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 (Date of earliest event reported):

                                 November 15, 2004

                       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.)

      375 North Front Street, Suite 300, 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 9.01   Results of Operations and Financial Condition
- -------   --------------------------------------------

          The following exhibit is included with this Report:

          Exhibit 99.1   Press release, dated November 15, 2004, announcing
                         earnings of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
                         for the three months ended September 30, 2004.


                                    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: November 15, 2004                     By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
259 La. 683

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Edward DAVIS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51588.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 17, 1971.

In re: Edward Davis applying for writ of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Application denied. The ruling of the trial judge on the writ application of October 14, 1970 is correct.
PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

__________________________________________

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Intuit, Inc., ) Docket No. 9408 

 a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CAMELOT 

COMMUNICATIONS LTD. TO SEEK IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF DOCUMENTS 

On February 6, 2023, Federal Trade Commission Complaint Counsel and non-party 

Camelot Communications Ltd. (“Camelot”) filed a joint motion to extend the time for Camelot 

to seek in camera treatment of documents (“Motion”). Complaint Counsel and Camelot seek a 

one-month extension, until March 10, 2023, citing the voluminous number of documents being 

collected and the additional time needed to identify which potential trial exhibits may require 

confidential treatment. 

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that the 

deadline for Camelot to file a motion for in camera treatment of proposed trial exhibits is 

extended to March 10, 2023, and the deadline for filing any response to Camelot’s motion for in 

camera treatment is extended to March 15, 2023. 

ORDERED:

D. Michael Chappell

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Date: February 7, 2023 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/7/2023 | Document No. 606864 | PAGE Page 1 of 1 * PUBLIC *;
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7871 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7871

To require political organizations to return any amounts received under 
        the paycheck protection program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2020

  Mr. Gibbs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require political organizations to return any amounts received under 
        the paycheck protection program, 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 ``Stop Pilfering Everyone's Paycheck 
Protection for Election Results Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS TO RETURN ANY AMOUNTS 
              RECEIVED UNDER THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM.

    Not later than December 31, 2020, a political organization (as 
defined in section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that 
received a covered loan under section 7(a)(36) of the Small Business 
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)), shall return any amounts received from such 
covered loan to the general fund of the Treasury.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION

I, Harry Bergman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The First Republic
Corporation of America;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


Date: June 23, 2004
                                    /s/ Harry Bergman
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Harry Bergman
                                    Chief Financial and Chief Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7283

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERVEUS HYPPOLITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-93-40, CA-97-74-4-H)

Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terveus Hyppolite, Appellant Pro Se. Captain Benjamin Clarke Hall,

OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Hyppolite, Nos. CR-93-40;

CA-97-74-4-H (E.D.N.C. July 25, 1997). To the extent Appellant

claims ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel

failed to adequately argue Appellant's Fourth Amendment issue and

failed to adequately impeach a Government witness, we find that

Appellant failed to establish that his attorney's performance fell

below an objective standard of reasonably competent assistance. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We find Appellant's claim that the district court failed to compel a response

from the Government meritless because Appellant failed to establish

how this prejudiced him. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0165

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

IOLA MAERRIEA JOHNSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 29, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 24 2021

08/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0165
<PAGE>

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     The undersigned hereby authorizes Nelson C. Rising, Stephen P. Wallace,
Kathleen Smalley, C. William Hosler, and Paul A. Lockie, or any of them, with
full power of substitution, to sign on his or her behalf, in the capacity stated
below, the 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "10-K") of Catellus Development
Corporation and to file the 10-K, together with exhibits thereto, and any
amendment to the 10-K and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

     Dated: March 15, 2000

                                   /s/ Joseph F. Alibrandi
                                   -----------------------
                                   Joseph F. Alibrandi
                                   Director


                                    *  *  *

                         SCHEDULE OF POWERS OF ATTORNEY

     There is omitted from this Form 10-K nine powers of attorney in a form
substantially identical to the preceding but executed by the following members
of the Board of Directors on the dates indicated:

                   Stephen F. Bollenbach      March 24, 2000
                   Daryl J. Carter            March 24, 2000
                   Richard D. Farman          March 26, 2000
                   Christine Garvey           March 27, 2000
                   William M. Kahane          March 27, 2000
                   Leslie D. Michelson        March 27, 2000
                   Jacqueline R. Slater       March 24, 2000
                   Thomas M. Steinberg        March 24, 2000
                   Beverly Benedict Thomas    March 24, 2000
#### Harris Joseph GUIDRY, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40273.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 7, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 238 So.2d 699.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4161 MARICKA WANTA CORPENING, a/k/a

Maricha Wanta Corpening, a/k/a

Mark,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-00-47-V)

Submitted: September 19, 2002

Decided: September 30, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Maricka Wanta Corpening pled guilty to conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and five

grams or more of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A)

(2000), and was sentenced to a term of 262 months imprisonment. In

his plea agreement, Corpening waived his right to appeal his sentence

on any grounds except ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Corpening now seeks to appeal his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to depart below the

guideline range based on substantial assistance, U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (2001), despite the government’s

failure to move for a substantial assistance departure. Finding that

Corpening knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence, we dismiss the appeal. 

It is well established that "a defendant may not appeal his sentence

if his plea agreement contains an express and unqualified waiver of

the right to appeal, unless that waiver was unknowing or involuntary."

United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402 (4th Cir. 2000). Corpening

does not allege that his waiver was unknowing or involuntary. To the

extent that he may intend to raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, we find nothing in the record that would support such a claim.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. 

DISMISSED

2 UNITED STATES v. CORPENING
<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 Quarterly Report of First Wilkow Venture (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc R. Wilkow,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 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.


Marc R. Wilkow

Marc R. Wilkow
Chief Executive Officer

DATED: May 13, 2004



                            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 First Wilkow Venture (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas Harrigan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 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.


Thomas Harrigan

Thomas Harrigan
Chief Financial Officer

DATED: May 13, 2004
EXHIBIT 21.1


Name of Subsidiary                                 Jurisdiction of Incorporation


Actar Airforce, Inc.                               Canada

Coast Medical, Inc.                                California

EchoCath, Inc.    New Jersey                       (10.8% owned)

Marquest Medical Products, Inc.                     Colorado

Mediziv Medical Products, Inc.                      Israel(85% owned)

The Validation Group, Inc.
         (formerly a division of
          Vital Pharma, Inc.)                       New Jersey

Thomas Medical Products, Inc.                       Pennsylvania

Vital Pharma, Inc.
         (formerly known as HealthStar
          Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.)            Florida

Vital Signs California, Inc.                        California

Vital Signs France S.A.R.L.                         France

Vital Signs GmbH                                    Germany

Vital Signs Limited                                 United Kingdom
Vital Signs MN, Inc.
         (formerly Biomedical
          Dynamics Corporation)                     Minnesota

Vital Signs (N) FDM BBO                             Malaysia

Vital Signs Sales Corporation                       Delaware
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>	5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FEDERATED PURCHASER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>	1


       
<S>				<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             	3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         	Oct-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>            	Nov-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>             	Jan-31-1997
<CASH>                        	     84,100
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                	    511,461
<ALLOWANCES>                  	     29,339
<INVENTORY>                  	    289,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             	    913,986
<PP&E>                       	    147,288
<DEPRECIATION>                	    121,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               	  1,205,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        	    508,389
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                            171,976
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                   	    486,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	  1,205,237
<SALES>                      	  1,678,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              	  1,678,386
<CGS>                        	  1,282,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                	  1,282,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    484,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   (89,421)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>               	   (90,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                            975
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (91,703)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                  	   (91,703)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.06)
Sh inberg, Samuel I.

From:

Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:42 PM

To: Walsh, Kathryn E,; Berg, Karen E.; Sheinberg, Samuel |.; Six, Anne; Whitehead, Nora
Subject: FW: 802.51 Question

From: Musick, Vesselina <vmusick@ftc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:41:35 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

You have to look at assets/sales of the acquired and acquiring person at closing. If you think there is a credible
chance that the exemption will not apply by closing, you should file to be safe or prepare to delay the closing

From:

Sent: Tuesday, May : -U5: astern lime nada)
To: HSRHelp <HSRHelp@ftc. gov>

Cc:

ubject: 802.51 Question

Dear PNO Staff,

| hope you are all keeping well. | have a question about 802.51 that | hope you can clarify for us. For purposes of
analyzing whether the exemption under 16 CFR 802.51(c) applies to a potential transaction, we understand that the
Acquiring and Acquired Persons should look at the U.S. assets and U.S. sales for the most recent fiscal year to determine
whether the requisite thresholds of 802.51(c)(2) and 802.51(c)(3) are met. (See Informal Interpretation 1312007).

However, do we look at the parties (1) at the time they execute the agreement for the proposed transaction; or (2) at
the time the proposed transaction actually closes?

Our question is whether the parties must take into account any U.S. assets, or U.S. sales derived from any additional
entities, that are acquired between signing and closing of the subject transaction for which the 802.51(c) exemption
analysis is being applied.


We would think that for the 802.51 exemption analysis, we would look at the parties going into the transaction. To look
at the parties at the time of closing would cause a deal of uncertainty, as other pending transactions for the Acquired
and Acquiring Persons may not necessarily close when they are expected to, rendering the 802.51 analysis unreliable at
any given time before the subject transaction can actually close.

Would you agree with our analysis?

|

sooo