alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EN AL TRADE COMa
<© RECEIVED DOCUMENTS”
& %

ORIGINAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE FECERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of
ECM BioFilms, Inc., Docket No. 9358
a corporation, also d/b/a

Enviroplastics International PUBLIC DOCUMENT

Le ee

JOINT NOTICE REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

Complaint Counsel and Respondent ECM Biofilms, Inc. jointly notify the Court that, to
teduce expenses and better accommodate the schedules of various persons involved, they have
agreed to take expert depositions out-of-time (but no later than July 16). At this time, the parties
believe they can meet other associated deadlines, which renders it premature to seek an amended
scheduling order, Subject to the Court’s instructions, however, the parties will seek relief should

it become evident that such reliefis necessary.

Dated: May ¥3, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

IS

Johnson (kjobnson3 @fic. gov)
(an Cohen (joohen2@fice.gov)

4 Tilson (ejillson@fte.zov)

Federal Trade Commission.

690 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B
Washington, DC 20580

Phone: 202-326-2185; -2551; -3001
Fax: 202-326-2551

or be ne ‘e (\-
iiaen' Emord aah com)

Peter A. Athangelsky
fpathangelskyteemerd.com)



PUBLIC DOCUMENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Thereby certify that on May 14, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document to be served as follows: [IS

One electronic courtesy copy to the Office of the Secretary:

Donald S. Clark, Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room H-159
Washington, DC 20580

Email: secretary@ftc.gov

One electronic and one paper courtesy copy to the Office of the Administrative Law Judge:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
Adufinistrative Law Judge

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room H-110
Washington, DC 20580

One electronic copy to Counsel for the Respondent:

Jonathan W. Emord Peter Athangelsky

Emord & Associates, P.C. Emord & Associates, P.C.

11808 Wolf Run Lane 3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4
Clifton, VA 20124 Chandler, AZ 85286

Email: jemord@emord.com Email: parhangelsky@emord.com
Lou Caputo

Emord & Associates, P.C.
3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4
Chandler, AZ 85286

Email: Icaputo@emord.com

Date: May , 2014

on (kjohnson3 @ftc. gov)
IS Coben (jeohen2@ftc. gov)

Elisa Jillson (ejillson@ftc. gov)

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B

Washington, DC 20580

Phone: 202-326-2185; -2551; -3001

Fax: 202-326-2551



PUBLIC DOCUMENT

Lou F. Caputo (Icaputo@emord.com)
Emord & Associates, P.C,

11808 Wolf Run Lane, Clifton, VA 20124
Phone: (202) 388-8899

Fax: (202) 466-6938
**Exhibit10.1(bm)**

 

**AMENDMENTNUMBER EIGHT**

**TO THE**

**SAUER-DANFOSSLASALLE FACTORY EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1998)**

**WHEREAS**, Sauer-Danfoss (US) Company(the “Company”) sponsors the Sauer-Danfoss LaSalle Factory Savings Plan (the“Plan”); and

**WHEREAS**, the Company and theInternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural ImplementWorkers of America, and its Local Union No. 285 (the “Union”) have agreed toamend the Plan to increase the maximum Participant Contribution rate under thePlan to 100% of the Participant’s Compensation.

**NOW, THEREFORE**, pursuant to Section 14.1of the Plan, the Company and Union hereby amend the Plan, effective as ofJanuary 1, 2004, by deleting paragraph (b) of Section 5.2 of the Plan in itsentirety, and substituting the following new paragraph (b) as a part thereof:

“(b)                           Maximum Reduction.  Themaximum reduction for any Participant for any payroll period shall be onehundred percent (100%) of such Participant’s Compensation for such payrollperiod; notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any ParticipantContribution elected by a Participant under this Section 5.2, if a Participanthas elected to defer a percentage of his or her Compensation such thatcontribution of the gross amount of the Compensation would leave insufficientfunds to satisfy all required deductions against such Compensation (including,but not limited to, any pre-tax elective contributions or benefit contributionsmade by such Participant, wage assignments, wage garnishments, child supportpayments, levies, remittance of all applicable taxes to governmentalauthorities (collectively the “Deductions”)), then the applicable ParticipantContribution amount shall be made net of the smallest amount of Deductionsneeded to satisfy all such payments which cannot be covered from the portion ofCompensation not deferred.”

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Companyhas authorized the execution on its behalf of this Amendment Number Eight this31st day of December, 2004.

 
| **Sauer-Danfoss (U.S.) Company** |
|----------------------------------|
|                             |
| /s/ SUZANNE R. SOBKOWIAK         |
|                             |
| /s/  JAMES T. REMUS              |

 

1

----

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Companyhas authorized the execution on its behalf of this Amendment Number Eight this31st day of December, 2004.

 
| **UAW, Local Union No. 285** |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ WILLIAM C. FALASSI       |
|                         |
| /s/  EDWARD F. WROBLESKI     |

 

2

----
#### Ex parte James Allen O’BERRY.

77-710.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 15, 1978.

TORBERT, Chief Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 70-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1970.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for appellant.

Sibley, Giblm, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The City of Miami Beach appeals from a final judgment of the circuit court holding that the city had no authority to change a provision of the South Florida Building Code, the building code for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Dade County, Florida. See § 8-1, Code of Metropolitan Dade County.

The trial court correctly held that under Article 1, § 1.01A(13) of the Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Charter, the Board of County Commissioners has the exclusive authority to adopt, enforce, amend, or modify building and related technical codes governing construction in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Dade County, Florida. See: Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 468; City of Miami Beach v. Cowart, Fla.1960, 116 So.2d 432; City of Coral Gables v. Burgin, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 859; City of Coral Gables v. Dade County, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 530.

Acting upon a motion of the appellee to require appellant to post a bond as a requisite for supersedeas on this appeal (see Rule 5.12, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S. A., and § 59.14, Fla.Stat, F.S.A.), this court has advanced this appeal for disposition. In further consideration of that motion and the record in this cause, the time for filing *273petition for rehearing on this decision is shortened to five days from the filing of this opinion.

Affirmed.
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): April 1, 2014














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 March 31, 2014 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$8,108Sub-advised funds490Institutional Accounts4,388Total$12,986





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,451Small-Mid Cap844Large Cap6,664Select (All Cap)382Long-Short3,407Strategic Income238Total$12,986








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:April 1, 2014By:/s/ James F. LairdJames F. Laird, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will conduct an open meeting and will solicit public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 17, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Tuesday, July 17, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Gilbert Martinez. For more information please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office, 3651 S IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The committee will be discussing various issues related to the Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.

Dated: June 1, 2018.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-12208 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SECOND
QUARTER 10-Q OF FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION OF THE MIDWEST AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          12,325
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              99
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,004
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          80,826
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            80,760
<LOANS>                                        239,528
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,633
<DEPOSITS>                                     277,546
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             43,029
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,250
<COMMON>                                           170
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,520
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 351,633
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,411
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,215
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   733
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,359
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,217
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,548
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,811
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      730
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 172
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,648
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,771
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,771
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      8.4
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.24
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,832
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,975
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### AGENCY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION et al. v. GREEN ACRES REALTY, INC., et al.

No. 54323.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: Anthony N. Collette applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 286 So.2d 465.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal and under the assignment of errors of *this relator*the result in this case is correct.
#### Agnes LAIRD, Appellant, v. Charlotte VOGEL, Appellee.

No. 73-680.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 2, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
ORIGINAL
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

) In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

Polyp ore International, Inc. )
 Public Version

a corporation. )
 

) 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES' 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Complaint Counsel takes no position on Exide's Motion, except to say that 

Polypore's accusation that Exide's motion is par of some Complaint Counsel strategy is 

nonsense. We do not want to divert anyone's attention from bringing this case to a 

conclusion. 

October 23,2009 Respectfully submitted, 

.~ .~ /3RR.


J. Robert Robertson 

Complaint Counsel 

Bureau of Competition 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2008 

Facsimile: (202) 326-2884 

~ ~ ~ "\ 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on October 23,2009, I filed via hand and electronic mail 

delivery an original and two copies of 
 the foregoing Complaint Counsel's Response to 

Exide Technologies' Motion to Modify the Protective Order with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Office of the Secretar 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-159 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on October 23,2009, I filed via hand and electronic mail 

delivery two copies of 
 the foregoing Complaint Counsel's Response to Exide 

Technologies' Motion to Modify the Protective Order 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 23,2009, I filed via electronic and first class mail 

delivery a copy ofthe foregoing Complaint Counsel's Response to Exide Technologies' 

Motion to Modify the Protective Order with: 

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

wiliamrikard~parkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh~parkerpoe.com 

By: ~ .

Stephen torno 

Federal Trade Commission 

~~

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2536 

santonio~ftc.gov 

~ ~- ~
adaiah_ex107.htm


EXHIBIT 10.7


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 






 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  








 






 




  





5











  






 





 




  





6











  






 






 




  





7











  






 





 




  





8











  




 






 




  





9











  






 






 




  





10











  






 




 


11
Slip Op. 02-85 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________ : FAG ITALIA, S.p.A., FAG BEARINGS CORP., : SKF USA INC. and SKF INDUSTRIE S.p.A., : : Plaintiffs and : Defendant-Intervenors, : : v. : Consol. Court No. : 97-11-01984 UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, : : Defendant-Intervenor : and Plaintiff. : ________________________________________: ORDER This matter comes before the Court pursuan t to t he decision (May24, 2002) of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in FAG Italia, S.p.A. v. UnitedStates , 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), vacating in part the judg ment of this Court in FAG Italia, S.p.A. v. United States , Slip Op. 00-82, 2000 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 83 (CIT 1999). Specifically, in accordance with the precedent set by the CAFC in SKF USA Inc. v. United States , 263 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the CAFC held that this case shall b e re manded to Commerce for explanation “why [Commerce] uses a different definition of ‘foreign like product’ for price-based calculations for normal value thanConsol. Court No. 97-11-01984 Page 2

[Commerce] does for calculations of constructed valu e.” FAG Italia, S.p.A. , 291 F.3d at 808. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that this case is remanded to Commerce to provide the necessary explanations; and it is further

ORDERED that the remand re sul ts are due within ninety (90) days of the date that this order is entered. Any responses or comments are due within thirty (30) days thereafter. Any rebuttal comments are due within fifteen (15) days after the date the responses or comments are due.

______________________________ NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE Dated: August 7, 2002

New York, New York
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6471** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. OTIS RICH, a/k/a O , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00411

- WDQ

- 5 )

Submitted : July 26 , 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, D AVIS , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Otis Rich, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael Clayton Hanlon, George Jarrod Hazel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mushtaq Zakir Gunja, Antonio J. Reynolds, Jason M. Weinstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Bal timore, Maryland, for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Otis Rich seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appeala ble unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) ( 200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion sta tes a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rich has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rich’s motion for a certificate of appea lability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. 10433.

#### The Village of Willoughby *v.*Pelton.

Decided April 7, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lake county.

*Mr. C. D. Clark*and *Messrs. Alvord &*Reynolds, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Shepherd &*Shepherd, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shaucic, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
• ,,' .', •~ .. " ;:; "!'" •• 

UNITED STATES.oF'AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE,COMMIS,~lPNt'~ 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

- • ~ ~ • • j •• 

) 

In the Matter of . ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 

a limited partnership, ) 

Respondents. ) 

) 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION OF 

DANA KEPNER COMPANY, INC. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On March 13,2012, Dana Kepner Company, Inc. ("Dana Kepner") filed an unopposed 

motion to extend the time for Dana Kepner to move to limit or quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum 

("Subpoena") served on it on February 29,2012 by Respondent McWane, Inc. ("McWane"). 

Dana Kepner is requesting an order extending its deadline to file a Motion to Limit or Quash 

McWane's Subpoena to March 20,2012. 

In support ofits motion, Dana Kepner states that it is in the process of conferring with 

McWane about the Subpoena, and that McWane does not oppose the extension oftime for Dana 

Kepner to file a Motion to Limit or Quash the Subpoena through March 20,2012, while the 

parties negotiate in good faith the scope ofthe Subpoena. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It 

is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for Dana Kepner to file any motion to limit or quash the 

Subpoena shall be March 20,2012. 

ORDERED: 

Date: March 14,2012