alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASH INGTON , D.C. 20590

The Honorable Bill Foster U.S. House ofRepresentatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Foster: May 7, 2014

Thank you for yourletter regarding the application ofNorwegian Air International Limited (NAI) for authority to conduct U.S. services. Given that a number ofinterested parties have filed responsive pleadings to NAI's application and this matter is currently pending before the Department, I am sure you understand that I cannot comment on the merits ofNAI's application. I assure you, however, that we will give full and careful consideration to all ofthe pleadings filed on the record before we reach a determination in this matter. As is our standard practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and my response in Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204, as a contact outside the record ofthis case. You may track the progress ofthis case and view the publicly available documents filed in the docket by accessing the Federal DocketManagement System at www.regulations.gov and searching for Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204. I hope this information is helpful.

# ~o.re Anthony R. Foxx1224 LONGWO R TH H O U SE OFF ICE BUI LDI N G WASHINGTON, DC 20515 202-225-35 15 271 1 EAST N EW YORK STREET, SUITE 204 AURO RA. IL 60502 630- 5 8 5 -7672 195 S PR INGFIE LD AVENU E, SUITE 102 JOLIET, IL 60435 8 15-2 80-5876 

### BILL FOSTER CON G RESS OF THE UNITED STATES 1 1 T H DISTRICT, ILLINOIS



### The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Foxx: February 12, 2014 COMMITIEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES SU BCO MMITT EE ON C AP ITAL M AR KETS AND G OVERNMENT -SPON S O RED ENTER PRI S ES SU B COM MITT EE ON M O NETARY POLI CY A ND T RADE



### I write today to express my reservations regarding Norwegian Air International Limited's (NAI) application for a foreign air carrier permit (Docket No. OST-2013-0204). In 2011, the U.S.-E.U. Air Transportation Agreement was amended to include Norway. Its inclusion gave NAI's parent company the same access to the U.S. market as any E.U. country. However, rather than applying as a carrier from its home country, NAI is seeking to fly under the Irish flag in its application for a foreign air carrier permit. I am concerned that this maneuver is an attempt to evade Norwegian labor laws and use permissive Irish regulations to hire low-cost foreign workers in direct competition with U.S. airlines. Ifthis permit is approved, we may see this type ofregulatory arbitrage become standard for European air carriers, further undermining wages and benefits in the industry. It would be inadvisable to approve a foreign air carrier permit for a company that is so clearly attempting to undercut the labor costs ofU.S. carriers. I strongly encourage you to review NAI's application with healthy scrutiny and consider the impacts that this arrangement would have on jobs in the U.S. air carrier industry.



# s 10-140212-014 Sincerely,

BILL FOSTER Member ofCongress

FOSTER , HOUSE.GOV PRI N TE D O N REC YC LED PAPER
#### James J. SIMON, d/b/a J & J Services, Appellant, v. Robert R. POPE et al., Appellees.

No. 72-141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1973.

Ronald H. Roby, Orlando, for appellant.

William M. Rowland, Jr., Rowland & Petruska, Orlando, for appellees.

*55PER CURIAM.

Upon a consideration of the record before us in light of the decisions in Tillman v. Baskin, Fla.1972, 260 So.2d 509, and Hayden, Stone Incorporated v. Van Echteld, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 677, we are of the opinion that the lower court erred in granting defendants’ motion for a directed verdict and entering final judgment thereon. Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for a new trial, with the further direction that plaintiff be permitted to utilize the books and records of the defendant, Potterfield, Inc., insofar as they pertain to the subject matter of the action.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 6, 2013

h0130

Order 

February 6, 2013

145188

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant,

v SC: 145188

COA: 299307

Ottawa CC: 09-001140-NF

CHARLES RIMBEY and TERRY PARK,

co-guardians of RANA REYES, a legally

incapacitated individual,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS and

SPECTRUM HEALTH CONTINUING CARE,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/Appellees.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals. The trial court clearly erred in awarding the defendants attorney fees pursuant 

to MCL 500.3148(1), because the plaintiff’s initial refusal to pay benefits under the nofault act was based on a legitimate question of factual uncertainty as to whether Rana 

Reyes suffered “accidental bodily injury” pursuant to MCL 500.3105(1) and (4). Ross v 

Auto Club Group, 481 Mich 1, 11 (2008). In all other respects, leave to appeal is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be 

reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8504-8505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4532]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendation

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new, and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before April 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 
Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, S. W., Suite 5000, 
Washington, D.C. 20416. Phone Number: 202-205-6629.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: ``Request From Borrower''.
    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.
    Form No.: SBA Form 770.
    Description of Respondents: Recipients of SBA Loans.
    Annual Responses: 161,000.
    Annual Burden: 281,750.
    Comments: Send all comments regarding this information collection 
to Annie McCluney, Program Analyst, Office of Borrower and Lender 
Servicing, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, S. W., Suite 
8300 Washington, D.C. 20416. Phone No.: 202-205-7545. Send comments 
regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the 
proper performance of the function of the agency, accuracy of burden 
estimate, in addition to ways to minimize this estimate, and ways to 
enhance the quality.
    Title: ``Survey on the Effects of Bank Mergers and Acquisitions on 
Small Business Lending in the United States'.
    Type of Request: Extension of Currently Approved Collections.
    Form No.: SBA Form 1981.
    Description of Respondents: Banks Involved in Mergers or 
Acquisitions.
    Annual Responses: 235.
    Annual Burden: 117.
    Comments: Send all comments regarding this information collection 
to Charles Ou, Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, S.W., Suite 7800 Washington, D.C. 20416. Phone No. 202-205-
6966.
    Send comments regarding whether this information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, 
accuracy of burden estimate, in addition to ways to minimize this 
estimate, and ways to enhance the quality.

[[Page 8505]]

    Send comments regarding whether this information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, 
accuracy of burden estimate, in addition to ways to minimize this 
estimate, and ways to enhance the quality.
Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 97-4532 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Edward Bernard WILLIAMS, Angus Barnes, Edward Grice and Gwendolyn Denise Davis, Appellees.

Nos. 77-2112, 77-2113, 77-2114, 77-2115, 77-2116, 77-2117, 77-2118, 77-2119, 77-2120 and 77-2121.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 22, 1978.

*700Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Karal B. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellees.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

On November 2, 1977, and November 3, 1977, the trial court entered orders discharging the appellees under the speedy trial rule, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. On November 4, 1977, the state filed petitions to reconsider these orders. The court denied these petitions on December 9, 1977. The state filed its notices of appeal on December 21, 1977, and December 22, 1977.

Fla.R.App.P. 3.2(b) requires that appeals be commenced within thirty days of the rendition of the order appealed from.1 The state concedes that if the rendition dates were November 2 and 3, 1977, its appeals were untimely, but it argues that the filing of the petitions for reconsideration postponed rendition of the orders until the court disposed of the petitions. We cannot agree. A petition for reconsideration will postpone the date of rendition only when it is authorized by the applicable rules. Fla.R.App.P. 1.3; *State ex rel. Shevin v. Mann,*290 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). We have reviewed the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and we cannot find a rule which authorizes a petition for reconsideration of an order granting a motion for discharge. While it might be desirable to provide a vehicle for the rehearing of an order of discharge, this is a matter which must be addressed to those charged with the drafting and promulgation of the rules.

The appeals are hereby dismissed.

GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

1

. Rule 9.140(c)(1) of the new Appellate Rules which became effective on March 1, 1978, now requires appeals by the state to be commenced within fifteen days.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7466 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7466

  To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation 
 Monument from Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2020

Ms. Norton (for herself and Ms. Gabbard) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation 
 Monument from Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emancipation Statue Removal Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF EMANCIPATION MONUMENT.

    (a) Removal.--The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the 
Emancipation Monument is removed from Lincoln Park in the District of 
Columbia.
    (b) Donation.--The Secretary shall donate the Emancipation Monument 
to a museum or other similar entity. The recipient of the Emancipation 
Monument may not store, display, or exhibit the monument outside. If 
the monument is stored, displayed, or exhibited outside, ownership of 
the monument will revert back to the Federal Government.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Wayne BLAIR, Appellee.

No. 73-578.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 4, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Gregory Vann JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Vaughn J. Rudnick, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84393, 333-66993, 333-92525, 333-39065 and 333-3656)
pertaining  to the  BYE/OASIS  Engineering,  Inc.  1997 Stock Option Plan,  1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Stock Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and 1995  Director  Option Plan of Adept  Technology,  Inc. of our report  dated
August 2,  2000,  with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of Adept Technology, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended June 30, 2000.

                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP



San Jose, California
September 27, 2000
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1325 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-NM-250-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry E. Lentych, Chief Financial Officer 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 sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/LARRY E. LENTYCH


Larry E. Lentych


Chief Financial Officer


April 22, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Office of the Secretary 

November 10, 2014 

John Long 

State of Missouri 

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

 File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent agreement in 

the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment and placed it on the 

public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 

4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you state that now that you know that companies are making deceptive “made 

in the USA” claims, it will be harder for you to depend on such claims. Accordingly, you request that 

the Commission require marketers to substantiate their U.S.-origin and other claims. You do not 

propose any revisions to the draft complaint or the consent agreement. 

Section 5 of the FTC Act requires companies to possess substantiation for their marketing 

claims, and the Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims provides specific 

guidance to marketers on how to substantiate those claims.1

 In particular, the Policy Statement provides 

that when a marketer makes an unqualified “Made in USA” claim, the marketer should – at the time the 

representation is made – possess and rely upon a reasonable basis establishing that the product is “all or 

virtually all” made in the United States. In this case, Section II of the consent agreement specifically 

requires Made in the USA Brand, LLC either to possess competent and reliable evidence substantiating 

its representations that products are made in the USA, or to disclose that it relies on self-certification to 

substantiate its clients’ claims. 

Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set 

forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaint. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by 

issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the 

Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you again for your 

comment. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

 

1 See 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and Federal Trade Commission, Issuance of Enforcement Policy Statement on 

“Made in USA” and Other U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63766 (December 2, 1997), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/1997/december/ 971202madeinusa.pdf.
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):

                                 February 16, 2007

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      325 John H. McConnell Blvd, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio              43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)



<PAGE>

Item 2.02   Results of Operations and Financial Condition
---------   ---------------------------------------------

Registrant has reported its results of operations for the Fiscal Year ended
December 31, 2006, as described in Registrant's press release dated February
16, 2007, a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated
herein by reference.

Exhibit No.   Document
-----------   --------

99.1          Press release issued by the Registrant dated February 16, 2007.



                                    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.

                                        DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.


Date: February 16, 2007                        By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 O'Charley's Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Gregory L. Burns, Chief
Executive Officer 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:

         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.

/s/ Gregory L. Burns
----------------------------------------
Gregory L. Burns
Chief Executive Officer
March 11, 2004