alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF GAINESVILLE, a Municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. James Wayne THOMAS, Respondent.

No. 38556.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 8, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1969.

Allison E. Folds, of Fagan, Crouch & Anderson, Gainesville, for petitioner.

Philip Barton and Edward L. Bush, Gainesville, for respondent.

CARLTON, Justice.

By certified question involving a matter of great public interest, we are asked to review an interpretation of Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(d), 32 F.S.A. rendered by the District Court of Appeal, First District. The facts involved in this case are amply set forth in the District Court’s decision, 220 So.2d 644 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1969), and need not be repeated here.

In essence, the District Court held that the deposit of a filing fee under F.A.R. 3.2(d) is not jurisdictional. The jurisdiction of an appellate court vests according to the timeliness of the filing of the notice of appeal, and not according to the timeliness of the deposit of the filing fee. At the time when this decision was rendered by the District Court, it thought itself to be in conflict upon this point with the District Court of Appeal, Second District. Recently, however, the Second District has revised its interpretation of this rule. See Mills v. Avon Park Motor Co., 223 So.2d 802 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1969).

We are of the opinion that the District Court in the instant case has properly interpreted the meaning of F.A.R. 3.2(d). While timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the timely deposit of the required filing fee is not. We do not mean to imply by this that the deposit of the fee is not mandatory for we are of the opinion that it is. However, in circumstances where the clerk of the appropriate court is satisfied to accept a notice of appeal without simultaneously collecting the filing fee, then the subsequent deposit of the fee after the running of the appeal time limit will not affect the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

The decision of the District Court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
#### Yolanda de Vincenzo VIRGADAMO v. Arthur VIRGADAMO.

No. 61185.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Yolanda de Vincenzo Virgadamo applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.

*1048SUMMERS and TATE, JJ., would grant the writ.

SANDERS, C. J., concurs in denial being of the opinion that remedy was by appeal.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report ofSauer-Danfoss Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David J. Anderson, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 10, 2006 | /s/ DAVID J.  ANDERSON                |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       | David J. Anderson                     |
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
No. 10523.

#### Collett *v.*Hudson et al., Commissioners.

Decided May 12, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lawrence county.

*'Mr. J. O. Yates,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Julius L. Anderson,*prosecuting attorney, and *Air. L. R. Andrews,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Claude R. KIRK, Jr., Governor, et al., Petitioners, v. Harold R. CONTI et ux. et al., Respondents.

No. 40298.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/05/2023 OSCAR NO 607832 | PAGE Page 1 of 3 *-PUBLIC 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

Microsoft Corporation, 

 a corporation, 

and 

Activision Blizzard, Inc., 

 a corporation. 

DOCKET NO. 9412

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Taylor Alexander hereby withdraws as attorney of record 

for counsel supporting the complaint in the above-captioned matter. 

Dated: June 5, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/ Taylor Alexander 

Taylor Alexander 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3274 

Email: talexander@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/05/2023 OSCAR NO 607832 | PAGE Page 2 of 3 *-PUBLIC 

PUBLIC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 5, 2023, I filed the foregoing document electronically using the 

FTC’s E-Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission

 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 

 Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

 Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission

 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

 Washington, DC 20580 

I also certify that I caused the foregoing document to be served via email to: 

Beth Wilkinson Steven Sunshine 

Rakesh Kilaru Julia K. York 

Alysha Bohanon Jessica R.Watters 

Anastasia Pastan Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 

Grace Hill 1440 New York Ave, NW 

Sarah Neuman Washington, DC 20005 

Kieran Gostin (202) 371-7860 

Wilkinson Stekloff LLP steve.sunshine@skadden.com 

2001 M Street, NW julia.york@skadden.com 

Washington, DC 20036 jessica.watters@skadden.com 

(202) 847-4010 

bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com Maria Raptis 

rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com Matthew M. Martino 

abohanon@wilkinsonstekloff.com Michael Sheerin 

apastan@wilkinsonstekloff.com Evan R. Kreiner 

ghill@wilkinsonstekloff.com Andrew D. Kabbes 

sneuman@wilkinsonstekloff.com Bradley J. Pierson 

kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 

One Manhattan West 

Mike Moiseyev New York, NY 10001 

Megan Granger (212) 735-2425 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP maria.raptis@skadden.com 

2001 M Street, NW matthew.martino@skadden.com 

Washington, DC 20036 michael.sheerin@skadden.com 

(202) 682-7235 evan.kreiner@skadden.com 

michael.moiseyev@weil.com andrew.kabbes@skadden.com 
 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/05/2023 OSCAR NO 607832 | PAGE Page 3 of 3 *-PUBLIC 

PUBLIC 

megan.granger@weil.com bradley.pierson@skadden.com 

Counsel for Microsoft Corporation Counsel for Activision Blizzard, Inc. 

By: s/ Taylor Alexander

 Taylor Alexander 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint
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 2, 2005

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

          As of January 31, 2005, preliminary assets under management totaled
$523.2 million.  Following is a summary of assets under management as of
January 31, 2005 (in millions):

				Equity	Fixed Income	   Total
Individually Managed Accounts	$159.9	      $103.8      $263.7
Mutual Funds			 199.3	        61.6       260.9
Alternative Investments		  25.9	         0.0        25.9
                                ------        ------      ------
Total				 385.1	       165.4       550.5


                                    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: February 2, 2004                       By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Office of the Executive Director 

September 15, 2017 

The Honorable Paul D. Ryan 


Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives 


Washington, DC 20515 


Dear Mr. Speaker: 

This letter is notification, as required by Section II.4.5.4 of the Office of Management and 


Budget Circular No. A-136, that the Federal Trade Commission will restate its Fiscal Year (FY) 


2016 Balance Sheet on the FY 2017 Agency Financial Report. The restatement is necessary to 


conect the treatment of certain non-entity assets. Non-entity assets are those assets held by the 


agency on behalf of others such as collections and accounts receivable that arise from court­


ordered judgments to provide consumer redress. We have corrected the accounting of non-entity 


money that is temporarily in the hands of redress administrators that disburse funds to the 


consumer. Because we also create a corresponding offsetting non-entity liability, the net effect 


on the Balance Sheet is zero. In addition, because these are non-entity assets, there is no impact 


to the FTC appropriated resources, and no other financial statements are impacted by this 


restatement. If you have any questions, please contact David Rebich, FTC's CFO. He can be 


reached at 202-326-2201 or via email at drebich@ftc.gov. 


-~---------

l David Robbins 

Executive Director 

Enclosure 

cc: Attached Distribution List 
Distribution List: 

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government 

The Honorable John Thomas Graves, Jr., Chairman 

The Honorable Michael B. Quigley, Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Budget 

The Honorable Diane Black, Chairman 

The Honorable John Yarmuth, Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

The Honorable Harold W. Gowdy III, Chairman 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Minority Member
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Michael J. PELLERIN, Relator, v. Honorable Jack M. TURNER, Criminal Court Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-949.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 9, 1973.

Robert Scott Kaufman, Miami, for relator.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the Amended Writ of Prohibition was entered by this court on November 3, 1971, directed to the Honorable Jack M. Turner, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, 272 So.2d 129, by its opinion and judgment filed January 10, 1973, and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the Amended Writ of Prohibition issued in this *249cause on November 3, 1971 is vacated and set aside, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the rule nisi heretofore issued on August 30, 1971 is discharged, the suggestion for writ of prohibition is dismissed and the cause is remanded to the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida for further proceedings in accordance with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Earl Jackson CARROLL, Appellee.

No. 70-735.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Manners & Amoon, Miami, and Harold Mendelow, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and MARTIN, HENRY F., Jr., Associate Judge.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on October 28, 1970 (240 So.2d 205) reversing the order of dismissal of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, and

Whereas, on review of this court’s order, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed July 12, 1971 (251 So.2d 866) and mandate dated September 17, 1971, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with instructions to reinstate the order of the Criminal Court of Record discharging the defendant;

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court heretofore filed on October 28, 1970 is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the order of the Criminal Court of Record discharging the defendant is reinstated. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules), 32 F.S.A.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40477

 

OCTAVIUS ANDERSON; ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

OCTAVIUS ANDERSON; ROBERT L. DYKES;

WONDER ABRAHAM; TERESA ABRON;

JOSE ACEVEDO; ET AL, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(9:98-CV-7) 

 

June 6, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the careful

opinion of Judge Hannah. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                                5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1000

<S>                                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                        6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              Oct-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                 Oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                   Apr-29-2000
<CASH>                                                               5,307
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        9,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          (490)
<INVENTORY>                                                         42,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    56,882
<PP&E>                                                             190,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     (81,721)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     185,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               60,640
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       185,552
<SALES>                                                            433,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         0
<CGS>                                                              321,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   107,369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   2,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      2,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  1,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         1,319
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         1.18



</TABLE>
Exhibit (31)(b)
 WACHOVIA CORPORATION
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CERTIFICATION
      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 annual report is
being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c) 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;
andd) 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 (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Thomas J. Wurtz
#### In re Roosevelt BAKER v. STATE. Ex parte Roosevelt Baker.

SC 684.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 14, 1974.

David L. Thomas, Huntsville, for petitioner.

No brief for the State.

HARWOOD, Justice.

Petition of Roosevelt Baker for Certio-rari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Baker v. State, 52 Ala.App. 150, 290 So.2d 214.

Writ denied.

HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, MADDOX and FAULKNER, JJ., concur.
#### John ROBERTS and Mary Lou Roberts, his wife, Appellants, v. Gary GREGORY, Appellee.

No. 72-503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION August 2 6 , 2010 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Color versions of la bels proposed by

EPA and DOT in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking “Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label” FROM: Roberts W. French, Jr.

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality TO: EPA D ocket # EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0 865 This document replicates in color the label designs that are published in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking “Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy L abel.” The use of color is integral to the label designs being proposed, and because the Federal Register is not published in color, EPA is making the color versions easily available via this docket memo, which is available both in the public docket and directly from the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy /regulations.htm. The figure numbers correspond to those appearing in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Please note that these label s are example s and do not represent real automobile s .2 Figure III - 1. Label 1 for gas/diesel vehicle, B grade.3 Figure III -2. Label 1 for electric vehicle, A+ grade.4 Figure III -3. Label 1 for PHEV, A grade.5 Figure III - 4. Label 1 for gas/diesel vehicle, C grade.6 Figure III - 5. Label 1 for gas/diesel vehicle, D grade.7 Figure III - 6. Label 1 for PHEV, Option 2.8 Figure III - 7. Label 1 for CNG vehicle, A- grade.9 Figure III - 8. Label 1 for FFV, B grade.10

Figure III - 9. Label 2 for gas/diesel vehicle.11

Figure III - 10. Label 2 for electric vehicle.12

Figure III - 12. Label 2 for PHEV (predominantly blended type). Figur e III - 11. Label 2 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type.1314

Figure III - 13. Label 2 for CNG vehicle.15

Figure III - 14. Label 2 for FFV.16

Figure III - 1 5 . L abel 3 for gas/diesel vehicle.17

Figure III - 1 6 . Label 3 for electric vehicle.18

Figure III - 1 7 . Label 3 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type.19

Figure III - 1 8 . Label 3 for PHEV, predominantly blended type.