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

September 15, 2006





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 5.02.  Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers.



On September 15, 2006, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation terminated the employment of its principal accounting officer, Vincent Russo, for violation of Company policy.  There is no material implication of, or affect on, the Companys financial statements.





















SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities 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
|    |                                



Date:   September 15, 2006
#### Willie Alvin BUSSEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27790.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1955.

No appearance-for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The unlawful possession of marijuana is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 3, 2015

t0331 

# Order

Clerk April 3, 2015

150728

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 150728

COA: 315983

Muskegon CC: 12

- 062643

- FH

MAURICE DANTE HENDERSON,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals

judgment hold ing that the May 3, 2012 letter from the Michigan Department of

Corrections to the prosecutor was sufficient to trigger start of the 180

- day period set forth

in MCL 780.131. At the time that letter was sent, the Department did not have notice of

any pendi ng untried warrant, indictment, information, or complaint against the defendant,

and the letter therefore did not meet the statutory requirements for applying the 180

- day

rule. We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the Muskegon

Circuit Court’s finding of a second 180

- day rule violation that the Court of Appeals

declined to address.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED BY**

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

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Zatta,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date: March 2, 2009                                |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |   |
| /s/ ROBERT J.  ZATTA                          |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                                    |   |
| Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

1

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1135

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Sonya Lee Hernandez

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge

____________

 Submitted: December 20, 2016

Filed: December 20, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, Sonya

Hernandez appeals the district court’s below-Guidelines sentence. Hernandez’s 1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief filed under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by not departing further, and

by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

this court affirms.

The extent of the district court’s departure is not reviewable on appeal. See

United States v. Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (extent

of downward departure is not subject to review, unless defendant makes substantial

showing that district court’s refusal to depart further was based on unconstitutional

motive). This court finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

sentencing Hernandez because it imposed the below-Guidelines sentence after

considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d

910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonablenesstest, district court abuses

its discretion if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight

to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing

factors); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)

(“[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines

range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying

downward still further.”). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for

appeal.

The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41672 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

v. SALVADOR CARRILLO

- MENDOZA , Defendant

— Appellant

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 172

- 11

Before JONES, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Salvador Carr illo

- Mendoza appeals the 121

- mon th sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841 (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A) . The Government has moved to dismiss the ap peal based on the appeal waiver in Carrillo

- Mendoza’s plea agreement or , in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41672 Document: 00514208656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017No. 16

- 41672

2 The validity o f an appeal waiver is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. United States v. Burns , 433 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). During his plea colloquy, Carrillo

- Mendoza confirmed that he had read the plea agreement, discussed it with his attorney, and understood its terms. He confirmed that he understood the appeal waiver provision and its exceptions and assured the court that he was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal. Based on our review of the record, Carrillo

- M endoza ’s appeal w aiver was knowing and voluntary and, therefore, is enforceable. See United States v. Higgins , 739 F.3d 733, 736

- 37 (5th Cir. 2014); F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(b)(1)(N). Carrillo

- Mendoza waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence “on all grounds,” except that he retained the right to challenge any sentence in excess of the statutory maximum and the right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. His current challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his below

- guideline sentence does not fall within either of the limited exceptions to the appeal waiver. Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dis miss the appeal is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. Counsel for Carrillo

- M endoza is CAUTIONED that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver without responding to the Government’s invocation of th e waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan , 171 F.3d 222, 223

- 24 (5th Cir. 1999)

. Case: 16-41672 Document: 00514208656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
Exhibit 15.3

Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by China
Techfaith Communication Technology Limited, which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item 16F of Form 20-F, as part of the Amendment No. 1 to the annual
report of China Techfaith Communication Technology Limited dated December 30, 2016. We agree with the statements concerning our firm in such amendment to Form 20-F.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|Very truly yours,                                            
|                                                             
|/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants LLP
|                                                             
|December 30, 2016
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2028 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to modify the dischargeability 

of debts for certain educational payments and loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. GEORGE

MILLER of California, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. 

TOWNS, Ms. MOORE, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. STARK, 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. WATT, Ms. CHU, and 

Mr. POLIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to modify 

the dischargeability of debts for certain educational payments and loans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Private Student Loan 

5 Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE. 

7 Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2028 IH

1 (1) by striking subparagraph (B), and 

2 (2) in subparagraph (A)— 

3 (A) in clause (i)— 

4 (i) by striking ‘‘(i)’’, and 

5 (ii) by inserting ‘‘any program for 

6 which substantially all of the funds are 

7 provided by a’’ after ‘‘unit or’’, and 

8 (B) in clause (ii)— 

9 (i) by striking ‘‘(ii)’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘(B)’’, and 

11 (ii) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end. 

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

13 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub14 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

15 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

16 Act. 

17 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend18 ments made by this Act shall apply only with respect to 

19 cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code 

20 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1672 

To expand the research and awareness activities of the National Institute 

of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to scleroderma, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2011 

Mrs. CAPPS (for herself and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To expand the research and awareness activities of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 

Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to scleroderma, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Scleroderma Research 

5 and Awareness Act of 2011’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1672 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUS2 CULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES; 

3 SCLERODERMA RESEARCH EXPANSION. 

4 Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act 

5 (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 409K. SCLERODERMA RESEARCH. 

8 ‘‘The Director of NIH may expand, intensify, and co9 ordinate the activities of the National Institutes of Health 

10 with respect to scleroderma, with particular emphasis on 

11 the following: 

12 ‘‘(1) Research focused on the etiology of 

13 scleroderma and the development of new treatment 

14 options. 

15 ‘‘(2) Clinical research to evaluate new treat16 ments options. 

17 ‘‘(3) Basic research on the relationship between 

18 scleroderma and secondary conditions such as pul19 monary hypertension, gastroparesis, Raynaud’s phe20 nomenon, Sjo ̈gren’s Syndrome, and other diseases as 

21 determined by the Director.’’. 

22 SEC. 3. PROMOTING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF 

23 SCLERODERMA. 

24 Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act 

25 (42 U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

26 the following: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1672 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 399V–6. PROMOTING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF 

2 SCLERODERMA. 

3 ‘‘The Secretary may carry out an educational cam4 paign to increase public awareness of scleroderma. Print, 

5 video, and Web-based materials distributed through this 

6 campaign may include— 

7 ‘‘(1) basic information on scleroderma and its 

8 symptoms; and 

9 ‘‘(2) information on— 

10 ‘‘(A) the incidence and prevalence of 

11 scleroderma; 

12 ‘‘(B) diseases and conditions affiliated with 

13 scleroderma; or 

14 ‘‘(C) the importance of early diagnosis and 

15 treatment of scleroderma.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Repligen Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|June 9, 2006                                                        
|                                                                    
|/s/ Walter C. Herlihy                                               
|Walter C. Herlihy                                                   
|Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal executive officer) 
|                                                                    
|/s/ Daniel W. Muehl                                                 
|Daniel W. Muehl                                                     
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal accounting and financial officer)
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of qmed, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8/S-3 and Form S-8 the use of our name
as experts and our report dated January 19, 1996 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of qmed, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of November
30, 1995 and for each of the two years ended November 30, 1995 which report is
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

                                       AMPER, POLITZINER & MATTIA

February 27, 1996
Edison, New Jersey
# C ou r t

of A p p e al s

of t h e S t at e of

G e or gi a

A

T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e r e b y p a s s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r :

A 1 8 A 2 0 4 7

. L E S T

E R v

. G E O R G I A D E

P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R I N D U S T R Y

F O R T H E B L I N D e t a l

.

W e h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e b r i e f s a n d r e c o r d i

n t h i s c a s e

. B e c a

u s e n o r e v e r s i

b l e

e r r o r a p p e a r s t o e x i s t a n d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f p r e c e d e n

t i s n o t d e s i

r a b l e

, t h e a p p e a l

i s h e r e b y D I S M I S S E D a s i m p r o v i d e n t l y g r a n t e d

. S e e C o u

r t o f A p p e a l s R u l e 3 1 ( b )

.

C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’s O f f i c e

, At l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t

r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w

r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. February 07, 2019

02/07/2019
#### F. D. PIERCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27256.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Jan. 12, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area, and his punishmént was assessed ,at a fine of $650.

The record contains no notice of appeal, therefore this court is without jurisdiction to enter any order except to dismiss the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal

MORRISON, Presiding Justice.

The appeal is now perfected, and the case will be considered on its merits;

Liquor Control Agents Burke and Barba testified that they met the appellant in the town of Turkey and indicated to him that they wanted to buy some whiskey; that the appellant told them it would take a few minutes to get it and invited them to accompany him in his automobile; that they drove some distance out in the country, where the appellant stopped his automobile and went out in a field, and when he returned he delivered one pint of whiskey to Agent Barba. They stated that they started back to town, and the appellant inquired of Agent Burke if he wanted the other pint and that the sale to Burke was consummated as they neared the' town of Turkey. This prosecution is based upon the sale to Burke. Prior to the instant trial the appellant had been convicted for the sale to Barba.

Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in. his behalf.

The sole question presented for review is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s plea in bar based upon the contention that the above facts show only one criminal transaction and that since the appellant had been prosecuted for the sale to Barba he might not now be prosecuted for the sale to Burke.

This Court has recently, in Palma v. State, 262 S.W.2d 486, had occasion to de*406cide this identical question. There we held sales made to two undercover agents of the Liquor Control Board under facts similar to those herein set forth constituted two separate and distinct violations of the law for which the State was entitled to separately prosecute.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT
      23.1





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
      333-89376 and 333-65627 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 13, 2006, relating
      to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
      Bel
      Fuse Inc. and subsidiaries and management's report on the effectiveness of
      internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K of Bel Fuse Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.





/s/
      DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP





New
      York,
      New York


March
      13,
      2006