alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00411-CR

Manuel Ruiz Constancio, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. A-11-0535-S, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Manuel Ruiz Constancio pleaded guilty in 2011 to robberyand was placed

on deferred adjudication community service for ten years. In 2013, the State moved to revoke his

probation and to adjudicate his guilt of robbery. In 2014, the court held a hearing and found true the

State’s allegations that appellant violated the terms of his probation by engaging in indecency with

a child by contact, failing to complete ten hours per month of community-service work, failing to 1

report to his probation officer once, and failing to timely complete a class concerning theft by check.

The trial court found appellant guilty of robbery and assessed sentence at ten years in prison. He

appealed.

This Court has affirmed a conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. See 1

Constancio v. State, No. 03-14-00221-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2015, no pet.).
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that this appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

We granted appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief, permitting

him to file a brief by November 19, 2015. He has not filed a brief.

We have reviewed the record and the Anders brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We affirm the judgment of conviction and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw as appellant’s attorney.

 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Affirmed

Filed: January 13, 2016

Do Not Publish

2
- Home

# Media Center

### For the fastest response, please send all press inquiries to PIO@uscp.gov.

**Hours**: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. The Public Information Office also activates afterhours for major breaking news.

**Phone**: (202) 224-1677

For instructions about requesting public information, please click HERE.

Hart Loading Dock Incident

Press Release

----

Reopening of Tours

Press Release

----

The April 15 Evacuation Drill

Press Release

----

- First page« First
- Previous page‹ Previous
- ...
-               Page            34
-               Page            35
-               Page            36
-               Page            37
-               Page            38
-               Page            39
-               Page            40
-               Page            41
-               Current page            42

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS
Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ixia Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
 Date:
    
    March 4, 2011
    
    /s/ Atul Bhatnagar

Atul BhatnagarPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    March 4, 2011
    
    /s/ Thomas B. Miller

Thomas B. MillerChief Financial Officer
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                             Statement of Operations
              For the Years Ended September 30, 1999, 1998 and 1997



                                            Year Ended September 30,
                                       1999             1998            1997
Operating Income:
   Interest Income                $  72,714       $  81,008       $  115,571
   Other Income                      31,905           1,372              814
      Total Operating Income        104,619       $  82,380       $  116,385

Operating Expenses:
   Interest Expense               $       0       $       0       $   41,517
   Legal and Audit Fees               8,519           2,556           13,905
   Management Fees (Note 3)          39,000          39,000           35,750
   Repairs and Maintenance            9,015          12,244           13,799
   Other Operating Expenses          12,798          11,940            7,860
      Total Operating Expenses    $  69,332       $  65,740       $  112,831

Income From Operations            $  35,287       $  16,640       $    3,554

Other Income (Expenses):
   Gain on Repossessions          $       0       $       0       $      629
   Loss on Sale of Real Estate            0               0           (8,568)
   Total Other Income (Expenses)  $       0       $       0       $   (7,939)

Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes $  35,287       $  16,640       $   (4,385)
   Provision for Income Taxes
   (Note 13)                              0               0                0
      Net Income (Loss)           $  35,287       $  16,640       $   (4,385)

Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share
   (Note 8)                       $     .00       $     .00       $     (.00)


Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.
#### Livia Danesi et al., Respondents, v Lowes/Chartwell Theatres, Inc., Respondent, and United Skates of America, Inc., Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion of defendant United Skates of America, Inc. granted. Memorandum: Plaintiffs were injured when a group of 30 to 50 unruly teen-agers forced their way into a movie theatre on the evening of December 25, 1985. Plaintiff Livia Danesi alleged that she was pushed against a wall and knocked to the floor in the lobby of the theatre. Her husband, Joseph Danesi, alleged that he was injured when a group of four teen-agers jumped on top of him as he sat in his seat in the last row of the theatre. Plaintiffs also alleged that the teen-agers had been turned away from a nearby roller-skating *966rink when the rink reached capacity on a special "discount night”. Defendant United Skates of America, Inc., owner of the roller rink, moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to control the off-premises behavior of its customers or potential customers. Special Term denied the motion, and we now reverse.

The duty to control others arises only where the " 'relationship between the defendant and the person who threatens the harm to the third person may be such as to require the defendant to attempt to control the other’s conduct’ ”, or the " 'relationship between defendant and the person exposed to the harm * * * requires the defendant to afford protection from certain dangers including the conduct of others’ ” *(Pulka v Edelman,*40 NY2d 781, 783, quoting Harper and Kime, *Duty to Control the Conduct of Another,*43 Yale L J 886, 887-888). No such relationship exists here between defendant roller rink and its off-premises patrons or between defendant and the patrons of a nearby movie theatre. Furthermore, no duty to plaintiffs is created by defendant’s conduct in distributing discount passes to local high school students or by its knowledge that teen-age patrons had previously become unruly. "Foreseeability of harm is alone not enough” to create a duty *(DAmico v Christie,*71 NY2d 76, 87); it merely determines the scope of duty "after it has been determined that there is a duty” *(Pulka v Edelman, supra,*at 785). Since defendant roller rink owed no duty to plaintiffs, the motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint as to this defendant must be granted. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.
# CE2010184EN.01041401.xml

| 8.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 184/414 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/414

---

Friday 24 April 2009Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities *

P6_TA(2009)0313

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2009 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (COM(2008)0530 – C6-0117/2009 – 2008/0171(CNS))

2010/C 184 E/77

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2008)0530),

having regard to the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the Optional Protocol’), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006,

having regard to Articles 13(1) and 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,

having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0117/2009),

having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Women's rights and Gender Equality (A6-0230/2009),

| 1. | Approves conclusion of the Optional Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves conclusion of the Optional Protocol;

| 2. | Calls on the Member States and the Commission to report every three years to the Council and to Parliament on the status of implementation of the Optional Protocol in accordance with their respective fields of competence; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to report every three years to the Council and to Parliament on the status of implementation of the Optional Protocol in accordance with their respective fields of competence;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

---
(function ($, Drupal, drupalSettings) {

  $('ul.archive-link').one('usdaBlogArchiveSelect').each(function(i){
    var list=$(this),
    select_id = 'usda_archive_select_' + i,
    select=$('<select id="' + select_id + '">').insertBefore($(this)).change(function(){
      if ($(this).val()) {
        window.location.href=$(this).val();
      }
    });
    var defaultOption = $('<option>').appendTo(select).val('').html(Drupal.t('Select a Month'));
    $('>li a', this).each(function(){
      var option=$('<option>')
      .appendTo(select)
      .val(this.href)
      .html($(this).html());
      if(this.pathname === location.pathname){
        option.attr('selected','selected');
      }
    });
    $(list).parents('.usda-blog-archive-date-list').find('h2')
      .html(function(){return '<label for="' + select_id + '"><span class="usa-sr-only">Select a month and year to view </span>' + $(this).html() + '</label>';});
    list.remove();
  });

})(jQuery, Drupal, drupalSettings);
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 23, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

___________________________

N o. 02- 15969

_______________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 01 -001 82 -C V -4-C A R -5 A L L T E L C O M M U N I C A T I O N S , I N C ., P l ai nt i ff
- C o u n te r - D e f

e n d a n t- A pp el l ee , ve r s us C I T Y O F M A C O N , D e f e n d a n t- C o u n te r - C la im a n t- A p p e lla n t.

_______________________________ A p p e a l f r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

________________________________

( Ju n e 23, 2004) B ef ore A N D E R S O N and B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and P R O P S T *, D i stri ctJudg e.

_____________________ * Honora ble Robert B . Propst, United States District Judg e for the Northern District of Ala bama, sitti ngby designation.2

P E R C UR I AM : T he pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory , f a c t s a nd i s s ue s i n thi s c a s e a r e s um m a r i z e d i n our pr e vi ous opi ni on i n w hi c h w e c e rt i f i e d adi s pos i t i ve que s t i on of s t a t e l a w t o the S upr e m e C ourtof

G e or gi a . A l l t e l C om m uni c a t i ons v. C i tyof M a c on, 345 F
. 3d 1219 ( 11th C i r . 2003)
. W e ha ve r e c e i ve d the a ns w e rof the S upr e m e C ourtof G e or gi a . C i ty of

M a c on v. A l l t e l C om m . , I nc . , N o. S 04Q 0128, 2004 W L 956303 (G a. M ay3, 20 04 ). T hatansw erbei ng consi st entw i th the decl ar at i on and fi nal ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e h e r e b ya f f irm th a t ju d g m e n t. AFFI RM ED
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                            Comparative Balance Sheet
                           September 30, 1996 and 1995


                                                            September 30,
        Liabilities & Stockholders' Equity              1996            1995
Current Liabilities:
   Buyers Escrow                                 $    13,896     $    47,513
   Loans Payable                                      27,000             -0-

      Total Current Liabilities                  $    40,896     $    47,513

Long Term Liabilities:
   Mortgage Payable  (Note 7)                    $   991,555     $ 1,034,062

      Total Long Term Liabilities                $   991,555     $ 1,034,062

      Total Liabilities                          $ 1,032,451     $ 1,081,575


Stockholders' Equity:
   Capital Stock, no par value, 100,000,000
      Shares Authorized, 11,260,675 shares
      Issued (Note 9)                            $ 3,780,765     $ 3,780,765
   Paid in Capital (Note 10)                             100             100
   Retained Earnings (Deficit)                    (3,082,995)     (3,098,392)
   Treasury Stock, at Cost                           (33,252)        (33,252)

      Total Stockholders' Equity                 $   664,618     $   649,221

      Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity $ 1,697,069     $ 1,730,796









Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.
# Responding to Chemical Suicide Incidents

**Posted: Sept. 21, 2023**

            -   Find similar articles:
            - EMS
            - Health and safety

            - Share on:
            - 
            - 
            - 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have released a safety and health advisory for first responders, “Personal Protective Equipment Recommendations for Response to Chemical Suicide Incidents PDF.” The advisory provides personal protective equipment (PPE) recommendations for first responders plus response recommendations that will help agencies with planning and training for chemical suicide incidents.

## What are chemical suicides?

Chemical suicides involve the use of lethal toxic gases generated by intentionally mixing common household chemicals in a confined space such as a car, bathroom or closet. The most common toxic gases produced in chemical suicide incidents are hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide.

## What do first responders need to know?

First responders must understand the potential incident health and safety hazards associated with response to a chemical suicide. They also need to know the PPE and PPE support tools recommended for response.

## What is included in the advisory?

The advisory offers guidance such as:
            - PPE recommendations for first responders to minimize the likelihood of responder exposures, injuries and fatalities during chemical suicide incidents.
            - Relevant national guidance and standards supporting the PPE recommendations.
            - Potential incident health and safety hazards associated with response to chemical suicides.
            - Details on the immediately dangerous to life or health environment at a chemical suicide incident and who should be permitted to enter.
            - Other considerations for an effective and safe response, including recommendations for decontamination, clean-up operations and training.

This article is based on content in theSept. 21, 2023 InfoGram.

 Subscribe to the InfoGram
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 3, 201 8

No. 04

- 18

- 00722

- CV

Idalia G. BARRERA

, Appellant

v.

Mary Sue PATE

, Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV04273 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On November 29, 2018, the trial court reporter filed a notification of late record informing the court that no record was taken in the underlying cause. Accordingly, appellant’s

brief is due on or before December 31, 2018

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                       NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC.
                                        
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 27, 1998, JUNE 28, 1997 AND JUNE 29, 1996

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       1998        1997        1996
                                                     --------    --------    --------
<S>                                                  <C>         <C>         <C>
Shares
------
Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding         (a)  13,781     13,397      14,773
 
Plus incremental shares from assumed
 conversion of stock options                              325        128          38
                                                      -------    -------     ------- 
Diluted Weighted Average Number of Shares
 Outstanding                                      (b)  14,106     13,525      14,811
                                                      =======    =======     =======

Earnings per Statement of Consolidated Income     (c) $24,934    $18,649     $11,929
---------------------------------------------
Per Share Amounts
-----------------
Basic Earnings Per Share                      (c)/(a) $  1.81    $  1.39     $  0.81
 
Diluted Earnings Per Share                    (c)/(b)    1.77       1.38        0.81
 
</TABLE>
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                         Notes to Financial Statements
                     Years Ended September 30, 1999 and 1998



Note 6 - Real Estate Held For Investment

         Consists of a single family home located at 623 North Division Street,
         Davenport, Iowa.  The property was acquired through repossession of a
         contract receivable, and is carried at cost.

Note 7 - Equipment

                                                   1999                1998

         Office equipment                   $     9,184         $         0
         Accumulated depreciation                  (918)                  0
         Book value                         $     8,266         $         0

         Depreciation expense (A)           $       918         $         0
         (A)  Depreciation is calculated using 5 year, straight line rates.

Note 8 - Common Stock

         The Company is authorized to issue 100,000,000 shares of no par value
         common stock.  Shares outstanding at September 30, 1999 and 1998 were
         11,260,675.  The Company has purchased 37,976 shares of treasury stock,
         leaving 11,222,669 shares issued and outstanding.

         Earnings Per Share                        1999                1998

           Net Income                       $    35,287         $    16,640
           Average number of shares
           outstanding                       11,222.699          11,222,699

           Earnings Per Share               $  0.003144            0.001488
No. 99-60319

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 99-60319 

Conference Calendar

__________________

MONDAY OSAWARU OGBEBOR, also known as Emanuel Duro,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A26 416 581

--------------------

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Monday Osawaru Ogbebor petitions this court for review of an

order of deportation issued by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and

affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The

deportation order was based on Ogbebor’s conviction of fraud or

misuse of entry documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). 

Ogbebor argues that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming

the IJ’s denial of his motion for a third continuance to appeal 

to the BIA the District Director’s decision on remand denying his

putative wife’s petition for alien relative. Ogbebor was granted
No. 99-60319

-2-

two continuances while the petition was pending initially before

the District Director, during the appeal to the BIA, and on

remand to the District Director to allow Ogbebor’s putative wife

to rebut evidence that Ogbebor had a prior undissolved marriage. 

On remand, the District Director denied the petition for alien

relative again. Because he has not shown that his putative

wife’s petition for alien relative was prima facie approvable or

that he presented good cause to the IJ for a third continuance,

Ogbebor has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in

affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion for a third continuance

of his deportation proceedings. See Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549,

555 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, 68 U.S.L.W. 3252

(U.S. Sept. 30, 1999)(No. 99-56). Ogbebor has also not shown

that he was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance; he has not

shown that the BIA is likely to reverse the District Director’s

denial of his putative wife’s petition for alien relative, and he

has conceded his deportability and that he is not entitled to any

relief from deportation. See In re Sibrun, 18 I & N Dec. 354,

356-57 (BIA 1983). Because Ogbebor has not shown that the BIA

abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion

for a third continuance, Ogbebor’s petition is DENIED.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.