alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Office of the Secretary 

[Date] 

[Company/Counsel] 

[Address] 

[City, State Zip] 

Dear [Company/Counsel]: 

Enclosed is an Order to File a Special Report (“Order”), issued by the Federal Trade 

Commission pursuant to Section 6 of the FTC Act. The Order seeks information from [your 

client/your company] (hereinafter “you”) regarding the method and manner in which you collect, 

analyze, verify, and report information about entities, and the marketing practices for any 

products you sell entities to enable them to monitor or supplement the information you report 

about them. 

Please review the Order, including all definitions and instructions, carefully and consider 

the availability of the requested data and information. You are required to respond to this Order 

using information in your possession, custody, or control. However, you should not seek any 

responsive information from separately incorporated subsidiaries or affiliates or from individuals 

(other than in their capacity as your employee or as your agent). Your response as it relates to 

separately incorporated subsidiaries or affiliates should only include information from or about 

such entities if you already have access to it, including information maintained in a central data 

repository. 

No later than [insert date 14 days after service], you must contact Commission staff 

identified in this letter and indicate whether all of the information required to respond to this 

Order is in your possession, custody, or control. If certain information is not in your possession, 

custody, or control, no later than [insert date 14 days after service] you also must: (1) identify, 

both orally and in writing, each question or sub-question that you are not able to fully answer 

because information is not in your possession, custody, or control, and (2) for each, provide the 

full names and addresses for all entities or individuals who have possession, custody, or control 

of such missing information. 

Submissions responsive to this Order that are marked “confidential” will not be disclosed 

without first giving you ten (10) days’ notice of the Commission’s intention to do so, except as 

provided in Sections 6(f) and 21 of the FTC Act. Confidential or privileged commercial or 

financial information will be reported only on an aggregate or anonymous basis, consistent with 

Sections 6(f) and 21(d) of the FTC Act. 
In addition to the above requested information, we would be happy to consider any 

additional information you consider relevant to this inquiry. If you have any questions about the 

issuance of this Order or your filing of a Special Report to the FTC, please contact Harris 

Senturia (216-263-3420, hsenturia@ftc.gov). 

Regards, 

April J. Tabor
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theissuer.

Date: November 9, 2006
|   | Jeffrey P. Orleans      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Jeffrey P. Orleans      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KENNY REGAN MAJOR,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00813-HMH-1; 7:10-cv-70143-HMH)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenny Regan Major, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenny Regan Major seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Major has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL A. RILEY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-30248 

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00113-JLR-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Michael A. Riley appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion 

for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Riley contends that the district court erred by disregarding his heightened 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-30248 

vulnerability to COVID-19 and by improperly weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors. Given the record before the district court, “as well as the deference we 

must afford the district court when it makes these discretionary decisions,” we 

cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Keller, 2 

F.4th 1278, 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). The court considered all of Riley’s 

arguments, including those regarding his serious health problems and rehabilitative 

efforts, and determined that they did not constitute extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for compassionate release in light of the Bureau of Prisons’ treatment of 

his medical conditions, his age, his recovery from a prior COVID-19 infection, and 

his vaccination status.1 The court further concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did 

not support relief, noting in particular the nature and circumstances of Riley’s 

offenses and his serious and escalating criminal history. These conclusions were

supported by the record, and were within the court’s broad discretion. See United 

States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its 

discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the 

record); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion 

1 To the extent that Riley’s briefs contain new factual allegations regarding a 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report supporting his claim that 

immunocompromised individuals are less protected by mRNA COVID-19 

vaccines, we do not consider such facts on appeal. Riley remains free to raise such 

facts with the district court in any subsequent motion for compassionate release.
3 21-30248 

of the district court.”). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>
                            This schedule contains summary of financial
                            information extracted from the condensed
                            consolidated balance sheet and statement of earnings
                            for the three months ended March 31, 2000 and is
                            qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                            financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                 187,715
<SECURITIES>                            15,071
<RECEIVABLES>                          853,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                            441,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     1,586,251
<PP&E>                                 998,220
<DEPRECIATION>                         360,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       3,388,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,451,443
<BONDS>                                691,603
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  175,000
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                40,748
<OTHER-SE>                             328,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           369,742
<SALES>                                822,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       836,296
<CGS>                                  795,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          795,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      19,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         13,689
<INCOME-TAX>                             5,317
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      8,372
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             8,372
<EPS-BASIC>                                .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .21



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-29-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-27-1996
<CASH>                                            3468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6718
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1004)
<INVENTORY>                                      28365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 38300
<PP&E>                                           91471
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (43814)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  107892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            45788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1700
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1622
<OTHER-SE>                                       27546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    107892
<SALES>                                         146303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                146303
<CGS>                                           109763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 34889
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    788
<INCOME-TAX>                                       292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 8, 2008

                       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 2.02   Results of Operations and Financial Condition
---------   ---------------------------------------------

Registrant has reported its results of operations for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2008, as described in Registrant's press release dated
August 8, 2008, a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 and
incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9.01.     Financial Statements and Exhibits
---------   ---------------------------------------------

Exhibit No.   Document
-----------   --------

99.1          Press release issued by the Registrant dated August 8, 2008.



                                    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 8, 2008                        By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
#### Paul E. GEISLER v. LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT CO. and J. Melton Garrett.

No. 60185.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1977.

In re: Paul E. Geisler applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 346 So.2d 339.

Application denied; the result is correct.
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0477 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TAMMY JANE SMITH,

Defen d a nt and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including January 18 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 17 2020

12/17/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0477
#### Marvin CARMICHAEL et al., Appellants, v. Albert S. SHARPE, Appellee.

No. 72-1310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 11, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Case: 1:23-cv-03107 Document #: 3-2 Filed: 05/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:71 

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT 

This statement accompanies the Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalty 

Judgment, and Other Relief (“Stipulated Order”) executed by defendant Easy Healthcare 

Corporation. (“Defendant”) in settlement of an action brought to recover civil penalties and 

equitable relief for engaging in acts or practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (“FTC Act”) and the Commission’s Health Breach Notification Rule (“HBNR”), 16 C.F.R. 

§ 318. The Stipulated Order imposes a $100,000 civil penalty judgment, and provides for 

robust injunctive relief. 

Pursuant to Section 5(m)(3) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended 

(15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(3)), the Commission hereby sets forth its reasons for settlement by entry of 

the Stipulated Order: 

On the basis of the allegations contained in the attached Complaint for Permanent 

Injunction, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief (“Complaint”), and the factors set 

forth in Section 5(m)(1)(C) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(C), the Commission 

believes that the $100,000 civil penalty and the injunctive relief constitutes an 

appropriate settlement. The civil penalty judgment, coupled with provisions enjoining 

Defendant from further violations of the FTC Act and the HBNR, banning Defendant’s 

sharing of certain types of information, and requiring that Defendant implement a 

comprehensive privacy and information security compliance program and obtain 

assessments of that program, are effective means to ensure Defendant’s future 

compliance and to deter others who might violate these laws. Additionally, with the 

entry of such a Stipulated Order, the time and expense of litigation will be avoided. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the settlement by entry of the 

attached Stipulated Order with Defendant is justified and well within the public interest.
EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report  dated  August 27, 2002,  accompanying  the  financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Proginet  Corporation on Form 10-KSB
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2002. We hereby consent to the  incorporation
by  reference  of  said  report  in  the  Registration   Statement  of  Proginet
Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-71068) effective October 5, 2001.








/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
GRANT THORNTON LLP
Melville, New York
August 27, 2002
1

Opinion issued April 11, 2024

In The



## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 2 4 - 002 15 - CV

——————————— IN RE RONALD HECHT AND RAH CONTRACTORS, INC. , Relators Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators, Ronald Hecht and RAH Contractors, Inc. (collectively, “relators”) , have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court “issue a writ of mandamus” directing the trial court to “ not require disclosure of [relators’] privileged information and trade secrets.” 1

1 The underlying case is Ronald Hecht and RAH Contractors, Inc. v. Avi Ron and Urban Meridian Group, Inc
. , Cause No. 20 21

- 82564 , in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland presiding.2

Relators’ petition does not comply with the requirements enumerated in Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.7. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7 (relator “must file”
reco rd with mandamus petition containing “certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). In the absence of a record, this Court cannot evaluate the merits of rela tors ’ petition. See e.g. , In re Edwards , No. 01

- 22

- 00063

- CR, 2022 WL 710078 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 10, 202 2 , orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to refile a petition for writ of mandamus that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss , and Rivas

- Molloy
.
FTC-NAD Workshop:Effective Disclosures in AdvertisingMay 22, 2001

The Network Perspective

Harvey C. Dzodin

Vice President, ABC

Janus Video

Gevalia Video

National Car Rental Video

Sprint Video

Disclosures Video
#### Elizabeth CALLIGARICH, Appellant, v. Frank CALLIGARICH, Appellee.

No. 71-412.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1971.

*61Edmund B. Sigman, of Neale & Sigman, Melbourne, for appellant.

L. W. Barnard, Satellite Beach, for ap-pellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

Plaintiff wife objects to the alimony and property settlement provisions contained in a divorce judgment.

That decree awarded plaintiff lump sum alimony in the sum of $3,600 to be paid $200 monthly for eighteen months. Defendant husband was found to have special equities in the marital domicile, owned as a tenancy by the entirety, and was awarded its complete ownership. We feel that neither of these determinations were supported by the facts or law. We reverse them.

The extracted salient facts reveal that plaintiff is sixty-one years old and permanently disabled. Her sole income of less than $100 monthly is derived from Social Security disability payments. Defendant is seventy-one years old, retired, and draws $832 monthly in pension payments, plus free medical care and commissary privileges. The marriage endured sixteen years.

It is our opinion that, due to plaintiff’s health, age, lack of assets and income, it is highly unlikely she will be able to support herself in eighteen months. Lump sum alimony is justified only where it serves a reasonable purpose, such as rehabilitation, or where the marriage’s duration or the parties’ financial position would make such an award advantageous to both. The wife’s need and the husband’s ability are still the correct equation to follow. See 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 161; Schultz v. Schultz, Fla.App. 1967, 197 So.2d 310, and Arrington v. Arrington, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 473. We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s alimony should be made permanent, subject, of course, to possible modification in the event of a legally sufficient change in the circumstances of the parties.

Defendant husband was also awarded the marital domicile based on his alleged special equities therein. The marital domicile had been purchased using the proceeds from the sale of the couple’s Virginia home, which had been transferred to an estate by the entireties by defendant shortly after the 1954 marriage. An ordinary conveyance to the entireties of one spouse’s property is presumed a gift. Such a presumption is not easily overcome. The *62case at hand offers no facts to support this presumption’s rebuttal. See Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 825.

We, therefore, reverse the order herein appealed and remand with instructions to change the lump sum alimony to permanent alimony in the amount of $200.00 per month and to place title of the former marital domicile in both parties’ names, as tenants in common, as provided by F.S. 1969, section 689.15, F.S.A.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.