alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.3b

Assignment and Reassignment of Facility Agreements, dated as of May 8, 2001,
between Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C. and Danskammer OL LLC.
EXHIBIT 99.1

 To:             Alberta Securities Commission
                 British Colombia Securities Commission
                 KWCO, PC
                 KPMG LLP, Chartered Accountants


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on the advice of the Audit Committee of Chelsea Oil
and Gas Ltd. (the "COMPANY"), the Board of Directors of the Company resolved
that:

     a.   The termination of KWCO, PC as auditors of the Company be effective
          March 31, 2014; and

     b.   KPMG LLP, Chartered Accountants, be appointed as auditors of the
          Company to be effective March 31, 2014, to hold office until the next
          annual meeting and remuneration to be fixed by the directors

In accordance with National Instrument 51-102 - Continuous Disclosure
Obligations ("NI 51-102") we confirm that:

     a.   The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors made the recommendation
          for the change of auditors and therefore has terminated KWCO, PC as
          auditor for the Company;

     b.   KWCO, PC, has not expressed any reservation or modified opinion in its
          reports for the two most recently completed financial years for which
          KWCO, PC issued an audit report in respect of the Company as of the
          date of this notice;

     c.   The resignation of KWCO, PC and appointment of KPMG LLP, Chartered
          Accountants as auditors of the Company were both considered and
          approved by the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors of the
          Company;

     d.   In the opinion of the Company, and the Board of Directors of the
          Company, there have been no Reportable Events as defined in NI 51-102
          in connection with the audits of the two most recently completed
          financial years of the Company, nor any period from the most recently
          completed period for which KWCO, PC issued an audit report in respect
          of the Company and the date of this notice; and

     e.   The notice, termination, and letters of the auditors have been
          reviewed by the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors.

Dated April 5, 2014

By: /s/ Jesse Meidl
--------------------
Name: Jesse Meidl
Title: Chief Executive Officer
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): February 4, 2015














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 January 31, 2015 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$9,639Sub-advised funds649Institutional accounts4,853Total$15,141





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,525Small-Mid Cap1,305Large Cap7,596Select (All Cap)424Long-Short4,031Strategic Income260Total$15,141








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:February 4, 2015By:/s/ Thomas E. LineThomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer
260 La. 1065

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rallie C. EDWINS.

No. 52174.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 29, 1972.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of discretion.
1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4284

___________ Jay A. Ochanpaugh; Caralee D. * Ochanpaugh, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Penny Albright; Ida M. Jones, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 2006 Filed: November 30, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jay and Caralee Ochanpaugh (plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s 1 dismissal of their civil action and the court’s denial of their postjudgment motions to strike, which were filed more than te n days after the entry of judgment. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was untimel y because it was not filed within sixty days after the district court entered its judgment, as required under Federal Rule of-2- Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B); plaintiffs did not move for an extension of time to appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedur e 4(a)(5), see Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1) (court may not extend time to file notice of appeal except as authorized by Rule 4); and none of plaintiffs’ postjudgment motions extended the time allowed to file their notice of appeal because, even if the motions were construed as Rule 59 motions, they were untimely, see Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161, 168-69 (8th Cir. 1988) (time for appeal not tolled by untimely Rule 59 motion). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Stute Co. , 402 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 2005) (tim ely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional).

______________________________
EXHIBIT 32.2




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 annual report of Network CN Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jennifer Fu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Jennifer FuJennifer FuChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




June 24, 2011






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Network CN Inc. and will be retained by Network CN Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Alice Jane WINTERS, etc. et al., Petitioners, v. Elizabeth E. PHILLIPS et al., Respondents.

No. 39745.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 13, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 234 So.2d 716.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21

                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant



                                       State or Other
                                       Jurisdiction of   Percentage
                                       Incorporation     Ownership
                                       -------------     ---------
Parent
------

Community Financial Corp.                 Illinois


Subsidiary (1)
----------

Community Bank & Trust, N.A.            United States      100%

American Bank of Illinois in Highland      Illinois        100%

The Egyptian State Bank                    Illinois        100%

Saline County State Bank                   Illinois        100%

MidAmerica Bank of St. Clair County        Illinois        100%



-------------------------
(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as an exhibit.
#### Willie E. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 51223.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 26, 1978.

Willie E. Simmons, in pro per., Theodore E. Mack, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with burglary, a violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1975), and moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The record does not reflect any ruling on appellant’s motion, but apparently it was denied as the case proceeded to trial. Upon conviction, appellant renewed his challenge to the statute by motion for a new trial. Motion was denied and appellant appealed. The First District Court of Appeal then transferred the cause to this court. Since the trial court inherently passed on the validity of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes, we have jurisdiction.1 See *Harrell’s Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Air Authority,*111 So.2d 439 (Fla.1959).

*1212Appellant’s sole attack upon the statute is that it fails to declare a violation of the statute a crime. Appellant’s court appointed counsel states:

> Although appellant, in his motion to dismiss, attacked the constitutionality of Florida’s burglary statute, counsel is unable to, in good faith, argue this point. Concerning appellant’s question as to whether or not burglary is a crime, counsel would point out that this court has previously held that breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor is a felony. *Copeland v. State,*275 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).

After careful review of the record, we find that appellant’s allegations fail to constitute a substantial constitutional question. See *Riddle v. State,*345 So.2d 1073 (Fla.1977).

Accordingly, the appeal is transferred to the First District Court of Appeal for further action consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

1

. Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2004, (the Report)
of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc., the (Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Charles K. Graham                            
|                        |  | Charles K. Graham                                
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer/Director   
|                        |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                    
|                        | 
|Date: November 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Francie P. Reppy                             
|                        |  | Francie P. Reppy                                 
|                        |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  | (Chief Financial Officer)
#### John R. PETERSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 39827.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 20, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 230 So.2d 742.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.6





CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON





I, Gino Slanzi, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled "Technical Report Summary, Operation Report, Pampa Blanca"with an effective date of April 5, 2024, as signed, and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”).





Furthermore, I state that:





a. I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (the “Company”) as an exhibit to Form 6-K of the Company (“Form 6-K”);





b. the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023, and any existing amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (the "Form 20-F") (the Form 6-K and Form 20-F, collectively the “Document”);





c. I consent to the use of my name in the Document, to any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, and to the incorporation by reference of the Technical Report Summary into Form 20-F; and





d. I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible.








By/s/ Gino SlanziGino SlanziCEOInprotec SpA





Dated at Santiago, Chile on April 5, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF FANSTEEL INC. AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FILING
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         296,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,646,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                   294,776
<INVENTORY>                                 21,173,874
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,170,586
<PP&E>                                      72,733,430
<DEPRECIATION>                              52,819,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,838,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,064,144
<BONDS>                                      2,240,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,747,145
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,427,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,838,623
<SALES>                                     39,497,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,497,704
<CGS>                                       31,868,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,857,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                59,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (14,617)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,581,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                   870,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,711,606
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,711,606
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James WILLIAMS.

No. 61772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: James Williams, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

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 Frank Shea, Judge of the Criminal District, Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 31st day of March, 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, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1295 Filed 10/07/21 Page 1 of 2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

No: 18-cv-3309-PJM 

In re SANCTUARY BELIZE LITIGATION 

~ ORDER APPOINTING MARC-PHILIP FERZAN AS RECEIVER 

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") moved the Court to appoint Marc-Philip Ferzan 

as Receiver in this matter. Therefore, for good cause shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

a) Effective upon entry of this Order, Robb Evans & Associates LLC ("Robb Evans") is 

discharged as Receiver, and Marc-Philip Ferzan ("Ferzan") of Ankura Consulting 

Group, LLC ("Ankura") is appointed as the successor receiver. 

b) Ferzan and others at Ankura may charge at the rates Robb Evans previously charged, 

subject to a 5% increase beginning January 1, 2022. 

c) Ferzan's invoices may include appropriate professional services and expenses 

(subject to Court approval) for work Robb Evans and its counsel performs to support 

the transition. 

d) All other orders of the Court in this matter remain effective and unchanged including, 

without limitation, ECF No. 1194 (Mar. 24, 2021), ECF No. 1113 (Jan. 13, 2021), 

ECF No. 1112 (Jan. 13, 2021), ECF No. 820 (Jan. 14, 2020), ECF No. 819 (Jan. 14, 

2020); ECF No. 789 (Jan. 8, 2020), ECF No. 759 (Jan. 8, 2020), ECF No. 668 (Nov. 

6, 2019), ECF No. 615 (Oct. 3, 2019), and ECF No. 607 (Sept. 25, 2019). 

e) Upon entry of this Order, Ferzan shall be and hereby is vested with and have the same 

rights (including, without limitation, contract rights), powers, authority and duties as 

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1305 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 2 
"' . ~ Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1295 Filed 10/07/21 Page 2 of 2 

2 

Robb Evans previously had under all other orders oftbis Court in this matter, whether 

or not expressly enumerated above. 

f) Upon entry of this Order, Ferzan is automatically substituted in place of Robb Evans 

as a party in all pending actions or proceedings initiated by Robb Evans and in all 

pending appeals. Ferzan shall give notice of such substitution in such actions, 

proceedings and appeals by filing a notice of substitution therein and attaching a copy 

of this Order to such notice. 

v oc..+--

so ORDERED, this __ day of _____ ., 2021.f /1\ ,....._,. 

UNIT S ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1305 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 2
### FILED April 15, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JOHN R. WHAL

EY, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9809-JV-00272 ) Petitioner-A ppellant, ) BLOUNT JUVENILE ) v. ) HON. WI LLIAM TERRY

DENTON, ) JUDGE STA TE O F TEN NES SEE, ex rel ) ANNA GIVENS, ) AFFIRMED ) AND Respondent-Appellee. ) REMANDED

KEV IN W. S HEPH ERD , Maryville, for P etitioner-Ap pellant. JOHN KNO X WALK UP, Attorney General and Reporter, and RON ALD W. Mc NUT T, Assistan t Attorney G eneral, Na shville, for R esponde ntAppellee.

O P I N I O N Franks, J.
Appellant filed a T.R.C.P. Rule 60 with t he Trial Court on March 12, 1996, attacki

ng a judgment entered by the Juvenile Court

on August 1, 1980. That judgment provided:

Johnny Whaley appear

s in open Court and acknowledges t hat he is the father of John Randall

Ogle, and the chil

d is declared t

o be the legi tima te ch ild of John

ny Whal ey an d Anna El

izabeth Ogl

e. The name of the child shall be cha nged to Jo hn Ran dall Wha ley. The fathe r’s date of birth w as Februa ry 22, 1951 in the state of T ennessee . The birth certifica te shall be amended t

o reflect the

correct infor

mation. The father shall p ay into the Reg istry of this Cou rt the sum o f Twen ty Dollars ($2 0.00) per w eek for su pport of sa id child. The first payment is due on or before August 8, 1980 and a l ike payment each Fr

iday thereafter. Appellan t was den ied relief in the Trial Cou rt, on the grou nd that his1Patrick v. Dickson, 526 S.W.2d 449, (TN. 197

5).
2 Rule 60 motion was not timely, but he argues o n appeal that this Court sho uld declare the 1980 judgment void on t he basis that

it was not enter

ed in compliance with t he requirements of Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civi l Procedure. This argument is wit

hout merit. The Rules

of Juvenile Procedur

e, applying the Ru les of C ivil Proc edure to paternit y cases, w as not e ffectiv e until 19 84. The Tennessee Supreme Court held in 1975 1that the Ten nessee R ules of C ivil Procedu re did not ap ply to paternity cases in juvenile co urt because of the juve nile court’s st ructure, and t

he juvenile court

s had not been restr

uctured nor the Rules adopte d, as ofthe time of the e ntry of the judgm ent in thi s case.

Accordingly,we affirm the judgment of t he Trial Court for t

he reasons herein stated , and rema nd with co st of the app eal assessed to the appe llant.

__________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J. CONCUR:

___________________________ Houston M. Godd ard, P.J.

___________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.