alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6749-6750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3655]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[IA-42-95]
RIN 1545-AU38


Definition of Reasonable Basis; Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Change of location of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This document changes the location of the public hearing on 
proposed regulations relating to the accuracy-related penalty 
regulations under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES: The public hearing is being held on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, 
beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing originally scheduled in the IRS 
Commissioner's Conference Room, room 3313, Internal Revenue Building, 
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. is changed to room 2615, 
Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Slaughter of the Regulations 
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190 (not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing appearing in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58020), announced that a

[[Page 6750]]

public hearing relating to proposed regulations under chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code will be held Tuesday, February 25, 1997, 
beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the IRS Commissioner's Conference Room, room 
3313, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC and that requests to speak and outlines of oral comments 
should be received by Tuesday, February 4, 1997.
    The location of the public hearing has changed. The hearing is 
being held in room 2615 on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, beginning at 
10:00 a.m. The requests to speak and outlines of oral comments should 
have been received by Tuesday, February 4, 1997. Because of controlled 
access restrictions, attenders cannot be admitted beyond the lobby of 
the Internal Revenue Building until 9:45 a.m.
    Copies of the agenda are available free of charge at the hearing.
Michael L. Slaughter,
Acting Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 97-3655 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
No. 10903.

#### The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. *v.*Botefuhr, Admr.

Decided April 14, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Messrs. Doyle & Lewis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. O. S. Brumback*and *Mr. T. F. Connell,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Si-iauck, C. J., Price, Crew and Spear, JJ., concur. Davis, J., not participating.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7368 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the process by which 

a member of the Armed Forces may be referred for a mental health 

evaluation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. MOULTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the 

process by which a member of the Armed Forces may 

be referred for a mental health evaluation. 

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 ‘‘Brandon Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MANDATORY REFERRAL FOR MENTAL HEALTH 

6 EVALUATION. 

7 Section 1090a of title 10, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7368 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub2 section (f); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol4 lowing new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(e) PROCESS APPLICABLE TO MEMBER DISCLO6 SURE.—The regulations required by subsection (a) shall— 

7 ‘‘(1) establish a phrase that enables a member 

8 of the armed forces to trigger a referral of the mem9 ber by a commanding officer or supervisor for a 

10 mental health evaluation; 

11 ‘‘(2) require a commanding officer or supervisor 

12 to make such referral as soon as practicable fol13 lowing disclosure by the member to the commanding 

14 officer or supervisor of the phrase established under 

15 paragraph (1); and 

16 ‘‘(3) ensure that the process protects the con17 fidentiality of the member in a manner similar to 

18 the confidentiality provided for members making re19 stricted reports under section 1565b(b) of this 

20 title.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### ESTATE of Anne J. CLEMENS, Deceased, Petitioner, v. DOUBLE ENVELOPE CORPORATION and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 40538.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 730 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to include the cost of applying 

to an institution of higher learning as part of the benefits provided 

under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2019 

Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. 

DEUTCH, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. ZELDIN, Mr. JONES, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT

of Georgia, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. 

RYAN, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. WALKER, 

Mr. GIBBS, Mr. RUSH, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana, Mrs. 

BEATTY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. HIMES, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. COHEN, Ms. MATSUI, and Mr. HECK) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to include the cost 

of applying to an institution of higher learning as part 

of the benefits provided under the Post-9/11 Educational 

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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reducing Barriers for 

5 Veterans Education Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 730 IH

1 SEC. 2. COSTS OF APPLYING TO INSTITUTION OF HIGHER 

2 LEARNING. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 33 of title 38, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3315A 

5 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 3315B. Costs of applying to institution of higher 

7 learning 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—An individual entitled to edu9 cational assistance under this chapter shall also be entitled 

10 to educational assistance for the application fee required 

11 to apply to an approved program of education at an insti12 tution of higher learning. 

13 ‘‘(b) AMOUNT.—The total amount of educational as14 sistance payable under this chapter to an individual for 

15 applications described in subsection (a) is the lesser of— 

16 ‘‘(1) the total application fees charged to the in17 dividual by the institutions of higher learning; or 

18 ‘‘(2) $750. 

19 ‘‘(c) CHARGE AGAINST ENTITLEMENT.—The number 

20 of months (and any fraction thereof) of entitlement 

21 charged an individual under this chapter for an applica22 tion described in subsection (a) shall be determined at the 

23 rate of one month for each amount that equals the amount 

24 determined under section 3315A(c)(2) of this title.’’. 

25 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

26 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 730 IH

1 after the item relating to section 3315A the following new 

2 item: 

‘‘3315B. Costs of applying to institution of higher learning.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 Nos. 33-94546, 333-07195, 33-94544, 333-07199, 333-52589, 333-62781, 333-52593, 333-77883, 333-87882 and 333-87880) pertaining to the Sypris Solutions, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Key Employees and to the Sypris Solutions,Inc. Independent Directors’ Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-114982) pertaining to the Sypris Solutions, Inc. 2004 Equity Plan, of our reports dated March 31, 2009, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of Sypris Solutions, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sypris Solutions, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2008. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Louisville, Kentucky 

March 31, 2009
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. A. J. CUMMINGS and Sadie Belk Cummings, his wife, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 41342, 41393.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 15, 1971.

*16Joseph A. Wanick, Miami Beach, for appellant.

John M. Murrell and John M. Murrell, Jr., Miami, for A. J. Cummings and Sadie Belk Cummings, his wife.

W. F. Esslinger, Miami, for Bertram M. Gerson and Clara D. Gerson, his wife and Clara D. Clements.

George B. Foss, Jr., of Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, Miami, for Mary Jane King and Amelia King Buckley.

Henry R. Carr, Miami, for Morris Wol-land and Beatrice Wolland, his wife, Thomas Heeney and Marion Estelle Heen-ey, his wife; and all unknown owners, lien holders or claimants.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review by this Court of a Circuit Court’s Summary Judgment entered in Appellees’ favor dismissing Appellant’s condemnation petition on the ground the action could not be brought since Appellant had not acted in good faith when it failed to pay the awards given Appellees in earlier condemnation proceedings for the same property.

Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., provides in part:

> “Appeals from trial courts may be taken directly to the supreme court, as a matter of right, only . . . from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty, or construing a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution. . . .”

The Circuit Court in this case based its decision on equitable principles (good faith) rather than on a construction of either the federal of state constitutions, and it did not pass upon the validity of a state statute. Accordingly, this appeal was improvidently lodged here.

Proper jurisdiction of the cause is in the District Court of Appeal, Third District. That court, in an earlier appeal arising out of one of the numerous condemnation proceedings seeking to condemn the same lands sought to be condemned in this action, may have established a controlling precedent applicable here when it concluded the first condemnation proceeding was null and void for failure to comply with the requirements of F.S. Section 73.111, F.S.A., by paying the amount awarded as value by a jury. It then indicated a new condemnation proceeding could be commenced after an original one became null and void for failure to pay or tender the condemnation award, citing F.S. Section 73.111, F.S.A., once the proper eminent domain procedures were complied with. City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App. 970, 233 So.2d 842.

This appeal having been improvidently taken to this Court, all papers, including the notice of appeal, shall be transferred to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, within five days from the date of en*17try of this Order. Rule 2.1(a) (5) (d), F. A.R., 32 F.S.A.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ„ concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4270]


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


SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public 
Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, National Small Business 
Development Center Advisory Board located in the geographical area of 
Washington, DC, will hold a public meeting on Monday and Tuesday, March 
3-4, 1997, from 8:15 AM to 5 PM, at the U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 3rd St. SW, Washington, DC, 4th Floor Conference 
Room, to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of 
the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present.

    For further information, write or call Mary Ann Holl, SBA, 409 
3rd St. SW, 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20416, telephone 202/205-
7302.

    Dated: February 3, 1997.
Michael P. Novelli,
Director, Office of Advisory Councils.
[FR Doc. 97-4270 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Swift Transportation Co., Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
333-60970, 333-16865 and 333-20651 on Form S-3 and in the Registration
Statements No. 33-85940, 333-53566, 333-31067, 333-64910, 333-6670 and 333-81403
on Form S-8 of Swift Transportation Co., Inc. of our report dated March 21,
2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Swift
Transportation Co., Inc.

Our report  refers to the  Company's  adoption  of  statement  of  Statement  of
Financial  Accounting  Standards No. 133, ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATIVE  INSTRUMENTS
AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES, effective January 1, 2001.

The consolidated financial statements of Swift Transportation Co., Inc. as of
December 31, 2000 and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, have been
restated to reflect the pooling-of-interests transaction with MS Carriers, Inc.
as described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements. We did not
audit the 2000 and 1999 consolidated financial statements of MS Carriers, Inc.,
which statements reflect total assets constituting 39 percent as of December 31,
2000 and total revenues constituting 36 percent and 37 percent, in 2000 and
1999, respectively, of the related consolidated totals. Those statements were
audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our
opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for MS Carriers, Inc. as
of December 31, 2000 and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, is
based solely on the report of the other auditors.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 29, 2002
1

Order entered July 1, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00775
- CV
IN RE BRYAN MORENO , Relator
F rom the 429 th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 52512
- 2012



### O RDER Justice Fran cis , Justice Evans , and Justice Stoddart Before the Court is relator’s “Request for Immediate Suspension of Commitment Pending Preparation of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or, Alternatively, Setting Bond Pending Review of Habeas.” Relator has not fi led an original proceeding in this Court related to the underlying proceeding. W e are , therefore, without authority to act on relator’s request. See Taft v. Schraub , 557 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Civ. App.

— San Antonio 1977, no writ) (quoting Winfrey v. Chandl er , 159 Tex. 220, 318 S.W.2d 59 (1958) (“ A court which is authorized to issue extraordinary writs to enforce its jurisdiction may not exercise that power in aid of its potential jurisdiction. It is only after the jurisdiction has been invoked in the manner prescribed by law and has thus become active that the court may act to enforce or protect the same. ”). We D ENY the motion for lack of jurisdiction

.2 /s/ Molly Francis MOLLY FRANCIS PRESIDING JUSTICE
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): September 25, 2018














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))








---







Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).


Emerging growth company ☐





If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐











Item 8.01    Other Events





The Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Registrant has approved a share repurchase program where the Board has authorized management to repurchase Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. common shares having an aggregate purchase price of up to $50,000,000.  The share repurchase program, effective immediately, is described in Registrant's press release dated September 25, 2018, a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein by reference.








Item 9.01         Financial Statements and Exhibits





Exhibit No.Description99.1Press release issued by the Registrant dated September 25, 2018.





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:September 25, 2018By:/s/ Thomas E. LineThomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3032

_____________________________
J ERRELL J ORDAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. James Daniel , Judge

. August 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , M AKAR , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jerrell Jordan, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Albert WILLIAMS, III.

No. 54412.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: Albert Williams, III, applying for Writ of Review, Certiorari, Prohibition or Mandamus.

Writ denied. The ruling of the trial court denying bail in this instance is correct.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion that since aggravated rape is no longer punishable by death under the old law and since the legislature considered whether to impose death in such a case in the last session and rejected it — the crime is not capital and bail may be had. See dissent in State v. Rhymes, La., 284 So.2d 923.
Exhibit 99.1
                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                          ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Global Technologies Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 2, 2002, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Samuel E. Park, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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) 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.



                                          /s/  Samuel E. Park
                                          -------------------------
                                          Name: Samuel E. Park
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          Date: December 17, 2002












                                           1


<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Rojas, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 764]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered on or about June 29, 1999, 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 non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 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 thirty (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— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
----

----

EXHIBIT (32)(a)

| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                |   |                                                         |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: July 27, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Vinod M. Khilnani                                   |   |
|                |   | Vinod M. Khilnani                                            |   |
|                |   | Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                |   |                                                         |   |