alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MORALES et al. v. STATE.

No. 24281.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 2, 1949.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1949.

Duckett & Duckett, of El Campo, for appellants.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellants were jointly charged by complaint and information in the county court with the offense of an aggravated assault. The punishment of Benito Morales was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a term of one year, and the punishment assessed against Jose Morales and Manuel Morales was confinement in the county jail for a period of six months each.

The record reflects that appellants appeared in court and each entered a plea of guilty to the court who found each of them guilty as charged and assessed the punishment against each as hereinabove stated. After their conviction, they secured the services of attorneys who filed a motion for a new trial in which they claimed that they were denied counsel and many errors of procedure, not necessary to be here stated, were committed by the court. The state contested this motion and denied each and every allegation therein. On the hearing of the same, the court heard evidence relative to the issues formed and at the conclusion thereof overruled the same.

 The court’s decision on issues of fact has the same binding effect as if the issues had been decided by a jury. Ordinarily the granting or refusal of a motion for a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the court and unless it is made to appear that the court abused his discretion with respect thereto, no reversible error is shown. See Cobb v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 397, 160 S.W. 78; Sowells v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 465, 270 S.W. 558; and Carter v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 566, 95 S.W. 389.

*85Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
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)


June 12, 2013








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 June 12, 2013 , PVH Corp. (the “Company”) issued a press release to report the Company’s earnings for the first quarter 2013 , 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 June 12, 2013.











---




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: June 12, 2013











---




Exhibit Index





ExhibitDescription99.1Press Release, dated June 12, 2013.
#### HELMS v. STATE.

No. 24002.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1948.

*170No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for murder. The penalty assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of fifteen years.

The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Consequently no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Odell BREEDING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27378.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 26, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

This is a conviction upon a plea of guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated, a fine of $50 having been assessed.

The record contains no statement of facts or bills of exception.

The presumption prevails that the offense was committed at a time when the punishment assessed was applicable. See Scates v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 274 S.W.2d 833.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
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 this Annual Report of 51144, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Baker, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)        Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending January 31,
           2006, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
           Year ending January 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material
           respects, the financial condition and result of operations of 51144,
           Inc.


/s/ David Baker
--------------------------
David Baker
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

April 24, 2006
<Page>

                                EXHIBIT 4.1

                        FORM OF COMMON STOCK CERTIFICATE


<Page>


NUMBER                                                                    SHARES


                             EFOODSAFETY.COM, INC.
              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                                 COMMON STOCK                  CUSIP 28224N 10 0

THIS CERTIFIES THAT:




              OF

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF $.0005 PAR VALUE EACH OF
     ---------------------                     ----------------------------
--------------------------EFOODSAFETY.COM, INC.---------------------------------
     ---------------------                     ----------------------------
transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by attorney upon
surrender of this certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This certificate and
the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Nevada,
and to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation, as now or
hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the
Transfer Agent.

     WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
signature of its duly authorized officers.

DATED:         [SEAL]           COUNTERSIGNED:
                                                  SIGNATURE STOCK TRANSFER, INC.
                                  14675 MIDWAY RD. (SUITE 221), DALLAS, TX 75244
                                                    TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
                                BY:

                                                            AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

/s/ CLARENCE W. TIERNEY                     /s/ PATRICIA ROSS
   CEO & SECRETARY                       PRESIDENT & TREASURER

<Page>

                          SECRETARY OF STATE
                                [SEAL]

                            STATE OF NEVADA

I, DEAN HELLER, the duly elected and qualified Nevada Secretary of State, do
hereby certify that DJH INTERNATIONAL, INC. did on the TWENTY-EIGHTH day of
OCTOBER, 1996 file in this office the original Articles of Incorporation;
that said Articles are now on file of record in the office of the Nevada
Secretary of State, and further, that said Articles contain all the
provisions required by the law of said State of Nevada.

                                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
                                 hand and affixed the Great Seal of State, at
                                 my office, in Carson City, Nevada, this
                                 TWENTY-EIGHTH day of OCTOBER, 1996.

                                 /s/ DEAN HELLER

                                       Secretary of State

[SEAL]                           By /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

PERRY FLETCHER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3378

[ February 15, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrew L. Siegel

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 14

- 6219CF10A and 14

- 7755CF10A

.
Perry Fletcher, Arcadia, pro se.

No brief fled for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , G R OSS and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2102
MICHAEL W. ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REBA L. ROGERS, Plaintiff, versus UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Kemper Auto and Home; AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-41-5) Submitted: March 15, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy Lynn Eggleston, Garrett John McAvoy, COZEN O’CONNOR, Charlotte, North Caro lina, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). - 3 - PER CURIAM: Michael W. Rogers appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his breach of contract action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. * SeeRogers v. Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. , No. CA-04-41-5 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2005). 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
**Exhibit 4.36**[Confidential Treatment]**Private & Confidential**To: NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (**NCLB**) and NCL Corporation Ltd. (**NCLC**)From: Crown Odyssey Limited (**COL**)Date: 1 September 2006Dear Sirs,**Subject: Sale and Charter of m.v. Norwegian Crown (the “Ship”)**1. Reference is made to: (i) the bareboat charter dated 20 April 2004 (the **Original Charter**) pursuant to which COLagreed to charter the Ship to NCLB; (ii) the guarantee dated 20 April 2004 (the **Original Charter Guarantee**) pursuant to whichNCLC agreed to guarantee to COL the due performance of the Original Charter by NCLB; (iii) the memorandum of agreement dated 1 June 2006 (the **MOA**) pursuant to which COL agreedto sell the ship to Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines Pte. Ltd., or permitted nominee (the **Buyer**); and (iv) the bareboat charter dated 1 June 2006 (the **New Charter**) pursuant to which the Buyeragreed to charter the Ship to COL and to permit COL to sub-charter the Ship subject to certainrestrictions provided for in the New Charter. 2. Each of COL and NCLB hereby agrees that upon and with effect from completion of thesale of the Ship pursuant to the MOA: (i) the terms and conditions of the Original Charter will be amended and restated as setout in the attached Schedule; and (ii) the Original Charter will continue to bind each of COL and NCLB in accordance withsuch amended and restated terms and conditions. 3. NCLC hereby: (i) approves the proposed amendment and restatement of the Original Charter; and (ii) agrees that its obligations and liabilities under the Original Charter Guarantee willcontinue in full force and effect after the proposed amendment and restatement of the OriginalCharter becomes effective. 4. Each of COL, NCLB and NCLC hereby agrees that:
 

 
(i) the agreement (the **Agreement**) constituted by the countersignatures below on behalf ofNCLB and NCLC will take effect as an addendum to each of the Original Charter and the OriginalCharter Guarantee; (ii) except as expressly amended and restated by the Agreement, each of the OriginalCharter and the Original Charter Guarantee will remain in full force and effect; (iii) nothing contained in the Agreement will relieve NCLB or NCLC of any their respectiveobligations or liabilities under the Original Charter or the Original Charter Guarantee; (iv) if the ship is not delivered to the Buyer in accordance with the MOA, the Agreementwill automatically terminate at the time and on the date when the MOA is terminated.Yours faithfully,**Crown Odyssey Limited**By: ***Vijay Jeyaratnam***Attorney-in-factWe hereby confirm our agreement to the terms and conditions set out above.         **NCL (Bahamas) Ltd**. **NCL Corporation Ltd.**           By: ***Paul Turner***
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 780   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 922    | 960    | 1,069  | 1,277  | 1,558  | 1,581  | 1,655  | 2,689  | 3,439  | 3,665 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,539  | 4,909  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Mississippi Natural Gas Delivered to Residential Consumers for the Account of Others (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Mississippi Natural Gas Delivered to Residential Consumers for the Account of Others (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 133    | 101    | 125    | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### BENNETT v. STATE.

No. 24210.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1949.

No attorney for appellant.

Will R. Wilson, Jr., Cr. Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty. and Thomas C. Unis, Asst. Dist. Atty., all of Dallas, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

A jury assessed a penalty of seven years in the penitentiary for .the offense of sodomy.

Appellant and one other person in an automobile offered a boy a ride to Dallas, while at a filling station in Garland. He accepted the offer and, as they drove eastward toward Dallas, appellant began to insist that the boy take a drink of liquor. This he consistently refused to do. Appellant then fired a pistol out the window and made threats and caused the driver to turn off on a side road some distance. They stopped and the boy was forced, at the point of the pistol, to go into a corn field with appellant and there engage, with him, in the abominable offense charged. After its completion, appellant fired his pistol several times in a threat to kill the •prosecuting witness, but failed to hit him. He demanded that the boy remain at the place for one hour and drove away. In a few minutes the witness discovered a purse lying nearby, and some papers on the ground around it. He gathered these up, examined them and took them to the chief of police at Garland. Appellant’s name appeared on several of these papefs. Following the clue thus given, appellant was arrested. The prosecuting witness went to the jail and identified him, as he did positively in the court room.

While appellant did not testify in his behalf, and no explanation was made for the presence of the purse and papers described at the scene of the crime, he offered several witnesses to prove an alibi. They testified that he was in Gladewater during this period of time, which is considerably more than a hundred miles from Garland. The jury found against his defense.

The record contains but one bill of exception. It complains of the admission in evidence of the papers found on the ground. Several reasons are stated as a basis for the objections. The State attacks the bill on the ground that it is not complete, as required by law. This contention will be sustained. Tex.Jur. Vol. 4, p. 316, sec. 217, and cases there cited. However, it is perfectly clear that the evi*225dence as presented was admissible and, even if the bill should be held to comply with the law, it could avail nothing.

No brief is filed in this case and we have not been given the benefit of the viewpoint of appellant’s attorneys in behalf of his contention. We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.