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)September 24, 2012(Date of earliest event reported)September 24, 2012





ONEOK PARTNERS, L.P.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-1220293-1120873(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)





100 West Fifth Street; Tulsa, OK


(Address of principal executive offices)





74103


(Zip code)





(918) 588-7000


(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)





Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





[] Written communication 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 7.01Regulation FD DisclosureOn September 24, 2012, we announced our 2013 earnings guidance.  A copy of the news release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.The information disclosed in this Item 7.01, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.Item 9.01Financial Statements and ExhibitsExhibits99.1   News release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated September 24, 2012.








2





---







SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.





ONEOK Partners, L.P.By:  ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C.,General PartnerDate:September 24, 2012By:/s/ Robert F. MartinovichRobert F. MartinovichExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer











3
#### James Louis ROBINSON v. STATE.

6 Div. 571.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 29, 1978.

PER CURIAM.

After remandment by the Supreme Court of Alabama, REVERSED AND REMANDED on authority of the opinion of the Supreme Court, 77-159, June 9, 1978, 361 So.2d 1113.

All the Judges concur.
# AC **C CPI High -**  **pressure Saf ety & Health T** **ra ining Through**  **April 2014**

**Te st**  **Scores thr** **ough April 2014**  **100% 90** **- 99%**  **70 -** **89%** Pe rcent achieving test scores: English 41% 53% 6% Pe rcent achieving test scores: Spanish 40% 35% 25%



### March 2014 **English March 2014** 

**Spanish April 2014** 

**English April 2014** 

**Spanish To** **tal Through** 

**April 2014** Job Description Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete In Progress Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Started, not finished Applicator 12 155 0 9 54 32 0 5 504 3277 1190 Helper 2 23 0 2 1 3 0 0 69 526 394 Other 7 30 0 1 21 10 0 0 356 2224 853 Supervisor 10 64 0 0 8 48 0 0 482 1697 783 Total **31 272**  **0 12**  **84 93**  **0 0**  **1407 7724**  **3220**



## To**tal Students Fully Complet** **ed Thr** **ough**

**April 2014 To** **tal Students Started**  **or Finished Thr** **ough April 2014**  **9131 12351**
162 3001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman

Maureen K. Ohlhausen

Terrell McSweeny

________________________________________________

In the Matter of

BEYOND COASTAL, a limited liability company. DOCKET NO.

_______________________________________________

COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Beyond Coastal, a limited 

liability company, has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it 

appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:

1. Respondent Beyond Coastal is a Utah limited liability company with its principal 

office or place of business at 2424 South 2570 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119.

2. Respondent has advertised, labeled, offered for sale, sold, and distributed products 

to consumers, including Natural Sunscreen SPF 30. This sunscreen product is a “drug” within 

the meaning of Sections 12 and 15 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

3. The acts and practices of Respondent alleged in this complaint have been in or 

affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act.

4. Respondent advertises Natural Sunscreen SPF 30 on the Internet. This product 

retails for $6.99.

5. Respondent has disseminated or has caused to be disseminated advertisements for 

Natural Sunscreen SPF 30, including but not necessarily limited to the attached Exhibit A. 

A. Beyond Coastal’s “Natural Sunscreen SPF 30” webpage states the product is a:

100% natural sunscreen

Exhibit A, Internet webpage www.beyondcoastal.com/category/naturalformulas/natural-sunscreen-spf-30 (September 2015).
2

Count I

False Claim

6. In connection with the advertising, labeling, promotion, offering for sale, or sale 

of Natural Sunscreen SPF 30, Respondent has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that the product is a “100% natural” sunscreen.

7. In fact, Sunscreen SPF 30 is not “100% natural” because it contains or contained 

the synthetic ingredients Dimethicone and Caprylyl Glycol. Therefore, the “100% natural” 

representation set forth in Paragraph 6 is false or misleading.

Violations of Sections 5(a) and 12

8. The acts and practices of Respondent as alleged in this complaint constitute unfair 

or deceptive acts or practices, and the making of false advertisements, in or affecting commerce 

in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this _______ day of _______, 2016, has 

issued this Complaint against Respondent.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

SEAL:
Exhibit 10.18 - 2014 Executive Compensation



		

			 

		




		
			 
		

		
			2014 Executive Compensation
		

		
			 
		

		
			On February 12, 2014, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. (the “Company”) approved annual compensation arrangements, for the year beginning January 1, 2014,  for the Company’s executive officers, including the following “Named Executive Officers” included in the Company’s definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2013 (the “Proxy Statement”):
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Name

					
					
						Title/Position

				
	
					
						Donald E. Brown, M.D.

					
					
						Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

					
						(Principal Executive Officer)

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Stephen R. Head

					
					
						Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration,

					
						Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Gary R. Blough

					
					
						Executive Vice President of Worldwide Sales

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Joseph A. Staples

					
					
						Chief Marketing Officer, Senior Vice President of Marketing

				



		
			 
		

		
			In January 2014, the Company reorganized its executive structure.  As a result, William J. Gildea, who was one of the Named Executive Officers in the Proxy Statement, is no longer an executive officer of the Company. 
		

		
			 
		

		
			The information regarding the base salaries and performance bonuses for the Company’s Named Executive Officers, including Mr. Gildea, appearing in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed February 19, 2014, is incorporated herein by reference.
		

		
			 
		

		
			2014 Board of Director Compensation
		

		
			 
		

		
			The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company did not modify the annual compensation arrangements from 2013, for the period beginning January 1, 2014, for the Company’s non-employee Board of Director members. The annual cash retainer received by each non-employee director is $32,000, and directors are not paid a per meeting fee for attending Board of Director meetings.  All information regarding committee attendance fees and stock options for the Company’s non-employee Board of Director members, appearing in Exhibit 10.26 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed by Interactive Intelligence, Inc., SEC File No. 000-27385, is incorporated herein by reference.
d'l6~11 

G"tltf 911 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION
 

) In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc. ) PUBLIC 

a corporation. ) 

) 

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT 

OF HAY D. SEIBERT 

Respondent's request to supplement the affdavit of 
 Harr D. Siebert is without merit. 

Nothing in its proposed supplemental affidavit supports any reason for reopening this hearing 

record as previously set forth in Complaint Counsel's Response to Respondent's Second Motion 

to Reopen the Hearing Record. The so called "additional" information contained therein 

represents nothing more than a restatement ofthe opinion ofMr. Siebert 

1 
_l
 

Such minor additional facts cannot be suffcient justification for renewed scrutiny by the Cour. 

Perhaps Respondent hopes that repeating its suppositions wil make them true. It does not. 

The speculative and duplicative natue of 
 Respondent's Supplemental Affidavit confirms 

its insignificance. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion should be denied. 

i Respondent had this information in its possession in sufficient time to include it in its 

reply. This fact alone is sufficient reason for denying Respondent's curent motion. 

2 

.L 
Dated: October 14, 2009 

Attachment 

Respectfully submitted, 

J. Ro ert Robertson 

Co plaint Counsel 

Bureau of Competition
 

Federal Trade Commission
 

600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (H-374)
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

Telephone: (202) 326-2008
 

Facsimile: (202) 326-2214
 

3
 
ATTACHMENT TO
 

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION
 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF HARRY D. SEIBERT
 

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 

DOCKET NO. 9327
 

( redacted) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 14,2009, I filed via hand and electronic mail delivery an 

original and two copies of 
 the foregoing public version of our Response to Respondent's Motion 

to File Supplemental Affdavit of Harr D: Seibert with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Offce of 
 the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-159 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on October 14,2009, I fied via hand and electronic mail delivery 

two copies of 
 the foregoing to public version of our Response to Respondent's Motion to File 

Supplemental Affidavit of 
 Harr D. Seibert with: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oalj~ftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on October 14, 2008, I fied via electronic and first class mail 

delivery a copy of 
 the foregoing to public version of our Response to Respondent's Motion to 

File Supplemental Affidavit of 
 Harr D. Seibert with: 

William L. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

williamrikard(cparkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh(cparkerpoe. com 

Linda D. Cunn' 

Federal Trade 1 n 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2638 

lcul1l1ingham(aftc.goV
#### In the Matter of Waki Milling, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chairman of the Division of Parole, Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 296]

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered November 30, 1999 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Inasmuch as petitioner reappeared before the Board of Parole following the September 1998 parole release hearing that gave rise to this appeal and his request for release was again denied, the instant appeal is moot and must be dismissed (see, *Matter of Keating v New York State Div. of Parole,*252 AD2d 635). Petitioner’s argument that he has raised an issue which this Court should review despite the mootness doctrine is unpersuasive (see, *Matter of Diaz v Travis,*273 AD2d 568, *lv denied*95 NY2d 764).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Helvetia Asset Recovery, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 9, 2015

No. 04-14-00569-CV

Burton KAHN,

Appellant

v.

HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY, INC.,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-18355

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion for leave to file a motion requesting oral argument. It is 

unnecessary for the appellant to file a motion for leave to file the motion in question. The 

motion requesting oral argument has been filed and will be reviewed by the court. Accordingly, 

we DENY AS MOOT appellant’s motion for leave.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Leon ACTION, individually and d/b/a Winter Garden Mobile Home Sales, Appellant, v. George DANIELS, Appellee.

No. 69-825.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; B. C. Muszynski, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Aloria L. MORGAN, sometimes known as Laura Morgan, Appellee.

No. 70-98.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 17, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellee was charged with the crime of carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to Ch. 69-306, § 2, § 790.01(2), Fla.Laws 1969, which provides:

> “(2) Whoever shall carry a concealed firearm, as defined herein, on or about his person, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than five (5) years or by *302fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

The circuit court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss and transferred the cause to the Civil and Criminal Court of Record of Pinellas County for the reason that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. We do not agree and reverse.

The appellee was charged with carrying a concealed firearm, which now constitutes a felony, *compare*Fla.Stat.1967 § 790.01, F.S.A. (amended as of October 1, 1969), and the circuit court therefore has jurisdiction. Had the appellee been charged with carrying a concealed weapon under Ch. 69-306, § 2, § 790.01(1), Fla.Laws 1969, then the civil and criminal court would have had jurisdiction.

Reversed and remanded.

PIERCE, and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### Charles WISHART, Appellant, v. Ann WISHART, Appellee.

No. 72-963.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Victor F. Sellier, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argon ST, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:February 10, 2006   /s/ Victor F. Sellier Victor F. Sellier  Chief Financial Officer  
25
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

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   accompanying   Annual  Report  on  Command  Security
Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Barry I. Regenstein,  Executive Vice President and 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 the
best of 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: June 29, 2005

By:  /s/ Barry I. Regenstein
     -----------------------
     Barry I. Regenstein
     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
     (Principal Financial Officer)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANJELA SEDRAK HAKOBYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72663

Agency No. A075-656-811

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Anjela Sedrak Hakobyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings

FILED

FEB 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JT/Research 2 07-72663

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Hakobyan’s motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 6 years after the

issuance of the September 10, 1999, in absentia order, see

8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen

failed to establish Hakobyan acted with the due diligence required to warrant

tolling of the 180-day filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897

(9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available to petitioner who is prevented from

filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering

such circumstances).

Hakobyan’s remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.