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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7135

MICHAEL L. WARDLOW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD NEELY, Superintendent; LAWRENCE PARSONS, Assist. 

Superintendent; KORY DALRYMPLE, Assist. Superintendent of 

Programs; DENNIS MARSHALL, Assist. Unit Mgr.; LISA MARTIN, 

Captain; LIEUTENANT WHITE; JOHN DOE; TODD PINION, 

Superintendent/Correctional Administrator; CHRIS BIRD, 

Nurse; SAMMY HASSAN, Doctor; E. WALRATH, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00596-RJC)

Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Wardlow, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Wardlow appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error in the district court’s exhaustion

ruling, based on the record before it. See Fed. R. App. P. 

10(a) (the record on appeal consists only of a certified copy of 

the docket, the transcripts of any proceedings, and the original 

papers and exhibits filed in the district court).*

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

 * To the extent that Wardlow’s amended complaint contended 

that a prison guard violated the Eighth Amendment while placing 

Wardlow in segregation, we note that it fails to allege that the 

guard applied any force “maliciously and sadistically for the 

very purpose of causing harm” rather than “in a good-faith 

effort to maintain or restore discipline.” Whitley v. Albers, 

475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); 

see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (noting the 

factors applicable to determining whether a prison official has 

acted with the requisitely culpable state of mind). As a 

result, even if Wardlow exhausted his administrative remedies as 

to this claim, it was nonetheless properly dismissed.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

_____________________________

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934







Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

January 10, 2007





PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)



|001-07572                | 13-1166910                          
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification Number)



200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016(Address of Principal Executive Offices)



Registrants telephone number (212)-381-3500

Not Applicable

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)











ITEM 7.01

REGULATION FD DISCLOSURE

On January 10, 2007, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation issued a press release, which is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this report, to reaffirm the Company's earnings guidance provided on November 20, 2006 for the fourth quarter of 2006 ending February 4, 2007.

The information in this Form 8-K and the Exhibit attached hereto shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



ITEM 9.01

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

(d)  Exhibits:

|Exhibit | Description                           
|------- | --------------------------------------
|99.1    | Press Release, dated January 10, 2007.





SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION



By: /s/ Mark D. Fischer

Mark D. Fischer, Vice President

General Counsel and Secretary



Date: January 11, 2007
* 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. 99-51005

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROSA ALARCON RODRIGUEZ-PALMA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-99-CR-39-15

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

October 19, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Rosa Alarcon Rodriguez-Palma

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required

by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has

received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See id.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
#### Henry S. DEASON et al., Appellants, v. ORANGE COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1, Appellee.

No. 5039.

Court of Civil, Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 11, 1955.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1955.

Baldwin & Votaw, Beaumont, for appellants.

Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Houston, for appellee.

R. L. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

The appellants filed suit in the district court of Orange County against the Orange County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 and the directors thereof, praying for a permanent injhnction enjoining and restraining the-Water District and its directors from issuing and selling improvement bonds in the sum of $650,000. The bonds were voted in an election theretofore held in the district.

In the agreed statement of facts it is stated that a. substantial -portion of the funds to be derived from the .sale of-the bonds, $271,940 was for the purpose of purchasing, erecting, building, constructing and maintaining a sanitary sewage disposal plant and system. The trial court denied the relief sought, and appellants have perfected their appeal to this court.

The parties filed an agreed statement of facts which contained the following:

> “That the sole point at issue in this cause is the constitutionality of the statute which authorizes defendant District to issue tax supported bonds for the purpose of constructing improvements which include sanitary sewer facilities, and-the sole question for determination by this Court is whether the Legislature may, under the provisions of Section 59, Article XVI, Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St., enact legislation authorizing water control and improvement districts such as defendant District to issue bonds for the purpose of constructing or' otherwise acquiring sanitary sewer facilities to be used to process, collect and dispose of the domestic, industrial and communal wastes within such Districts.”

The statute under attack is a portion-of Article 7880-3a, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.

, The identical question presented and argued in the briefs in this court was settled in Parker v. San Jacinto County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, Tex., 273 S.W.2d 586, adversely to the contention of appellants. We quote only the following sentence from that opinion: *915“Plaintiffs’ attack upon the statute fails because the power to erect and operate a sewerage disposal plant is clearly within Section 59a, Art. 16, Texas Constitution.”

Since the question at issue here has been disposed of adversely to the contention of the appellants by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q of Deep Down, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Charles Njuguna, President, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

/s/ Charles Njuguna

Charles Njuguna

President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

 

August 10, 2020
### The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2431

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Maurice L. Jarrett, also known * as Maurice L. Butler, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 23, 1996 Filed: March 1, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Maurice L. Jarrett appeals th e sentence imposed by the district cour t following Jarrett's guilty plea to 1 drug offenses. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The sole argument raised in the Anders brief is that the distric t court erred in denyin g Jarrett's motion for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, which Jarrett based on the United States Sentencing Co mmission's February 1995 report concluding that the 100-to-1 rati o between the penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine was no t justified, and a proposed Guidelines amendment--which would have eliminate d the 100-to-1 ratio--forwarded by the Commission to Congress for its

### -2-

consideration. Jarrett's downward-departure arg ument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Un ited States v. Higgs , 72 F.3d 69, 70 (8th Cir. 1995) (pe r curiam) (Commission's February 1995 report is not basis upon whic h cour t can rely to grant § 5K2.0 downward departure; also noting tha t Congress rejected Commission's recommended Guidelines amendment).

After reviewing the record on appeal in accordance with Penson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues fo r appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCELLUS LEWIS DANCY, III, a/k/a Sugar Bear,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00042-RBS-TEM-1)

Submitted: May 5, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcellus Lewis Dancy, III, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew 

Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcellus Lewis Dancy, III, appeals from the district 

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion 

to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2014). A district court’s 

decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is 

reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the 

scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de 

novo. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying Dancy’s motion. The 

court plainly understood its authority to reduce Dancy’s 

sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, see United States v. 

Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2010); USSG 

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s., but declined to do so based on the 

facts and circumstances of Dancy’s case, with which it was 

abundantly familiar. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 

196-97 (4th Cir. 2013). Moreover, despite Dancy’s claim to the 

contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not 

required to provide individualized reasoning when deciding a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 

728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Dancy’s 

argument that the court failed to consider the relevant 18 
3

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195-

97. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Aaron GAINES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27261.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1955.

Reid & Reid, by J. W. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area, with a prior conviction for a similar offense alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $200.

In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts is not deemed necessary other than to observe that there was no proof offered that the appellant was the identical individual who had been convicted in the prior case plead in the information. Appellant objected to that portion of the court’s charge wherein he submitted the prior conviction for the purpose of enhancing the punishment on the grounds that the prior conviction had not been proven, and he preserved such objection by a proper bill of exception.

Our able State’s Attorney concedes error, and we agree. '

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 23.1



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Tofutti Brands Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-72654, 333-48605 and 333-79567) on Form S-8 of Tofutti Brands Inc. of
our report dated March 30, 2005, except for Note 1 "Restatement of Previously
Issued Financial Statements" as to which the date is March 16, 2006, relating to
the balance sheet of Tofutti Brands Inc. as of January 1, 2005 and the related
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
fiscal year then ended, which report appears in Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-KSB/A
of the Annual Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. for the year ended January 1, 2005,
and which report includes an explanatory paragraph with respect to the
restatement of previously issued financial statements.


/s/Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.


Edison, New Jersey
March 20, 2006
**EXHIBIT 32.1****OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. § 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of OSI Pharmaceuticals,Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K/A forthe year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Colin Goddard, Ph.D., Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    result of operations of the Company.     /s/ Colin Goddard, Ph. D.       Colin Goddard, Ph.D.     Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 23, 2006
03/08/2006






Ms.
              Nikora Groomes
            
            
            
            Via
                UPSWells
                Fargo Bank, N.A.
            
            
            
            (410)
                884-2020Corporate
              Trust Services9062
              Old Annapolis RoadColumbia,
              MDUSA    21045-1951







Morgan
      Stanley Capital I, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
      Certificates,


Series
      2OO5-HQ5


Pooling
      and Servicing Agreement




OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE




Pursuant
      to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing
      the referenced Trust (the "PSA"), it is hereby certified that (i) the
      undersigned has
      completed a review of the servicer's performance of its obligations under the
      PSA for
      the
      preceding calendar year; (ii) to the best of the undersigned's knowledge on
      the basis
      of
      that review the servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the PSA throughout
      such period in all material respects; (iii) to the best of the undersigned's knowledge,
      the subservicer, of the servicer under the PSA, if any, has fulfilled its obligations
      under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects; and, (iv) no notice
      has been received from any governmental agency or body which would indicate a
      challenge or question as to the status of the Trust's qualification as a REMIC
      under the U.S.
      Code.




/s/
      Steven W.
      Smith    3/8/06


Steven
      W. Smith       Date


Executive
      Vice President






A
      member
      of The PNC Financial Services Group


10851
      Mastin P.O. Box 25965 Shawnee Mission Kansas 66225-5965


www.midlandls.com  
      913 253 9000 T    913 253 9001 F





cc:




Attn:
      CMBS Surveillance


Fitch,
      Inc.


One
      State
      Street Plaza, 31st Floor


New
      York,
      NY 10004-0000




Mr.
      Andrew Berman


Morgan
      Stanley Capital I Inc.


1585
      Broadway


New
      York,
      NY 10036-0000




Attn:
      CMBS Surveillance


Standard
      a Poor's Ratings Services


55
      Water
      Street, 41st Floor


New
      York,
      NY 10041-0000
#### Thomas Duane BANKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28825.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 13, 1957.

*576No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Homer Montgomery, Henry L. Brotherton, Jr., and George P. Blackburn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Robbery by assault is the offense; the punishment, ten years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit
31.2



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

SECTION
302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Steven Kass, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Tofutti Brands Inc.;



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



Date:
May 14, 2020



|/s/
    Steven Kass*        | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Steven
    Kass             | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer | 



*
The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made
available for inspection upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement of
National  Home  Health  Care  Corp.  on  Form  S-8,  Registration  No.  33-61315
pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan and the 1993 401(k) Plan, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on July 26, 1995 of our report dated
October 7, 1998,  with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of National Home Health Care Corp. and subsidiaries as of July 31, 1998
and for each of the years in the two-year period ended July 31, 1998 included in
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 1999.

/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
October 27, 1999
#### Collin Lee McPHERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27314.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1955.

*686No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for drunken driving, with punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and three days’ confinement in jail.

In submitting this case to the jury, the trial court applied the punishment to the offense charged, as provided by Art. 802, Vernon’s P.C., as amended by Chap. 167, Acts of the Regular Session of the 53rd Legislature in 1953, by which punishment of both a fine and confinement in jail are made mandatory.

Appellant insisted in the trial court that said act was unconstitutional and void because of the provision therein which authorizes probation by the trial court of any jail penalty assessed thereunder. In keeping with that contention, appellant requested that the punishment applied to the offense of drunken driving as it existed prior to the passage of the new act be applied, upon the theory that the penalty had not been changed.

Appellant’s contention was held untenable a'nd the new act sustained by this court in Gilderbloom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 272 S.W.2d 106. That holding was re-announced and adhered to by a majority of the court in Rowe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 276 S.W.2d 296, in which the writer of this opinion dissented from such holding and expressed the view here entertained by the appellant.

Peace officers apprehended appellant while driving his automobile upon a public highway. They testified to the smell of intoxicating liquor on his breath and that he was at the time drunk and under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Notwithstanding appellant’s stout denial of his intoxication and that of a corroborating witness, the jury was authorized to accept the testimony of the state’s witnesses.

The facts, therefore, warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt..

Bills of exception appear complaining of argument of state’s counsel.

To each of the bills of exception, the trial court appended his qualification showing that the argument complained of was in reply to argument of appellant’s counsel. The trial court, however, authenticated appellant’s exception to the qualification. Such exception destroyed the qualification, and the bills are to be considered as approved without qualification. Patterson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 489, 244 S.W.2d 217; Lovett v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 483, 228 S.W.2d 855; Palmer v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 226 S.W.2d 634.

The argument complained of violated no statutory mandate. If unwarranted, it was only because it was obviously hurtful and prejudicial to the appellant.

In view of the minimum punishment assessed in this case, we cannot bring ourselves to conclude that the argument complained of requires a reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.