persons for whose benefit the action is brought, viz., the next of kin of the decedent. The decedent was unmarried, leaving a mother, a resident of Ireland, his next of kin; and it was only the damage sustained by the mother of the decedent, caused by his death, for which the defendant was liable. The evidence of what the decedent had paid towards the support of his mother was quite indefinite, and the jury evidently were under the impression that they could award compensation to the decedent’s sisters.

Our conclusion is that the recovery should not exceed $2,500, and the judgment and order will therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the recovery to that amount, in which case the judgment, as so modified, and the order appealed from, will be affirmed, without costs. All concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

dismissed

NO. 11-0024

IN THE MATTER OF THE

MARRIAGE OF J.B. AND H.B. §

§

§

§

§

§ Dallas County,

5th District.

June 19, 2015

Petitioner 's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, dismissed.

September 11, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

(Justice Debra H. Lehrmann not sitting)

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF J.B.

AND H.B., pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 11th day of September, 2015

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES, L.P. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,428
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      618
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (50)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,996
<PP&E>                                          76,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,673)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              858
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,337
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,516
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,356
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,356
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 27, 1999 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>                          AUG-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-27-1999
<CASH>                                           1,719
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,371)
<INVENTORY>                                     14,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,938
<PP&E>                                          46,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,905)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,478
<BONDS>                                        139,168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,085
<SALES>                                         84,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,501
<CGS>                                           36,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   360
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,146
<INCOME-TAX>                                        60
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       486
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000816

01-MAY-2014

08:11 AM
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Daniel Knutson, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Land O’Lakes, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2006         By: /s/ Daniel Knutson           Daniel Knutson
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                           PEREGRINE SYSTEMS, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE


                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                        1997         1996 
                                                        ----         ----
 
 Net income                                        $ 1,417,000   $    231,000
                                                   -----------   ------------
 Weighted  Average Number of Shares and 
  Equivalent Shares Outstanding Weighted 
  Average Number of Shares Outstanding              14,994,000     12,904,000
 Effect of Stock Options                             2,573,000      1,426,000
                                                   -----------   ------------
                                                    17,567,000     14,330,000
                                                   -----------   ------------
 Net Income Per Share                              $      0.08    $      0.02
                                                   -----------   ------------
                                                   -----------   ------------
| Exhibit 32 - | Certification of Principal Executive and Financial Officer |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ William E. Ladin, Jr.                |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | William E. (Billy) Ladin, Jr.            |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief |
|   | Financial Officer                        |
|   | Date: September  27, 2011      |

----
Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10

Case: 1:03-cv-05699 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/03 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11
NO. 07-12-00187-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.M., A CHILD

FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 36,443; HONORABLE JACK GRAHAM, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, C.L.M.1

, appeals an order of the trial court terminating his parental 

rights to T.R.M., his five year old son. C.L.M’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in 

conformity with Anders v. California rendering her professional opinion that any issue 

that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386 U.S.738, 87 

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). C.L.M.’s counsel avers that she has zealously 

reviewed the record in this matter and can find no arguable points of appeal. Counsel 

has filed a motion to withdraw and provided C.L.M. with a copy of the brief. Further, 

counsel has advised C.L.M. that he has the right to file a pro se response to the Anders

 1 To protect the parent’s and child’s privacy, we refer to them by initials. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2012); TEX. R. APP. 9.8(b).
2

brief. The Court has likewise advised C.L.M. of this right. C.L.M. has not favored the 

Court with a response. 

This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might 

discharge his professional duty to his client by filing a brief in conformity with the Anders

process. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88-89 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). 

Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex. Dep’t 

of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00249-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2162, at 

*1, Tex.App.—Austin March 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H, No. 11-10-

00080-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2-4, Tex.App—Eastland March 10, 2011, 

no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009, pet. 

denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 326-27 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no 

pet.).

We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to 

the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 

at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that 

C.L.M. has the right to file a pro se petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court. 

Finally, having found no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Larry Holloman

Decided March 1, 1990

*Mark Rademacher,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Leah Hawley,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 521, is denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Humberto NIETO-MOSQUEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50165

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 17, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Humberto Nieto-Mosqueda appeals his 46-month sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry and using a fraudulent visa. He maintains the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Relying on *United States v. Galvez-Barrios,*355 F.Supp.2d 958, 961-63 (E.D.Wis.2005), Nieto contends: the Guidelines range was too severe because Guideline § 2L1.2 (providing, *inter alia,*a 16-level enhancement for illegal reentry following a drug trafficking offense) is *not*empirically based and double-counts a defendant’s criminal record; the advisory Guideline sentencing range overstated the seriousness of his criminal history and nonviolent reentry offense; and that range failed to account for his motive for reentering — to be with his family and to be a father to his three young daughters.

Following *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), sentences are reviewed for reasonableness in the light of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). Our court first determines whether the district court committed any significant procedural error; and, if *not,*the sentence is reviewed for substantive unreasonableness. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines [sentencing] range is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.2008).

*823The district court considered Nieto’s reasons for a lower sentence but determined a 46-month within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” *Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d at 339. Nieto’s contentions— § 2L1.2’s lack of an empirical basis, the double-counting of his prior conviction, the nonviolent nature of his offense, his motive for reentry, and his personal history and characteristics all justified a lower sentence — are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of IBSG International, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
      Rivers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)       
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)       
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.




Date: November
                    14, 2006
            
            **IBSG
                INTERNATIONAL, INC.**
              
              
              BY:
                /S/ Michael Rivers
              ——————————————
              Michael
                Rivers
              President,
                Chief Executive Officer