alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERiCA'" ".ORIGINAl FEDERAL TRADE COMMI~S,IQ~, t 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRA TIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 


In the Matter of ) 


) 


GRACOINC., ) 


a corporation, and ) 


) DOCKET NO. 9350 

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., ) 


a corporation, and ) 


) 


ITW FINISHING LLC, ) 


a limited liability company, ) 


Respondents. ) 


) 


ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.21 (b), which requires a scheduling conference 

within ten days after the Answer is filed, the initial scheduling conference will be held on 

January 12,2012, at 1 :00 p.m. in Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC. 

The parties are directed to meet before the scheduling conference and to comply 

with Commission Rule 3.21(a) and (b). The expected scheduling order will be provided 

to the parties in advance ofthe scheduling conference. 

ORDERED: 

Date: January 4, 2012
#### William O. O’DONNELL, individually, et al., Appellants, v. Walter F. NOVAK and Jean F. Novak, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-736.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. D-2247.

#### In re Disbarment of Earls.

Donald E. Earls, of Norton, Va., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to . show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert SMITH.

No. 61676.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Robert Smith, applying for writ of mandamus and certiorari. Parish of Moore-house.

Writ denied.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. William Bates SEIDEL, Relator, v. Honorable Neis R. PEARSON, Judge of the Court of Record in and for Broward County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-657.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 4, 1971.

Prohibition denied.
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, R. James Kelly, ViceChairman and Chief Financial Officer of Family Dollar Stores, Inc., (the “Company”),do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

·              the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the quarter ended May 27, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

·              the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:  June 29,2006

 
| /s/ R. James Kelly                         |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| R. James Kelly                             |   |
| Vice Chairman  and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (Principal  Financial Officer)             |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FamilyDollar Stores, Inc., and will be retained by Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 751 

To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. LATTA (for himself, Mr. BACON, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. OLSON, Mr. POSEY, 

Mr. BYRNE, Mr. NORMAN, and Mr. GROTHMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and 

in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of 

Congress, 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 ‘‘No Vote, No Raise 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 751 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS 

2 FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) 

4 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 

5 4501(2)) is repealed. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 601(a)(1) 

7 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 4501) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)’’; 

9 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

10 and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; 

11 and 

12 (3) by striking ‘‘, as adjusted by paragraph (2) 

13 of this subsection’’. 

14 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

15 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

16 take effect on December 31, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Albert Eugene HOWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary Scott HOWARD, Appellee.

No. 77-110.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1977.

Walter & Pelaia, Miami, for appellant.

William John Mason, Miami, for appellee.

*1147Before HENDRY, C. J„ and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).
Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Worst - Total Extinction Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

MOZI1 NIA 2001 24 28.61 MOZI1 NIA 2001 24 2.94

MOZI1 NIA 2002 21 40.12 MOZI1 NIA 2002 21 2.28

MOZI1 NIA 2003 23 32.27 MOZI1 NIA 2003 23 1.54

MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 24.03 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 1.87

125.03 Total 8.63 Total

31.2575 Average 2.1575 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 7%

Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Best - Total Extinction Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

MOZI1 NIA 2001 23 13.19 MOZI1 NIA 2001 23 0.63

MOZI1 NIA 2002 20 11.58 MOZI1 NIA 2002 20 0.48

MOZI1 NIA 2003 22 11.34 MOZI1 NIA 2003 22 0.57

MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 11.23 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 0.36

47.34 Total 2.04 Total

11.835 Average 0.51 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 4%

Rocky Mountain - Worst - Total Extinction Rocky Mountain - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

ROMO1 NIA 2000 22 41.91 ROMO1 NIA 2000 22 2.48

ROMO1 NIA 2001 25 39.03 ROMO1 NIA 2001 25 7.65

ROMO1 NIA 2002 24 53.44 ROMO1 NIA 2002 24 8.68

ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 39.98 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 3.21

ROMO1 NIA 2004 25 33.25 ROMO1 NIA 2004 25 4.29

207.61 Total 26.31 Total

41.522 Average 5.262 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 13%

Rocky Mountain - Best - Total Extinction Rocky Mountain - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

ROMO1 NIA 2000 21 12.97 ROMO1 NIA 2000 21 0.46

ROMO1 NIA 2001 24 12.76 ROMO1 NIA 2001 24 0.29

ROMO1 NIA 2002 23 12.03 ROMO1 NIA 2002 23 0.25

ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 12.95 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 0.26

ROMO1 NIA 2004 24 12.4 ROMO1 NIA 2004 24 0.38

63.11 Total 1.64 Total

12.622 Average 0.328 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 3%
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 Hydron
Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2009, hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the Registrant.  HYDRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. /s/: Richard Banakus Richard Banakus Interim President, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer August 14, 2009
#### Henry Vernon ROTHROCK, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Charles W. Musgrove and Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

SHOLTS, Judge.

On December 23, 1970, an information was filed in the Court of Record of Bro-ward County, florida charging appellant with escape under § 944.40, F.S.1969, F.S. A. He pled no contest thereto on March 10, 1971. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to a term of six (6) years in the Florida State prison on April 27, 1971. An attempted direct appeal was dismissed as untimely, but we granted full appellate review on January 12, 1972, on petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on authority of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla. 1967, 194 So.2d 577.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in accepting his no contest plea on four grounds:

> 1. Lack of voluntariness in that the trial court failed to inquire about threats made against the appellant or promises made in inducement for his plea.

> 2. Failure of the trial court to warn appellant that' in pleading no contest, he would be giving up his privilege against self-incrimination.

> 3. Failure of the trial court to advise appellant of the maximum possible punishment.

> 4. In accepting the appellant’s no contest plea in any case inasmuch as he had not been “convicted” of any crime but was merely awaiting trial for another offense at the time he escaped.

Appellant’s contention that he could not be convicted of escape because he was in custody awaiting trial on another charge has merit.

This court in State v. Benjamin, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.3d 348, cert. dism, Fla., 270 So.2d 20, and Van Den Bliek v. State, Fla.App.1973, 281 So.2d 218 agreed with the decision in Brochu v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So.2d 286, which held that in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the escape, it was essential that the person so charged was a prisoner who had been “convicted and sentenced” and that it *241was not sufficient to show that at the time of his escape defendant was merely “charged” with the crime for which he was then being held. It therefore appears that appellant could not have been convicted of the crime to which he plead “no contest”.

In view of the court’s holding on Point 4 above, we find it unnecessary to comment on the other three points raised by the appellant. The judgment and sentence are hereby reversed.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 26, 2008

Ms. Marianne Hohrein

256 North 750 East

Orem UT 84097

Re: In the Matter of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., et al, Docket No. 9300

Dear Ms. Hohrein:

Thank you for the comment that you submitted to Elizabeth A. Piotrowski, Esquire, dated

October 14, 2008, in connection with the September 12, 2008, Application for Approval of

Divestiture (“Application”) to Matrix Service Company (“Matrix”) filed by Chicago Bridge &

Iron Company N.V. and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (collectively, “CB&I”). Pursuant to

the Decision and Order (“Order”) in this matter, CB&I has requested the approval of the Federal

Trade Commission (“Commission”) of the proposed divestiture to Matrix.

 

In connection with its evaluation of this proposed divestiture, the Commission received

information from numerous sources, including the parties to the transaction and third parties, in

addition to letters submitted by commenters during the public comment period. In evaluating the

Application, the Commission analyzed all of the information available to it, including your

comment. As a result of that analysis, the Commission concluded that the proposed divestiture

to Matrix is consistent with the requirements of the Order and would effectuate the remedial

purposes of the Order. It has, thus, determined to approve the Application. 

The Commission appreciates your comment and interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

cc: Clifford H. Aronson, Esquire

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Four Times Square

New York, NY 10036
Table of Contents


Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Compañía de Telecomunicaciones de Chile S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, José Molés Valenzuela, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2006

/s/ José Molés ValenzuelaJosé Molés ValenzuelaChief Executive Officer


23
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-69982) pertaining to the AER Energy Resources, Inc. 1992 Stock
Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-69462)
pertaining to the AER Energy Resources, Inc. 1993 Non-Employee Director's
Restricted Stock Award Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-89068) pertaining to the AER Energy Resources, Inc. / H. Douglas Johns
Stock Option Agreement of our report dated January 12, 2001, with respect to
the financial statements of AER Energy Resources, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 19, 2001
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7542 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to identify additional factors for 

the design of the counseling pathways of the Transition Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2020 

Mr. LEVIN of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to identify additional 

factors for the design of the counseling pathways of 

the Transition Assistance Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FACTORS FOR COUNSELING 

4 PATHWAYS OF THE TRANSITION ASSISTANCE 

5 PROGRAM. 

6 (a) MEDICAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE.— 

7 Section 1142(c)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7542 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘Dis2 ability’’ and inserting ‘‘Potential or confirmed med3 ical discharge of the member’’; and 

4 (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking ‘‘Char5 acter’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘Potential 

6 or confirmed involuntary separation of the member.’’ 

7 (b) FAMILY DYNAMICS.—Section 1142(c)(1) of title 

8 10, United States Code, as amended by section (a), is fur9 ther amended— 

10 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (M) as sub11 paragraph (R); and 

12 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (L) the fol13 lowing: 

14 ‘‘(M) Child care requirements of the member 

15 (including whether a dependent of the member is en16 rolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program). 

17 ‘‘(N) The employment status of other adults in 

18 the household of the member. 

19 ‘‘(O) The location of the duty station of the 

20 member (including whether the member was sepa21 rated from family while on duty). 

22 ‘‘(P) The effects of operating tempo and per23 sonnel tempo on the member and the household of 

24 the member. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7542 IH

1 ‘‘(Q) Whether the member is an Indian or 

2 urban Indian, as those terms are defined in section 

3 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Pub4 lic Law 94–437; 25 U.S.C. 1603).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Carmie J. Plantin, Appellant, v All City Insurance Company, Respondent.

[735 NYS2d 780]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*328Plaintiff, pro se, admits that a prior action she brought against defendant in Civil Court, Kings County, was based on the same allegations she makes herein, but asserts that such action was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court, Kings County, was the “wrong court.” The “Decision and Judgment” entered in the Kings County action indicates only that the action was dismissed after a trial held on July 1, 1998. Since such decision and judgment does not specify that the dismissal was not on the merits, we reject plaintiff’s claim to that effect (CPLR 5013), and, accordingly, conclude that res judicata was properly applied to bar the instant action (see, *Ryan v New York Tel. Co.,*62 NY2d 494, 500). Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4241]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No. 22509]


Kansas Farm Bureau Life Variable Account; Notice of Application

February 13, 1997.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice of application for deregistration under the Investment 
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').

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

APPLICANT: Kansas Farm Bureau Life Variable Account.

RELEVANT ACT SECTION: Section 8(f).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant requests an order declaring that it 
has ceased to be an investment company.

FILING DATE: The application was filed on February 3, 1997.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the application 
will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may 
request a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary and serving 
applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing 
requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on March 10, 1997, 
and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the 
form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing 
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason 
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request 
notification of a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20549. Applicant, 2627 KFB Plaza, Manhattan, Kansas 66503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus, Paralegal Specialist, 
at (202) 942-0584, or H. R. Hallock, Jr., Special Counsel, at (202) 
942-0564 (Division or Investment Management, Office of Investment 
Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the 
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from 
the SEC's Public Reference Branch.

Applicants Representations

    1. Applicant is a registered unit investment trust under the Act. 
On March 1, 1988, applicant filed a notification of registration on 
Form N-8A pursuant to section 8(a) of the Act, and a registration 
statement on Form N-8B-2 pursuant to section 8(b) of the Act. On the 
same date, applicant filed a registration statement on Form S-6 under 
the Securities Act of 1933. Applicant's registration statement was 
never declared effective and no public offering ever commenced.
    2. Applicant has no security holders, debts, liabilities or assets. 
Applicant is not a party to any litigation or administrative 
proceeding. Applicant is not now engaged, nor does it propose to 
engage, in any business activities other than those necessary for the 
winding-up of its affairs.

    For the SEC, by the Division of Investment Management, under 
delegated authority.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4241 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
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): March 2, 2016














DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.





(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)








Ohio000-2449865-0190407(State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation)(Commission File Number)(I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.)


325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio43215(Address of Principal Executive Offices)(Zip Code)





Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333








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:





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





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





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





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








---




Item 8.01   Other Events





The following is a summary of assets under management as of February 29, 2016 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$11,227Sub-advised funds601Institutional accounts4,475Total$16,303





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,646Small-Mid Cap2,258Large Cap7,185Select (All Cap)504Long-Short4,331Corporate Credit379Total$16,303








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.





DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.Date:March 2, 2016By:/s/ Thomas E. LineThomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer