alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.60
 FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES, INC.
2005 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS  (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2008)
  DEFINITIONS




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



ELECTION TO DEFER
 Eligibility and Participation
 4




---



##### 



Deferral Elections
   Amount Deferred
 Accounts; Earnings
   5




---



##### 



Initial Payment Elections
      provided however
  (1)
    
    The value, at the time of the
first installment payment, of the portion of the Participants
Account payable in
 6




---



##### 



installments shall be divided by the number of installment payments
that will be made during the installment period;(2)
    
    The amount determined under (1)
shall be paid to the Participant on each payment date through
the end of the Year in which the installment payments begin;(3)
    
    After the end of the Year
described in (2), the value at the end of such Year of the
portion of the Account payable in installments shall be divided
by the number of installment payments then remaining in the
installment period;(4)
    
    The amount determined under (3)
shall be paid to the Participant on each payment date during the
following Year;(5)
    
    The procedures described in (3)
and (4) shall be followed for any following Year in which
installment payments will be made;(6)
    
    The portion of the Account
subject to such installment payments that remains unpaid from
time to time shall continue to be credited with gains, losses,
interest and other earnings as provided in Section 4(i) of this
Article; and(7)
    
    The final installment payment
shall include an adjustment for gains, losses, interest and
other earnings pursuant to Section 4(i) of this Article during
the period between the beginning of the Year in which the final
installment payment is made and the date of such final payment.
   7




---



##### 



Subsequent Payment Elections
    Death of a Participant
 8




---



##### 



Small Payments provided however
 Unforeseeable Emergency
 ADMINISTRATION
  9




---



##### 



AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
 provided however
 MISCELLANEOUS
 Non-Alienation of Deferred Compensation
 Interest of Participant provided however
 Exhibit A
  10




---



##### 



Claims of Other Persons
 Severability
 Governing Law
 Headings; Interpretation
     FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES, INC.By:
    /S/ ANDREW J. PASSENName:
    Andrew J. PassenTitle:
    Executive Vice President,
Human Resources 11
#### Benjamin R. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. Virginia CAMPBELL, Appellee.

No. 69-245.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Testimony for the EPA Hearing on the Proposed 2014 to 2016 RFS Rulemaking

Doug Dollison, DuPont Pioneer, Industry Relations

Kansas City, KS

June 25, 2015

Good afternoon. My name is Doug Dollison. I am Sr. Industry Relations Manager with DuPont 

Pioneer. DuPont Pioneer is a leading supplier of high-quality seeds and services to farmers 

around the world. A demonstrated partner to America’s farmers, DuPont Pioneer is committed 

to increasing yields and grower value – delivering solutions to help meet the needs of a growing 

world.

When Congress passed the RFS2 in 2007, it provided stability to a new, developing biofuels 

industry. Farmers and corn ethanol producers responded by building additional corn ethanol 

capacity to meet the RFS biofuel volume requirement. The RFS delivered increased rural

development. The RFS has reduced CO2 emissions, and improved air quality in America’s 

cities. And it’s easy to forget during this time of inexpensive oil, but America’s corn ethanol 

industry accepted risk as a new industry and now serves as a strong foundation from which new 

and innovative complimentary biofuels systems can grow.

Almost 90 years ago, Pioneer started with a bold idea – hybrid seed technology. By investing in 

seed each year, growers got more yield at the end of the season. Over the last decade or two, 

DuPont Pioneer has offered specialized seed products designed for greater ethanol production 

per acre. In fact, DuPont has doubled-down on the benefits of biofuels with our strong 

commitment to serving corn farmers as well as our innovations in next-generation biofuels that 

complement the base corn ethanol has built. 

We believe the bold idea of the RFS was to promote long-term investments that strengthen 

America. We believe the RFS is clear that the general waiver can only be invoked when total 

renewable fuel production is below statutory levels. It is important that the forward momentum 

continue and not be stalled. Therefore, the best course of action is for the EPA to abandon this 

proposed rule, and issue a new proposal based on the ethanol and biofuel volumes that 

Congress provided and the amount of fuel that can be produced. In conclusion, with a stable 

and predictable RFS in place, we look forward to expanding ethanol’s benefits and also 

deploying the next phase of biofuels technologies.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our concerns with the proposed RFS rule. Along with 

this testimony, DuPont will provide additional analysis and recommendations as part of the 

comment process.
#### In re PARISH OF JEFFERSON v. Hugh B. EXNICIOS.

No. 60763.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Hugh B. Exnicios applying for remedial writs of certiorari.

Writ denied. Ruling of trial judge is correct. No *valid*ground for recusal has been alleged. La.Code Civ.P. Art. 154.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Republic
Corporation of America (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jonathan P.
Rosen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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


By: /s/ Jonathan P. Rosen
   ---------------------------
Name: Jonathan P. Rosen
Chief Executive Officer
June 23, 2004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

March 2, 2011

Ms. Laura Borst

State of Texas

Re: In the Matter of Twitter, Inc., File No. 092 3093, Docket No. C-4316

Dear Ms. Borst:

Thank you for your comment on the Federal Trade Commission’s consent agreement in

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

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

and has given it serious consideration. 

Your comment expresses concern with Twitter’s privacy and data security practices,

particularly with respect to its administrative controls, and states that Twitter should be required

to better ensure the privacy and security of its users’ nonpublic information in the future. Your

comment also suggests that Twitter should protect the privacy and security of users’ data

consistent with the privacy settings it offers to its users. 

In response, the Commission notes that the consent order requires that Twitter implement

a comprehensive information security program that is reasonably designed to protect its users’

nonpublic information. Twitter must also obtain initial and biennial assessments of the

effectiveness of this program from a qualified, independent, third-party professional. Should

Twitter’s information security program fail to reasonably protect consumers’ information, the

company could be in violation of the order and subject to monetary penalties of up to $16,000

per violation, pursuant to Section 5(l) of the FTC Act. Further, the order prohibits Twitter from

misrepresenting the extent to which it maintains the privacy and security of its users’

information, thus requiring that Twitter take reasonable steps to honor the choices expressed by

users through their privacy settings. 

In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest

would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. 

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 it thanks you again for your comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
#### G & M SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. JOY-SEE FASHIONS, INC., a New York Corporation, registered to do business in Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2301.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 29, 1977.

Carlos Lidsky, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Anthony S. Paetro, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

*1148PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court for the purpose of a new trial, in accordance with the stipulation heretofore filed in this cause.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
EXHIBIT 11


                 FIRST COMMERCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                       1998            1997
                                                  --------------  -------------
Basic earnings per share
------------------------
Income applicable to common shareholders           $30,760,000    $29,020,000

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding(a)                                    39,312,775     38,781,538

Basic earnings per share                                  $.78           $.75


Diluted earnings per share
---------------------------
Income applicable to common shareholders           $30,760,000    $29,020,000
Interest expense on convertible
       debentures, net of tax                        1,640,000      1,667,000
                                                  --------------  -------------
          Diluted income                           $32,400,000    $30,687,000
                                                  =============   =============
Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding(a)                                    39,312,775     38,781,538
Restricted shares expected to be earned                188,082        151,198
Options assumed to be exercised                        903,708        331,357
Convertible debentures assumed to be converted       2,976,958      3,017,276
                                                  --------------  -------------
          Average shares for diluted computation    43,381,523     42,281,369
                                                  =============   =============
Diluted earnings per share                                $.75           $.73

(a)  Excludes restricted shares which are issued subject to risk of forfeiture
     during a vesting period.

<PAGE>
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20580

Office of Commissioner

Rohit Chopra

To: April Tabor

From: Maria Bazan

Date: September 15, 2020

Re: Safeguards Rule NPRM: Comments to be placed on the public record 

On August 26, 2020, Commissioner Chopra, Erie Meyer, and I met via videoconference with 

representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) to discuss the 

Federal Trade Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the Safeguards Rule.

During the meeting, Commissioner Chopra asked the NADA’s representatives what constraints 

dealers face when implementing the information security and risk assessment measures required 

by the Safeguards Rule. They noted that choosing a service provider that both complies with the 

rule and is a good fit for their business can be a difficult task, because dealerships typically do 

not have much visibility into how these vendors operate and they are not able to easily oversee 

the dominant Dealer Management System (DMS) providers. 

They also informed us that auto dealers are often limited in their ability to choose the service 

providers they use to store consumers’ private information or the third parties they hire to audit 

their security protocols. In the case of franchise dealerships, it is common for car manufacturers 

to include terms requiring that dealers use specific vendors within their contracts. As a result, 

franchisees have a limited ability to switch service providers in the event of a data breach and, by 

extension, may not have the option to choose a more secure provider even if they did have 

visibility into their data protection measures. 

Switching to a new vendor in order to comply with new minimum requirements of the rule could

also be burdensome for independent dealerships given the costs of implementation. This is 

especially true for smaller, rural auto dealers who may not necessarily have the financial means 

to keep up with new technology. The NADA noted that approximately 37% of the NADA’s 

16,000 members sell less than 300 cars per year and many of their rural members have fewer 

than 15 employees. For a business of this size, options for affordable service providers may be 

more limited and the process of migrating their data to a new vendor might take a toll on the 

dealership’s operating budget. The NADA suggested that a potential solution to this issue could 

be to implement a tiered system for enforcing the rule that takes into consideration the size of the 

business and the constraints they face when choosing a service provider.
#### Gregory VIGIL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 51719.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 31, 1978.

Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, of counsel, for petitioner.

Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, of counsel, for respondent.

Gregory Vigil, pro se.

Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, First District.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the Writ and have heard argument of the parties. After hearing argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the Court is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Writ must be and is hereby discharged and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, with which ADKINS and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

BOYD, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The decision of the district court conflicts with *Washington v. State,*55 Fla. 194, 46 So. 417 (1908). The verdict should be given the effect that conforms to the jury’s intent. The jury returned a clear verdict that petitioner was guilty of robbery without a weapon, a felony of the second degree, punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed fifteen years. On the record before this Court, petitioner could not be sentenced as a principal to robbery with a deadly weapon because there is no judgment that such a robbery occurred.

I would affirm the judgment, but only as to the verdict finding petitioner guilty of the second degree felony. This cause should be remanded for modification of the judgment and sentence.

ADKINS and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
#### Donald NETTO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-639.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 25, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; Warren H. Edwards, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
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):

                               August 1, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.    Other Events
----------   --------------------------------------------

     The following is a summary of assets under management as of July 31,
2011 (in millions):


	By Investment Vehicle
	---------------------

Separate Accounts	 	$  3,429
Mutual Funds 			   4,268
Sub-Advised Mutual Funds	   1,029
Private Investment Funds	     184
                                --------
Total			       	$  8,910

	By Investment Strategy
	----------------------
Small Cap			$    970
Small-Mid Cap		             304
Select				     397
Large Cap 			   4,858
Long-Short		           2,193
Strategic Income		     188
				--------
Total			        $  8,910

                                    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: August 1, 2011	                    By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7829 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7829

To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue 
   Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ``Federal Bureau of 
                       Investigation Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2020

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue 
   Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ``Federal Bureau of 
                       Investigation Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest 
in the District of Columbia, commonly known as the J. Edgar Hoover 
Federal Building, shall be known and designated as the ``Federal Bureau 
of Investigation Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Building''.
                                 <all>
```
10.2





Exhibit 10.2

AMENDMENT TO SAILING YACHT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT




1. This amendment (the "Amendment") is made by Asta Holdings, Corp. and Nikolay Ivanov, parties to the sailing yacht maintenance agreement dated December 19, 2013 (the "Agreement").




2. The Agreement is amended as follows:




The OWNER undertakes to:




3.

Pay to ASTA upon the signing of this contract, the amount of USD 1,000 as a pre-payment for the future services. 

4.

 Pay to ASTA 1,000 a month to provide maintenance and management services to the vessel. 




The remuneration of ASTA for the above mentioned services is not to exceed USD 6,000 for the period of 6 (six) months. 




The Owner covers all vessel’s expenses. If ASTA incurs any immediate expenses with respect to the vessel, ASTA will be reimbursed in full by the owner for these expenses.










3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is conflict between this amendment and the Agreement or any earlier amendment, the terms of this amendment will prevail.

 

Asta Holdings, Corp.




/S/ Uladzimir Astafurau

Uladzimir Astafurau

Dated: February 27, 2014







Owner of the sailing yacht

2008 Sea Ray 310 Sundancer




/S/ Nikolay Ivanov

Nikolay Ivanov

Dated: February 27, 2014
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James LACOUR et al.

No. 62082.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, John M. Mamoulides applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Jefferson.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable H. Charles Gaudin, Judge of the 24th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 2nd day of June, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.