alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         218,582
<SECURITIES>                                   252,415
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,593,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,904,449
<PP&E>                                       2,050,284
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,207,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,731,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,688,605
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,207,148
<SALES>                                        473,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               547,911
<CGS>                                          396,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  453,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 94,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,983
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

April 24, 2018 

Jeb Bladine 

Oregon Lithoprint, Inc.

611 NE 3rd St.

McMinnville, Oregon 97128 

 Re: In the Matter of Oregon Lithoprint, Inc.

FTC File No. 161-0230, Docket No. C-4645 

Dear Mr. Bladine,

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

the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has placed your comment on the public record 

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

understand the purpose of your comment is to add to the public record in the matter. We further 

appreciate your statement that the Decision and Order in the matter will have beneficial effects.

Taking into consideration your comments, we conclude that the public interest is best served 

by issuing the order in this matter in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order 

and other relevant materials are available from 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
HARDWARE

On­board Sensors :

Humidity, Temperature, Pressure, Incident Light

Processors :

720 MHz dual­core Linux CPU

Interfaces :

Wifi, Ethernet, Serial, USB, Digital, Analog, IIC

Weight :

5.3lbs

Wingspan :

4.9ft

Payload :

Capacity ­ 2.2lbs Swappable
ENHANCED GROUND

KIT

STANDARD GROUND KIT

Every PrecisionHawk platform is sold with all the items you need to fly it:

● +

● Hard­sided pelican case

● +

● One set of wings
● +

● Two propellers

● +

● Two batteries

● +

● One tail

● +

● The flight software to download on your own laptop

ENHANCED GROUND KIT

The Enhanced Ground Kit is for clients who prefer to have a deeper tool

set for the day to day operation of their platform.

● +

● Windows Surface Pro 3 with all software pre­loaded and fully

set up

● +

● 1 additional set of wings

● +

● 2 additional batteries
● +

● 3 additional propellers

● +

● 1 toolkit (extra small parts and tools designed for daily

operations)

● +

● 1 additional tail that includes radio
SERVICE PACKAGE

One package per UAV. Only available at the time of purchase.

● +

● Option to replace the UAV airframe framework once over the first

12 months.

● +

● Option to replace the broken frame with newer iterations in cases

where later generations of hardware are available.

● +

● Storage and completion of back­up systems in the event of a

repair, with return and replacement shipping covered via Ground

Level or Priority Mail

● +

● Designated PrecisionHawk account support
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment

In the Matter of Enhanced Vision Systems, Inc., File No. 0923010

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final

approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Enhanced Vision Systems, Inc., a

corporation (“respondent”). 

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for

reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will

become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the

agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the

agreement or make final the agreement’s proposed order.

This matter involves respondent’s marketing and sale of vision enhancement products

purportedly “Made in the U.S.A.” According to the FTC complaint, respondent represented that

certain of its vision enhancement products were made in the United States, when, in fact, a

significant portion of their components are of foreign origin. See Enforcement Policy Statement

on U.S. Origin Claims (1997) (“A product that is all or virtually all made in the United States

will ordinarily be one in which all significant parts and processing that go into the product are of

U.S. origin.”). Thus, the complaint alleges that respondent’s claim is false or misleading in

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

The proposed consent order contains a provision designed to prevent respondent from

engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits

respondent from representing the extent to which its vision-related products are made in the

United States unless the representation is true and not misleading. Parts II through V require

respondent to keep copies of advertisements and materials relied upon in disseminating any

representation covered by the order; to provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel,

agents, and representatives having responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of the order;

to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance

obligations under the order; and to file compliance reports with the Commission and respond to

other requests from FTC staff. Part VI provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20)

years under certain circumstances. 

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is

not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Peabody Energy Corporation, ) 

a public company. ) Docket No. 9391 

) 

and ) 

) 

Arch Coal, Inc., ) 

a public company, ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

_________________ ) 

ORDER DESIGNATING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Pursuant to authority vested in the Federal Trade Commission and delegated to 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

IT IS ORDERED that D. Michael ChappelL Chief Administrative Law Judge, be, 

and hereby is, designated and appointed to take testimony and receive evidence in this 

proceeding and to perform all other duties authorized by law. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: February 26, 2020 

PUBLIC
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): June 3, 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 May 31, 2014 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$8,572Sub-advised funds510Institutional Accounts4,657Total$13,739





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,490Small-Mid Cap904Large Cap7,118Select (All Cap)388Long-Short3,601Strategic Income238Total$13,739








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:June 3, 2014By:/s/ James F. LairdJames F. Laird, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 29, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00585-CV

IN RE HERMON GHEBREWOLDI, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2023-59093

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Tuesday, August 13, 2024, relator Hermon Ghebrewoldi filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Mike Englehart, presiding judge of the 151st District Court of Harris County, to 

vacate his July 15, 2024 order compelling relator’s second deposition.

Relator has not established that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Thus, we 

deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 26, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000034408
<NAME> FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                     122,031,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                521,498,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           698,846,592
<PP&E>                                     639,491,378
<DEPRECIATION>                             216,201,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,127,418,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      360,618,674
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,351,168
<OTHER-SE>                                 719,960,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,127,418,671
<SALES>                                  1,572,020,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,572,020,886
<CGS>                                    1,040,545,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,427,856,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            144,164,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                52,600,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         91,564,133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                91,564,133
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REVIEWREPORT

 

 

Board of Directors andShareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

We have reviewed theaccompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as ofJune 30, 2003, and the related consolidated condensed statements of income andcash flows for the three-month and nine-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and2002.  These financial statements arethe responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews inaccordance with standards established by the American Institute of CertifiedPublic Accountants.  A review of interimfinancial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures tofinancial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial andaccounting matters.  It is substantiallyless in scope than an audit in accordance with auditing standards generallyaccepted in the United States, which will be performed for the full year withthe objective of expressing an opinion regarding the financial statements takenas a whole.  Accordingly, we do notexpress such an opinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we arenot aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanyingconsolidated condensed financial statements referred to above for them to be inconformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

 

We have previously audited, inaccordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, theconsolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30, 2002 andthe related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equityand cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our reportdated November 22, 2002, we expressed an unqualified opinion on thoseconsolidated financial statements.  Inour opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidatedcondensed balance sheet at September 30, 2002, is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which ithas been derived.

 

 
|                   |   |   | ERNST &  YOUNG LLP |
|------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|                   |   |   |                   |
| San Diego,  California |   |   |                   |
| July 29,  2003         |   |   |                   |

 

----
#### Jaffe, Appellant, *v.*Cooperman.

*Judgment*— Opening *judgment*— Discretion *of court*— Review.

The Supreme Court will not review the discretion of the lower court in opening a judgment in ejectment against a minor entered in default of a plea or answer, where the guardian ad litem of the minor petitioned the court to open the judgment on the ground that the default had occurred through the absence of counsel on vacation, and the guardian alleged a just and true defense, and supported his petition and allegations by proof which was passed upon by the court and made the basis of its action.

Argued Jan. 17, 1911.

Appeal, No. 349, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C- P* No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., *2381909, No. .3,290, making absolute rule to open judgment in case of Peter Jaffe v. Nathan Cooperman et al. Before

April 10, 1911:

Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition to open judgment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Error assigned*was order making absolute rule to open judgment.

*Charles L. Smyth,*for appellant.

*Jacob Weinstein,*with him *M. B. Elwert,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

In this action of ejectment judgment was taken against Israel H. Óooperman, one of the defendants, in default of a plea or answer. He was a minor, for whom a guardian ad litem had been appointed. The judgment by default was taken on July 21, 1910, and; on the 28th of the same month, application was made to have it stricken off. This was denied on September 20, 1910, and three days later a petition was presented by the guardian ad litem, asking that the judgment be opened. The petition set forth that the plea and answer had not been filed within the required time because counsel for the petitioner was absent on his vacation when they ought to have been filed, and there was an averment of a just, true, full and legal defense to the action. To this an answer was filed, and, after depositions had been taken in support of the petition, the judgment was opened. No opinion was filed giving the reason which induced the court to exercise its discretion in relieving the defendant from the judgment taken against him by default, but it may be assumed that it regarded the averments in the petition as sufficiently sustained. We have not been persuaded that its discretion was abused in opening the judgment, and the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,600,824
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,811,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                       270,410
<INVENTORY>                                      4,229,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,125,948
<PP&E>                                          77,559,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,277,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,190,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,403,659
<BONDS>                                         26,280,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,175,261
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,927,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,190,541
<SALES>                                          6,769,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,719,225
<CGS>                                            5,742,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,621,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 800,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    524,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                       313,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                495,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       495,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .74
        


</TABLE>
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANG LIU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70539

Agency No. A075-607-691

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Yang Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d

FILED

JUN 10 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70539

889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen as

time- and number-barred because it was Liu’s second motion to reopen and it was

filed over three years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A)-(C) (motion to reopen normally limited to one and must be filed

within 90 days of final order of removal), and Liu did not show he was entitled to

equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to

reopen can be equitably tolled “when petitioner is prevented from filing because of

deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 20, 2007, order denying

Liu’s first motion to reopen because he did not timely petition for review of that

decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.