alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Agenda

November 16, 2015 

9:00 am WELCOME

Megan Cox

Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, FTC

OPENING REMARKS

Edith Ramirez

Chairwoman, FTC

9:15 am WHAT IS CROSS-DEVICE TRACKING?

This presentation will provide background about the practice of cross-device 

tracking and a description of some of the techniques currently used to correlate 

consumer devices. The presentation will also look at the notice and transparency 

currently provided to consumers about cross-device tracking and the options 

consumers have to control the tracking.

Justin Brookman

Policy Director, Office of Technology Research and Investigation, FTC

An FTC Workshop

CROSS-DEVICE 

TRACKING
9:45 am PANEL 1: A TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON CROSS-DEVICE 

TRACKING

This panel will look at the various cross-device tracking techniques, the 

evolution of the technology, and discuss some of the finer points of how the 

various technologies function today. Panelists will discuss the benefits provided 

by cross-device tracking to consumers and businesses, the privacy concerns 

associated with the technology used to track consumers across devices, as well as 

the mechanisms for effective notice and choice.

MODERATOR

Ashkan Soltani

Chief Technologist, FTC

PANELISTS

Joseph Lorenzo Hall

Chief Technologist and Director of the Internet Architecture Project, Center for 

Democracy & Technology

Jonathan Mayer

PhD Candidate, Computer Science, Stanford University

Andrew Sudbury

Co-founder and CTO, Abine, Inc.

Jurgen J. Van Staden

Director of Policy, Network Advertising Initiative

10:45 am BREAK
11:00 am PANEL 2: POLICY PERSPECTIVES ON CROSS-DEVICE TRACKING

This panel will look at the broader privacy issues raised by cross-device tracking. 

Topics that will be discussed include what information is being collected, stored, 

and shared to track consumers; the extent to which consumers are aware of the 

practice; how consumers can receive notice and provide consent related to these 

practices; and how industry self-regulatory programs apply to these tracking 

techniques.

MODERATOR

Megan Cox

Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, FTC

PANELISTS

Genie Barton

Vice President and Director, Online Interest-Based Advertising Accountability 

Program, Council of Better Business Bureaus

Leigh Freund

President and CEO, Network Advertising Initiative

Jason Kint

CEO, Digital Content Next

Laura Moy

Senior Policy Counsel, New America’s Open Technology Institute

Joseph Turow

Professor, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania

12:00 pm CLOSING REMARKS

Maneesha Mithal

Associate Director, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, FTC
FTC.GOV
|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                               |  |  |  |  |
| Ohio                                          |   | 000-24498 |   | 65-0190407 |
| (State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation) |   | (Commission File Number) |   | (I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.) |

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

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

----

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |  |  |
| By Investment Vehicle  |
| Proprietary funds      | $ | 14,484 |  |
| Sub-advised funds      | 1,464 |  |
| Institutional accounts | 4,522 |  |
| Total                  | $ | 20,470 |  |

|                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |  |  |  |
| By Investment Strategy                              |
| Small Cap                                           | $ | 1,821 |  |
| Small-Mid Cap                                       | 3,529 |  |
| Large Cap                                           | 9,109 |  |
| All Cap Select                                      | 423 |  |
| Long-Short                                          | 4,879 |  |
| Corporate bonds                                     | 629 |  |
| Core fixed income                                   | 276 |  |
|   (Less: Investments in affiliated funds) | (196 | ) |
| Total                                               | $ | 20,470 |  |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   |   | DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. |
|   |   |   |   |
| Date:  | March 2, 2017 | By: |   | /s/ Thomas E. Line |
|   |   |   |   | Thomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer |
#### Ruth Manley, Respondent, *v.*Stuart Silver Co. Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 6, 1952.

*219
      *Henry Waldman*for appellant.

*S. S. Goldsmith*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

A nonresident plaintiff may be required to appear in this State for examination *(Island Supply Co.*v. *Sylvania Ins. Co.,*127 Misc. 598). There is no good reason for holding that a nonresident assignor of the plaintiff should not be required to appear here for examination. Plaintiff maintains that an order requiring the nonresident assignor to appear here for examination would be futile and unenforcible. This is, however, not necessarily so. In *National Bank of North Hudson*v. *Kennedy*(223 App. Div. 680) the opinion indicates that a plaintiff may be stayed for failure of his assignor to comply with an order for the latter’s examination if the plaintiff has sufficient control over the assignor to secure his presence here in compliance with the order for his examination. The question of whether the instant plaintiff does possess such control of her assignor should not be determined at this time but upon a motion to stay the plaintiff in the event the assignor fails to appear here. It should be pointed out, in this connection, that the plaintiff has failed to deny the statement made in the moving affidavit that the purpose of the assignment was merely to avoid security for costs and that the assignor is the real party in interest, by which the defendant clearly means that he controls the plaintiff.

The items as to which examination is sought are all material and necessary to the issues raised by the pleadings.

The order should be ireversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted. Examination to take place in the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District, Special Term Part I, on November 17,1952, at 10:00 a.m.

Hoestadter, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATIONS

Certification requirements set forth in Section 302(a) ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

I, Stuart I. Greenwald, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofFirst Hartford Corporation.

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report.

3.       Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.       Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) for the registrant and have:

(a)    Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

----

**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATIONS

(continued)

      

(a)    All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: _________________

By: __________________      Stuart I. Greenwald      Treasurer
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): October 2, 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 September 30, 2014 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$9,281Sub-advised funds621Institutional Accounts4,518Total$14,420





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,491Small-Mid Cap1,152Large Cap7,119Select (All Cap)411Long-Short4,009Strategic Income238Total$14,420








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:October 2, 2014By:/s/ James F. LairdJames F. Laird, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
260 La. 109

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Louis RHEAMS.

No. 51942.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 7, 1971.

In re: Louis Rheams applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and stay order.

Application denied. Relator had a remedy by appeal. However, as to the illegality of the sentence, see Assignment of Error #3, Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971), the case is remanded to the trial court to permit applicant to file for habeas corpus relief within 15 days. Meanwhile, all proceedings are stayed until final determination of such application, if timely filed.
#### Johnny E. SIMS, Appellant, v. James Howard LOTT, Appellee.

No. 71-829.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 1, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Rex NELSON v. John D. NEWMAN, Jr.

No. 60338.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Rex Nelson applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 347 So.2d 1212.

Writ denied. No error of law.

TATE, J.,

while the dismissal of the appeal may be correct insofar as the jurisprudence holds that timely filing of the appeal bond is jurisdictional, this jurisprudence *905should be re-evaluated in the light of its present statutory context. By this, all costs (which alone are secured by the devolutive appeal bond) were required by law to be paid in advance of the date on which the appeal (supposedly securing such costs) was to be filed. See also *Messina v. Koch Industries,*273 So.2d 275 (La.1973).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodicreport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theperiodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

Date:                    February 7, 2008

 
|   | Michael T. Vesey        |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Michael T. Vesey        |
|   | President and           |
|   | Chief Operating Officer |

 

 

----
#### DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF JACKSON, INC., et al. v. Jeffie Miles BECKER.

No. 45777.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May *4,*1970.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1970.

*703Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Alben N. Hopkins, Jackson, for appellant.

J. A. Travis, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

Mrs. Jeffie Miles Becker, appellee, filed her claim for workmen’s compensation benefits against Doctors Hospital of Jackson, Inc., for injuries resulting from a fall in a hospital corridor. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, upholding its attorney-referee’s order, awarded claimant total permanent disability benefits, and the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County affirmed.

Although it is a close issue on the facts, the Commission had substantial evidence to support its finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Mrs. Becker, a registered nurse, had not worked for a number of years. After her husband’s death she obtained employment by the new hospital, which was in the process of training a number of nurse-employees before its formal opening. In 1959 Mrs. Becker had had two epileptic seizures, but she was put on medication, and her evidence indicates that she had not had any such seizures for at least five years before the fall. Claimant testified that after one of the classes, she walked down the hospital corridor, slipped on the floor and fell, hitting her head. Another employee of the hospital saw claimant walk past her office and testified that she grabbed her throat and fell in a rigid position.

The only material dispute is in the description of the claimant’s fall. The Commission held in effect that claimant slipped and fell, and that this was an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. There is substantial evidence to support this finding, and thus we must affirm it. Accordingly, we do not reach any question concerning an idiopathic fall on a level floor. *Cf.*Cooper’s, Inc. of Miss. v. Long, 224 So.2d 866 (Miss.1969); Aetna Finance Co. v. Bourgoin, 252 Miss. 852, 174 So.2d 495 (1965); 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law §§ 12-12.14 (1964).

The evidence also was ample to support the Commission’s finding that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.

Affirmed.

JONES, BRADY, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
E-1 

### Appendix E

The nine graphs contained in this appendix depict nine years of emissions versus load data for

the AEP/PSO Southwestern Unit 3. Please see section III.F.2.6 for a discussion of how this

information was incorporated into our pr oposed BART determination for this unit.E-2E-3E-4E-5E-6E-7E-8E-9E-10
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Vital Signs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Terry D. Wall, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of
the Company for the periods presented.
|



|Dated: January 28, 2008/s/ Terry D. Wall
|----------------------------------------
|Terry D. WallChief Executive Officer    

-27-

---
#### Miriam J. BIENER, Appellant, v. Frank R. BIENER, Appellee.

No. 72-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 28, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
^
                                  Diamond Hill
                                  ------------
                                  Investments


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
                                             Investor Contact:
                                             James F. Laird
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             614-255-3353
                                             E-mail: (jlaird@diamond-hill.com)

                      DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.
          REPORTS PROFIT FOR THIRD QUARTER ON STRONG INVESTMENT RETURNS

     Columbus,  Ohio -- November 15, 2004, -- Diamond Hill  Investment  Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ:DHIL) today reported unaudited results for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004.  Assets under management increased by 95% to $386 million
compared to $198 million for the third quarter of 2003 while investment
management fees increased 129% compared to 2003.  Both assets under management
and investment management fees were driven higher by strong investment returns
in client portfolios.  At September 30, 2004 all four Diamond Hill stock funds
ranked in the top 10 in their respective invesetment category.  Net income for
the quarter was $152,663 or 9 cents per share, which compares with a net loss
of $264,412 or 18 cents per share for the third quarter of 2003.

     Ric Dillon, president and chief investment officer stated, "We have
continued to produce excellent investment returns for our clients, which is
our primary business objective.  In addition, our efforts to market our mutual
funds and managed portfolios have resulted in $111 million in new client
investments through the first nine months of the year.

				Three Months Ended	Nine Months Ended
				 9/30/04   9/30/03	9/30/04       9/30/03
Investment Management Revenue	$661,674   289,017	1,647,119     756,676
Operating Loss			$(55,054) (323,450)	 (477,381) (1,193,913)
Investment Gain			$207,717    59,038	  316,016     244,319
Net Income (Loss)		$152,663  (264,412)	 (161,365)   (949,594)
Earnings Per Share (diluted)	$   0.09     (0.18)	    (0.10)	(0.66)

About Diamond Hill:

     Diamond Hill provides investment management services to individuals and
institutions seeking to preserve and build wealth.  The firm currently manages
mutual funds, seperate accounts and a private investment fund.  For more
information on Diamond Hill, visit www.diamond-hill.com.



                                     ###

            375 North Front Street, Suite 300, Columbus, Ohio 43215
                         614-255-3333  fax 614-255-3363
#### J. H. PROHASKA, etc., Appellant, v. TELEDYNE LINAIR ENGINEERING, a California corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-1383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Alberta Elaine TAYLOR, Appellant, v. BEATRICE FOODS COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, and Howard Seal, Appellees.

No. 73-955.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 12, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1997
<CASH>                                           3,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (771)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,227
<PP&E>                                         111,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,765)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,353
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,700
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,622
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,025
<SALES>                                        163,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,356
<CGS>                                          122,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    294
<INCOME-TAX>                                       118
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                176
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       176
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4.8b

Facility Lease, dated as of May 8, 2001, between Danskammer OL LLC and Dynegy
Danskammer, L.L.C.