alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 29, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00722

- CR

Samuel Stephen BIGGS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR1339W Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to appellant, Samuel Stephen Biggs, and explain ed to Biggs his right s to review the record

, file a pro se brief

, and file a pro se petition for discretionary review if this court dete rmines the appeal is frivolous

. See Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In addition c ounsel’s letter advised appellant to immediately file a motion in this court if he wished to review the appellate record and enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See id. N o timely request for record was filed in

this court.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before January 28,

2015 . The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless ap pellant files

a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant ’ s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant ’ s counsel is held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

- 82 (1988) (holding that a motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews the

record to determine whether counsel ’ s evaluation that the appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman

v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same)

. Accordingly, no new attorney will be appointed for appellant at this time.We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on a ppellant, his counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Jus tice

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

court on this 29th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cl erk of Court
#### Frank Schneider, Respondent, v Mohamed Diallo et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Istvan Kosbor, Respondent-Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 366]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered July 22, 2003, upon a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff $625,520.29, inclusive of interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Evidence at trial showed that defendants’ cab was stopped for a red light in a crosswalk, in violation of New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-03 (a) (3) (vehicles facing steady red light shall stop before entering the crosswalk) and § 4-08 (e) (5) (vehicles shall not stop, stand or park in a crosswalk); that plaintiff pedestrian was unable to cross the street in the crosswalk, chose to cross by walking behind the cab rather than in front, which would have put him in the way of oncoming traffic in the avenue; that codefendant, driving an SUy saw plaintiff crossing the street, but was unable to stop because of icy road conditions, among other reasons; and that the SUV hit plaintiff, pushing him into the cab’s rear bumper and causing crush injuries. There is no merit to defendants’ argument that such evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to show any negligence on their part proximately causing the injuries. But for the cab’s negligent presence in the crosswalk, plaintiff would not have sustained the crush injuries he did. The connection between the traffic violation and the injuries is logical and immediate enough to permit a jury to find a causal relationship between them *(see Ferrer v Harris,*55 NY2d 285, 293-294 [1982]), particularly in view of the icy road conditions. We note that the trial court’s jury charge on proximate cause, which is virtually identical to PJI3d 2:70 (2004), and states, in pertinent part, that an act or omission is regarded as a cause of an injury if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the *446injury, was specifically requested, by defendants. The trial court properly denied defendants’ request to charge 34 RCNY 4-03 (a) (3) with respect to codefendant’s operation of the SUVJ there being no evidence that the SUV actually made it into the crosswalk. In addition, any error by the trial court in refusing to charge 34 RCNY 4-04 (c) (2) (pedestrians must cross intersections only within the crosswalk) was harmless, since a violation thereof would constitute only some evidence of negligence *(see Elliott v City of New York,*95 NY2d 730, 734 [2001]), and the trial court’s instructions on negligence were otherwise adequate. The jury’s finding of 0% fault on the part of plaintiff was not against the weight of the evidence. We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that the award for future pain and suffering was excessive, and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
#### KEN HAVENS v. MARIA AVILES.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet of CNL Income Fund XIII, Ltd. at June 30, 1997, and its
statement of income for the six months then ended and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund XIII, Ltd. for the
six months ended June 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         871,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  424,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                   149,457
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      24,900,322
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,501,604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,797,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,836,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,797,764
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,814,697
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  325,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,518,140
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,518,140
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,518,140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund XIII, LTD has an
unclassified balance sheet, therefore, no values are shown above for
current assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James M. McNeill, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:



(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/ James M. McNeillJames M. McNeillSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: May 10, 2005
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2021-01-06 16:34:51","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["AFRC","ARC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["3","4","1","12","70","5","27","11","11","7","7"," 0","5"," 0"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["2","3","2","15","75","3","27","16","11","13","7"," 0","6"," 0"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2","3","1","12","12","3","14","10","5","3","1"," 0","1"," 0"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q1"}
#### HENDERSON v. WACHOVIA BANK OF N.C.

No. 553P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 621

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 18 December 2001.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL SQUICCIARINI.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00095-CV

__________________

IN RE DUANE T. CORLEY

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-12-16524-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Duane T. Corley filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the 

Honorable Claudia Laird, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 2, to set aside her 

order granting the motion for new trial filed by the real parties in interest, Jamie 

Fernandez and Charles Ciaramitaro. We stayed the order pending resolution of the 

mandamus proceeding and requested a response from the real parties in interest. On 

May 27, 2021, Corley filed a motion to lift the stay for the limited purpose of 

allowing the trial court to consider and sign, if appropriate, an order setting aside its 

order of April 23, 2021, which granted a new trial. On June 8, we entered an order 
2

lifting the stay for said limited purpose and withdrawing our request for a response 

by the real parties in interest.

On June 28, 2021, Corley filed a motion to dismiss this mandamus

proceeding. Corley asserts in his motion to dismiss that the trial court has vacated 

its order of April 23, 2021, rendering the issues raised in the mandamus moot. We 

dissolve our temporary order and grant the motion to dismiss. The original 

proceeding is dismissed without reference to the merits.

PETITION DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 14, 2021

Opinion Delivered July 15, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
##### 



Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charge Calculation
(dollars in thousands)
 Three Months
    
    
    Three Months
    
    
    Nine Months
    
    
    Nine MonthsEnded
    
    
    Ended
    
    
    Ended
    
    
    Ended6/30/2005
    
    
    6/30/2004
    
    
    6/30/2005
    
    
    6/30/2004(Restated)
    
    
    (Restated)
    
    
    (Restated)Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    
    361
    
    
    
    6,310
    
    
    
    10,675
    
    
    
    11,190Fixed charges:Interest expense + Amortization of deferred financing from continuing operations
    
    
    7,593
    
    
    
    7,625
    
    
    
    22,516
    
    
    
    23,667Interest factor of rental expense (1)
    
    
    2,263
    
    
    
    2,008
    
    
    
    6,613
    
    
    
    6,204Total fixed charges
    
    
    9,856
    
    
    
    9,633
    
    
    
    29,129
    
    
    
    29,871Pre-tax income from continuing operations plus fixed charges
    
    
    10,217
    
    
    
    15,943
    
    
    
    39,804
    
    
    
    41,061Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charge
    
    
    1.04
    
    
    
    1.66
    
    
    
    1.37
    
    
    
    1.37
  (1)
    
    One-third of rental expense relating to operating leases is attributed to
the interest portion. Management believes this represents a reasonable
approximation of the interest factor.
 1
Exhibit 12.2
 
       a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such
internal controls over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosures
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: October 12, 2011
    By:
    /s/ MP Vijay KumarName:
    M P Vijay KumarTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 14, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK CONARRO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

CLIFFORD PITCHER; KATHY

CONARRO,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1085

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01733-MSK-CBS)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1 and 3.3(B)

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1085 Document: 01018456918 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Page: 1
January 27, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF GEORGIA M. GATOURA 

FOULARD AND MICHAEL WOLTER FOULARD

NO. 14-14-00949-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on October 6, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
HIGH SCHOOL

AEROSPACE

SCHOLARS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Texas high school juniors, 

join NASA as we 

explore the Moon to Mars!

www.nasa.gov
What is High School Aerospace Scholars?

High School Aerospace Scholars is an authentic learning experience for Texas high school juniors to engage with NASA’s 

mission and become the next generation of explorers. Like-minded students complete an online curriculum in exploration 

and discovery. The highest achieving students receive an invitation to a 5-day gamified summer experience mentored by 

NASA scientists and engineers. Students work in teams to plan an Artemis-themed mission to the Moon and Mars. Top 

teams invited to a two-day residential experience at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. The online and summer 

experience portions are free to participants.

What will you do?

Online activities during the school year:

• Interactive lessons on NASA activities related

to space exploration, Earth science, technology,

mathematics, and aeronautics.

• Design challenges including 3D drawings,

science and math quizzes, discussion posts, and

technology writings.

• Virtual chats with NASA engineers and scientists.

Five-day gamified summer experience includes:

• Team projects and briefings directed by NASA

engineers and scientists.

• Hands-on design challenge and engineering

activities to plan a mission to Moon and Mars

Program participants are eligible for:

• 1/2 science elective credit (online).

• 1/2 science elective credit (summer experience).

• Scholarship opportunity.

• Internship opportunity.

Mentoring

Participants are mentored by NASA engineers and scientists 

who offer guidance and inspire students to make the connection 

between STEM degrees and career fields.

Certified Texas Educators

Compensated to serve as technical reviewers and game 

moderators. For more information visit: 

https://nas.okstate.edu/has/

Who is eligible?

In order to qualify, students must be:

• A U.S. Citizen.

• A Texas resident.

• A high school junior.

• Interested in science, technology, engineering,

or mathematics.

• Able to access the internet (from home, school,

or a public library).

• Committed to completing online lessons to qualify

for the summer experience.

• Nominated by a state legislator (which you will be

assisted with as part of the application process).

What is the timeline? Please check the HAS website for exact dates.

SEPT - OCT

Online course 

begins; with 

approximately 

one month to 

complete each 

of the four 

modules.

MARCH

Five-day 

gamified 

summer 

experience.

JULY

Online 

student 

application 

open.

NOV - FEB Selections 

for summer 

experience 

made.

JUNE Two-day residential 

experience at 

NASA. Lodging, 

meals, and 

transportation

to/from Houston 

provided at no cost.
For more information,

please visit our website at:

www.nasa.gov/has

Or contact us at

jsc-has@mail.nasa.gov or

(281) 483-4112
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
333-37304 and 333-74940 of The Management  Network  Group,  Inc. on Forms S-8 of
our report dated March 29, 2004 (which report  expresses an unqualified  opinion
and includes an  explanatory  paragraph for a change in accounting  principle in
2002)  appearing  in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of The  Management  Network
Group, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 03, 2004.





                           /S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

                             KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
                                 MARCH 31, 2004
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1 List of Subsidiaries JurisdictionSubsidiary
    
    of Organization
    
    OwnershipSINA.com Online
    
    United States of America
    
    
    100
    %Rich Sight Investment Limited
    
    Hong Kong
    
    
    100
    %SINA.com (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong Kong
    
    
    100
    %Magic King Assets Ltd.
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Memestar Limited
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Crillion Corp.
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Bravado Investments Limited
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Davidhill Capital Inc.
    
    British Virgin Islands
    
    
    100
    %Beijing SINA Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    99.35
    %Beijing SINA Internet Technology Service Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Beijing New Media Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Beijing Sina Interactive Game Technology Co.Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Beijing Davidhill Internet Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Star-Village Internet Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %SINA.com Technology (China) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Shanghai SINA Online Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Shanghai SINA Information Technology Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Shanghai SINA Technology Service Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Shanghai Xinwang Computer Technology Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %Fayco Network Technology Development (Shenzhen) Co.
Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of
China
    
    
    100
    %