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

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: April 24, 2007

(Date of earliest event reported)



LENOX GROUP INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Commission File Number: 1-11908



Delaware
        
        13-3684956(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
        
        (IRS Employer Identification No.)




One Village Place, 6436 City West Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN 55344

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)



(952) 944-5600

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)



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:



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



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



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---

---

Item 7.01    Regulation FD Disclosure



On April 24, 2007, Lenox Group Inc. (the Company) held a conference call with its stockholders and the investment community to discuss the Companys new business plan and the progress of its implementation. A copy of the transcript of the stockholder conference call is furnished herewith as Exhibit 99.1.



Item 9.01    Financial Statements and Exhibits



(d)   Exhibits.



99.1
        Transcript of conference call held on April 24, 2007. This transcript is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K


---

SIGNATURE



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.





LENOX GROUP INC.By:
        /s/   Timothy J. SchugelTimothy J. SchugelChief Financial Officer


Date:   April 25, 2007





---

EXHIBIT INDEX

ExhibitNumber
        
        Description99.1
        
        Transcript of conference call held on April 24, 2007. This transcript is being furnished and shall not be deemed
filed pursuant to Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K.










---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene HOLLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10215.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 22, 2010.

David L. Gappa, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Victor M. Chavez, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*636Before: RYMER, MeKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Eugene Hollis appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt or distribution of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate Hollis’ sentence and remand for re-sentencing.

Hollis contends that the district court clearly erred when it applied a five-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(S)(B), for distributing pornographic images “for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value,” because there was no evidence in the record to support its finding that he shared files in order to obtain any benefit. We agree that the record fails to establish that Hollis distributed pornographic material in order to obtain faster access to other pornographic images or any other benefit. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(S)(B) & cmt. n. 1; see *also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (explaining that it would be procedural error for a district court to choose a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts). Accordingly, we vacate Hollis’ sentence and remand for further findings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 10.2



 





Exhibit 10.2




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-12256) and Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-81300) of InfoVista SA of our report
dated July 27, 2004, except for Notes 1 and 2, for which the date is October 14, 2005, relating to
the financial statements of InfoVista SA, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of
InfoVista SA for the year ended June 30, 2005.




Neuilly-sur-Seine, France

October 14, 2005




PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit




By : /s/
JEAN-FRANCOIS CHATEL

Jean-Francois Châtel
```

[Federal Register: June 2, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 35331]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn00-45]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Public Hearing on Regulatory Framework/
Intermediaries and Clearing.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-14034 Filed 5-31-00; 3:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATION





I, Brian
Altounian, certify that:





1.       I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Platinum Studios, Inc. for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008;





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;





3.       Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.       The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





(a)      designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer is made known to us by others,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





(b)      evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure controls
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





(c)      disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and





5.      The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions);





(a)      all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





(b)      any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





May 15,
2008





/s/ Brian
Altounian


Brian
Altounian


President,
Chief Operating Officer


&
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
S07Y0110.

#### IN THE MATTER OF J. CHRISTOPHER HALCOMB.

(640 SE2d 31)

Decided January 8, 2007.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*John A. Nuckolls,*for Halcomb.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition of J. Christopher Halcomb for the voluntary surrender of his license to practice law. Halcomb admits that he pled guilty in federal court to felony charges in connection with real estate closing fraud. Such a conviction constitutes a violation of Bar Rule 8.4 (a) (2). The State Bar concurs in this disposition.

Having reviewed the record we agree that surrender of his law license, which is tantamount to disbarment, is the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, we accept the petition and hereby order that the name of J. Christopher Halcomb be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Halcomb is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 China Holdings
Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul K. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August 14, 2008By:

/s/ Paul K. KellyPaul K. KellyChairman of the Board of Directors and ChiefExecutive Officer (Principal Executive andFinancial Officer)
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
  The
undersigned, Robert Shea, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Cyprium
Resources Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
              the
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cyprium Resources Inc. for the period
      ended September 30, 2008 (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 Cyprium
      Resources Inc.
  Dated:
November 18, 2008
  /s/ Robert
Shea
 Robert
Shea
 President,
Secretary and Treasurer
 (Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
    A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Cyprium Resources Inc. and will be retained
by Cyprium Resources Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010253EN.01000501.xml

| 21.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/5

---

Planned closure of complaint CHAP 2010/19

2010/C 253/03

The Commission's services have completed their investigation of complaint CHAP 2010/19 regarding the remuneration of persons who do not hold a basic medical qualification but who have, in Italy, access to specialist training in the six fields of clinical biochemistry, microbiology and virology, clinical pathology, medical genetics, food science and medical pharmacology.

Following examination of the complaint and of the documentation submitted by the complainants in the light of the applicable Community law, the Commission services have concluded that it is not possible, at this stage, to identify an infringement of Directive 2005/36/EC in the case in question.

Since Directive 93/16/EEC applies only to doctors, the obligation for Member States to ensure that trainee specialist doctors must receive appropriate remuneration applies only to persons having completed basic medical training. This obligation arises specifically from Directive 82/76/EEC which amended Directive 75/363/EEC; both directives were consolidated by Directive 93/16/EEC, which was in turn repealed by Directive 2005/36/EC. Doctors having completed basic medical training must receive appropriate remuneration under Article 25(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC.

The deadline for transposing Directive 82/76/EEC was 1 January 1983. In its judgment of 7 July 1987, the Court of Justice of the European Communities acknowledged that Italy had failed to comply with its obligations by not transposing Directive 82/76/EEC within the deadline laid down. Italy transposed the directive through legislative decree No 257/91, which was adopted in 1991 and entered into force on 1 September 1991.

The fact that Italy allows persons having completed certain types of scientific training other than basic medical training to undergo specialist medical training does not in any way alter the Member States’ obligation to guarantee appropriate remuneration to all doctors in specialist medical training.

Consequently, the Commission services will close the registered complaint unless new information indicating the existence of an infringement is introduced within four weeks of publication of this notice.

---
##### 



Exhibit 12.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Russell Chenu, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of James Hardie
Industries N.V.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and
have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the company, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the companys internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control
over financial reporting. /s/ Russell ChenuDate: November 22, 2004
    
    
    
    Russell ChenuInterim Chief Financial Officer
J-S04024-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JERMAINE SHOCKLEY,

Appellant No. 1042 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order March 5, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0008078-2007

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.:FILED DECEMBER 17, 2014

I concur in the result reached by the Majority under the particular facts 

of this case. I write separately to distance myself from the Majority’s 

suggestion that Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013), 

finally decided the issue of retroactive application of the new constitutional 

rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). See Majority 

Decision at 8. Notably, the Cunningham Court did not decide whether 

Miller’s holding qualifies as a watershed rule of criminal procedure, 

satisfying the second exception to the general rule of non-retroactivity 

delineated in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (plurality). See 

Cunningham, 81 A.3d at 10 (declining to assess the second Teague 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04024-14

- 2 -

exception because the appellant did “not develop[] his argument in such 

terms”). Additionally, both the Cunningham Majority, as well as Justice 

Castille in his concurring opinion, acknowledged that the Court did not 

address whether there is a basis under Pennsylvania constitutional law to 

afford a broader retroactive application to Miller. See Cunningham, 81 

A.3d at 9, 13, 17-18 (Castille, J., concurring). Indeed, our Court has 

recognized that retroactivity arguments premised upon state law – raised in 

a timely PCRA petition - are not foreclosed by Cunningham and could be 

considered by this Court. See Commonwealth v. Seskey, 86 A.3d 237, 

243 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting that while the appellant’s attempts to 

circumvent Cunningham based upon Pennsylvania state constitutional law 

“someday may require consideration by our courts,” we did not have 

jurisdiction to examine those claims because they were raised in an untimely 

PCRA petition). 

In this case, Appellant did not raise any of the above-mentioned 

arguments in his PCRA petition and, therefore, they are not preserved for 

our review herein. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower 

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). 

However, if at some point Miller is held to apply retroactively by either our 

Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, Appellant may seek 

relief by filing another PCRA petition within 60 days of the date on which 

such decision is filed.

Justice Fitzgerald joins this Concurring Memorandum.
The HONORABLE ORTRIE D. SMITH, United States District Judge for the 1

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1440

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

Rodney J. Long, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 27, 1997

 Filed: July 9, 1997 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While investigating information about possible criminal activity, authorities

knocked on the door of a motel room in which Rodney J. Long and three other persons

were present. Long invited the authorities inside the room, where they observed

methamphetamine, a loaded revolver, and items used in the manufacture of

methamphetamine. Long later pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture more than

100 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. After

calculating a Guidelines sentencing range of 121 to 151 months imprisonment, the

district court granted the government’s motion to depart downward from the 1
-2-

Guidelines and the statutory minimum sentence, and sentenced Long to 60 months

imprisonment and five years supervised release. Long appeals, and we affirm.

Long argues the district court erred in assessing a two-level firearm enhancement

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1995) (add two levels if

dangerous weapon, including firearm, was possessed). He also challenges the district

court’s assessment of one criminal history point based on a prior misdemeanor

conviction for which he received a suspended jail sentence, probation, and a fine; Long

claims, as he did below, that the conviction was uncounseled. 

Because the departure sentence Long received is below the applicable

Guidelines range, with or without the challenged enhancement and criminal history

point, we conclude his sentence is not reviewable. See United States v. Baker, 64 F.3d

439, 441 (8th Cir. 1995). In any event, his arguments lack merit. First, we find no

clear error in the district court’s finding that it was not clearly improbable the weapon

in the motel room was connected with the offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3) (1995); United States v. McCracken, 110 F.3d 535,

541 (8th Cir. 1997). Second, even assuming that Long sufficiently carried his burden

of proving the prior conviction was uncounseled, and that the suspended-jail-time

portion of the sentence was thus invalid, see Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373 (1979);

United States v. White, 529 F.2d 1390, 1394 & n.4 (8th Cir. 1976), the probationary

sentence and monetary fine provided a basis for assessing the criminal history point,

see Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 748-49 (1994) ; United States v. Ortega,

94 F.3d 764, 769 (2d Cir. 1996); White, 529 F.2d at 1394.

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.