alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MAX GROSSMAN/CITY OF EL PASO,

 

 Appellant,

v.

CITY OF EL PASO/MAX GROSSMAN,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00272-CV

Appeal from the

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2017-DCV2528)

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on Wednesday, December 24, 2019. Appellant asked for an 

extension to file the brief on Friday, December 27, 2019. However, under Tex.R.App.P. 4.1(a), 

because the due date fell on a state holiday, and because December 25 and 26 were also state 

holidays, the due date for the Appellant's Brief was pushed forward to the next non-holiday 

workday: Friday, December 27, 2019. Appellant timely filed his brief before midnight on Friday, 

December 27, 2019. As such, Appellant was already entitled to the relief requested in the motion 

for extension of time, rendering the motion moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### Jeff Amengual, Respondent, v Michael Demetroules et al., Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered October 5, 1989, which found in favor of plaintiff against defendants jointly in the sum of $81,157.07, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order of said court dated July 13, 1989 is dismissed as having been subsumed in the appeal from the aforesaid judgment, with costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action for an accounting contending that there existed a partnership, joint venture, or agree*276ment to share costs, profits and expenses from various construction jobs. A Referee was appointed and a hearing was held at which plaintiff testified regarding the parties’ relationship and submitted, pursuant to stipulation, exhibits consisting of computer printouts, invoices and receipts. The Referee found no proof of partnership or joint venture, but did find sufficient evidence of an agreement to share costs, expenses and profits. The Referee found both defendants liable based upon the amorphous relationship between the individual and corporate defendants. The court confirmed the Referee’s report. Contrary to defendants’ contention, the record was sufficient to sustain a finding that plaintiff proved his case against both defendants by a preponderance of the evidence. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
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 on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Douglas G. Bryant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                                          
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: February 13, 2004 |  | /s/    Douglas G. Bryant                 
|                         |  | Douglas G. Bryant Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-8459.

Stacy C. GRAY, individually and as Surviving Spouse of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, and as Personal

Representative of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

v.

LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of Lockheed Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

Grace M. SCHUMACHER, individually and as Surviving Parent of Lt. John T. Hartman, and as

Personal Representative of Lt. John Hartman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

v.

LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of Lockheed Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

Wilma J. JENNINGS, individually, and as Surviving Parent of Lt. David S. Jennings, and as

Personal Representative of Lt. David S. Jennings, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

v.

LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of Lockheed Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

Sept. 25, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Nos. 1:91-CV2399-ODE, 1:91-CV-2400-ODE and 1:91-CV-2401-ODE); Orinda D. Evans, Judge.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further

consideration of our earlier opinion in light of Dooley v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., --- U.S. ----,

118 S.Ct. 1890, 141 L.Ed.2d 102 (1998). In accord with the Court's opinion, we reverse our
previous holding that appellees may recover damages for pain and suffering on their survival action

claims based on general maritime law in conjunction with the Death on the High Seas Act, 46

U.S.C.App. §§ 761-768. See Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 125 F.3d 1371, 1381-86 (11th

Cir.1997). We affirm the remainder of our decision that does not touch such survival action claims,

and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our decision and Dooley.

REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
#### Harley LAWSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27223.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appéllant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the burglary of a house occupied arid controlled by K. O. Ellington for the purpose of committing theft therein. On the trial before a jury he was convicted and awarded a penalty of two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary,

The facts reflect that on the date in question Mr. Ellington was the Superintendent of the Public School in Melvin, McCulloch County,. Texas, and lived about seventy steps therefrom; that during the early morning hours his attention was called to some peculiar noise in the school building. Upon approaching the same, .it became evident that some unauthorized per- . son was in the building, He telephoned the. night watchman, who was also the constable, and he soon appeared on the scene. • They .eventually saw two men in the darkness close to the building. One of . the men was captured by the .officer and found to. be the, appellant. The building had been entered by, breaking a windqw thereof,.and some locks thereiji were broken. An effort of some kind had been made by someone 1⁄8 .open, the, vault in thp superintendent’s office, but1 who failed to dp so..

Appellant was’found to be wearing coveralls over his khaki suit and having on white gloves on his hands when he was captured. A crowbar, '.pieces l of iron and other-tools-were'present near the safe, thus *76allowing the jury to infer that they were utilized in .an attempt to open the same.

No bills of exception are found 1⁄8 the record. The court charged on the law of circumstantial evidence, and the jury was authorized in finding the appellant guilty and giving him the lowest penalty for the offense of burglary.

No error being found in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
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)


November 27, 2012








PVH CORP.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware001-0757213-1166910(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)(Commission File Number)(IRS Employer Identification No.)200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York10016(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)





Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (212)-381-3500


Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act


(17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act


(17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








---










ITEM 2.02  RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION


On November 27, 2012 , PVH Corp. (the “Company”) issued a press release to report the Company’s earnings for the third quarter 2012 , which is attached to this report as Exhibit 99.1.


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 .


ExhibitDescription99.1Press Release, dated November 27, 2012.











---




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.





PVH CORP.





By: /s/ Bruce Goldstein


Bruce Goldstein


Senior Vice President and Controller





Date: November 27, 2012











---




Exhibit Index





ExhibitDescription99.1Press Release, dated November 27, 2012.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6787

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN J. KANARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:04-cr-00147-JAG-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2021 Decided: September 14, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John J. Kanard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John J. Kanard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence 

reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Kanard, No. 3:04-cr-00147-JAG-1 (E.D. Va. 

Apr. 21, 2021). 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
SCWC-18-0000502

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

DWIGHT J. VICENTE, 

Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant-Appellant,

vs.

HILO MEDICAL INVESTORS, LTD., 

Respondent/Employer-Appellee-Appellee,

and

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY/AIG CLAIMS SERVICES,

Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee, and JOHN MULLEN & COMPANY,

INC., Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee. 

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000502; CASE NO. AB 2015-259(H)(S); DCD NO. 1-87-00882)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner Dwight J. Vicente’s “Notice of Appeal to the

Supreme Court,” filed on May 3, 2019, which we construe as an

application for writ of certiorari from the Intermediate Court of

Appeals’ April 26, 2019 “Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of

Appellate Jurisdiction,” is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 5, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000502

05-JUN-2019

08:16 AM
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge, based
upon their review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002, of Southern Community Bancorp (the Report), that:

|     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i)  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                          
|    
|(ii) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant as of and for the periods presented in
the Report.

|                        |  |                                                                                                                      
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 11, 2002 |  |                                                                                                                      
|                        |  | /s/ Charlie W. Brinkley, Jr.                                                                                         
|                        |  | Charlie W. Brinkley, Jr.
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

34
#### Thomas William ELAM, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 23, 1953.

Robert B. Halloran, Morrison Fordyce, Newport, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This record presents a motion for appeal from the Campbell Circuit Court by Thomas William Elam from judgments convicting him of the crime of keeping a house of ill fame. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a fine of $200 on each indictment.

A consideration of the record discloses no error prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights and the judgments are affirmed.
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for 1

the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 95-4083

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Adrian W. Davis, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 28, 1996

 Filed: April 4, 1996

___________

Before McMillian, Wollman, and Murphy, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adrian W. Davis pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Overruling Davis's objections to being classified as a career offender

under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(C), the district court sentenced him to 151 months 1

imprisonment and three years supervised release. Davis appeals, and we

affirm.

A defendant has two prior felony convictions for purposes of careeroffender classification under section 4B1.1 if the sentences for the two

prior convictions were imposed in "unrelated cases." U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2).

"Prior sentences are not considered related if they were for offenses that

were separated by an intervening arrest (i.e., the defendant is arrested

for the first offense prior to committing the second offense)." U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.2, comment.
-2-

n.3. The government produced exhibits showing Davis committed a drug

offense in 1988 while he was on bail after being arrested for a drug

offense in 1986. The district court thus correctly found that those

offenses qualified Davis as a career offender, regardless of whether they

were consolidated for sentencing. See United States v. Aguilera, 48 F.3d

327, 330 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 117 (1995).

Davis's contention that the commentary to section 4A1.2 should not

be applied to offenses committed before its November 1991 effective date

is meritless. We agree with the district court that there is no ex post

facto problem here, because the provisions in section 4A1.2 were enacted

before Davis committed the instant offense. Cf. United States v. Allen,

886 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir. 1989) (so long as actual crime for which

defendant is being sentenced occurred after effective date of new statute,

there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Carson, 988 F.2d 80,

81-82 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (no ex post facto claim where challenged

sentencing provisions, §§ 4A1.1 and 4A1.2, were not enacted after

commission of defendant's present crime), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 142

(1993).

Davis also argues that a criminal history category VI overrepresented

the seriousness of his past criminal conduct, and that the district court

therefore erred in refusing to depart downward at sentencing under

U.S.S.G.§ 4A1.3. Because the record shows the district court was clearly

aware of its authority to depart from the Guidelines range of 151 to 188

months, its discretionary decision not to do so is unreviewable. See

United States v. Hall, 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Banks, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on March 24, 1987, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *IV2*to 3 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


              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 21, 1996, with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements
and schedules of National Home Health Care Corp. and subsidiaries as at July 31,
1996 and July 31, 1995 and for each of the years in the three year period  ended
July 31, 1996 included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July
31, 1996.


/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP


New York, New York
October 21, 1995


<PAGE>
Exhibit
32.1 and 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 annual report of Plandai Biotechnology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2016,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers
of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer’s knowledge:



(1)
The Report, qualified by (i) the disclosures in the Explanatory Statement made in this annual report, (ii) my declaration filed
as an exhibit herewith, and (iii) the registrant’s certifications published with OTC Markets on April 4, 2017, 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, qualified by to the disclosures in the Explanatory Statement and my declaration filed
as an exhibit herewith, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     | By: | /s/
    Tad Mailander                                       
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Tad Mailander                                               
|                     |     | Principal Executive
    Officer, Principal Financial Officer
|                     |     |                                                             
|Date: March 15, 2023 |     |                                                             



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CEO 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 Victoria Industries, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Albert
      Abdoulline, as a Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1) The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.





By:/S/
                Albert AbdoullineAlbert
                AbdoullineCFODate:
                 May 22, 2008