alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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): March 4, 2019














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))


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).


Emerging growth company ☐





If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐








---







Item 8.01   Other Events





The following is a summary of assets under management as of February 28, 2019 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$14,729Sub-advised funds1,591Institutional accounts4,772Total$21,092





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,104Small-Mid Cap3,187Mid Cap233Large Cap10,598All Cap Select493Long-Short4,037Global/International21Short Duration Fixed Income592Core Fixed Income56Long Duration Fixed Income52Corporate Credit839High Yield65(Less: Investments in affiliated funds)(185)Total$21,092








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:March 4, 2019By:/s/ Thomas E. LineThomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer
LIST OF OMITTED SCHEDULES/EXHIBITS TO PLAN AND AGREEMENT OF MERGER


     Schedule 3.1      Jurisdictions in which BlueStone is registered to do
                       business and list of Partnerships and Joint Ventures
     Schedule 3.4      Governmental Authorizations
     Schedule 3.5      Real Property
     Schedule 3.6      Material Tangible Personal Property
     Schedule 3.7      BlueStone Material Contracts
     Schedule 3.8      Intangibles
     Schedule 3.10     Exceptions regarding financial statements
     Schedule 3.11(a)  Exceptions to Tax Matters
     Schedule 3.11(c)  Exceptions to Tax Matters
     Schedule 3.14     List of Employees and Benefit Plans
     Schedule 3.14(d)  Labor Relations
     Schedule 3.14(g)  Collective bargaining agreements
     Schedule 3.15     Litigation
     Schedule 3.16     Exceptions to compliance with legal requirements
     Schedule 3.17     Exceptions to conduct of business in the ordinary course
     Schedule 3.19     Capitalization
     Schedule 3.21     Material Adverse Changes
     Schedule 3.22     Related Party Transactions
     Schedule 4.4      Capitalization
     Schedule 4.6      SEC Reports
     Insert to 4.6     HealthStar's 8-K/A filing
     Schedule 4.8      Absence of Undisclosed Liabilities
     Schedule 4.9(a)   Tax Matters
     Schedule 4.9(c)   Tax Matters
     Schedule 4.10     Material
                       Contracts


<PAGE>


     Schedule 4.11     Governmental Authorizations
     Schedule 4.12     Litigation
     Schedule 4.14     Insurance Policies
     Schedule 4.16     Employees and Benefit Plans
     Schedule 4.16(d)  Collective Bargaining Agreements
     Schedule 4.17     Relationships with Related Persons
     Schedule 4.18     Title to Properties

     Exhibit 2.1       Preferred Stock Designation
     Exhibit 7.1(a)    Certificate of Merger
     Exhibit 7.1(e)    Form of BRTG Opinion
     Exhibit 7.2(e)    Form of T&L Opinion
#### Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, as Trustee, Plaintiff, *v.*Claude Neon, Inc., Defendant. Stewart B. Hopps et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Claude Neon, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 16, 1952.

*Isidor J. Kresel*for plaintiffs.

*Abraham Botwein*for defendant.

Di Falco, J.

This is a motion for joint trial of actions pursuant to section 96-a of the Civil Practice Act. While it appears that one action is a suit to recover on promissory notes and the other is for the return of shares of stock, there is a fraud counterclaim in each which is identical against the principal and agent as tort-feasors. A joint trial I am convinced will avoid a duplication of work of counsel and the court. The substantial identity of factual issues makes consolidation for trial desirable *(Winn*v. *Zone Oil Trucking Corp.,*N. Y. L. J., Feb. 24, 1950, p. 685, col. 5). The fact that all issues are not identical is no bar to the consolidation *(Peters*v. *New York Bd. of Fire Underwriters,*276 App. Div. 846; *Lowery*v. *Perner,*N. Y. L. J., Oct. 19,1950, p. 868, col. 5). Weighed against certain complications which may occur in the joint trial of the actions, *532the advantages of a consolidation from the standpoint of avoidance of a multiplicity of trials impel the court to grant the consolidation herein *(Wilzin*v. *Sarlitt,*N. Y. L. J., Feb. 3, 1950, p. 437, col. 6). The fact that no note of issue has been served in one of the actions is no bar to consolidation. Even in cases where issue has not been joined in one of the actions, consolidation has been granted *(Lee*v. *Schmeltzer,*229 App. Div. 206). Furthermore, the fact that different principles of law will have to be applied in the several causes of action is no objection to consolidation *(Maiorano*v. *William Sherman, Inc.,*196 Misc. 659; *Shea*v. *Benjamin,*275 App. Div. 1003; *Peters*v. *New York Bd. of Fire Underwriters,*276 App. Div. 846,. *supra; Kubran*v. *Acme Brick Corp.,*268 App. Div. 1046; *Matter of Kimmel,*58 *N.*Y. S. 2d 681). The policy of the law is to consolidate actions where it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right *(Shlansky & Bro.*v. *Grossman,*273 App. Div. 544).

Accordingly the motion is granted. For all other purposes the actions will retain their separate identity. The order in which the respective plaintiffs will proceed will be determined by the justice presiding at the trial. Separate judgments will be entered in each action, with separate bills of costs. Settle order.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS

RAY A. BROOKS NO. 

### 2023 KW 0231



### JUNE 22, 

### 2023

In Re: 

### Ray A. Brooks, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 22nd

Judicial District 

### Court, Parish of St. 

## Tammany, No. 

### 412111.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., 

### MCCLENDON AND WELCH, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. A writ application 

### arising in a criminal 

### proceeding is not the proper procedural vehicle to establish a 

# rightto records underthe PublicRecords Law, La. R. S. 44: 1, et seq. A " person" who wants to examine public records must make the request to the custodian of the records. See La. R. S. 44: 31 

### 44: 32. An 

### individual in 

### custody after sentence 

## following felony conviction who has exhausted 

### his appellate remedies is permitted access 

### to public records if the request is 

### limited to grounds upon which the 

### individual could file 

### for postconviction relief under La. 

### Code Crim. P. art. 

### 930. 3. La. R. S. 

### 44: 31. 1. If a request 

### for public records is 

## denied by the custodian, 

### before 

### seeking relief 

### from this court, 

### the person must first 

### institute civil proceedings for a writ of mandamus at the trial court level. See La. R. S. 

### 44: 35(A). Should the person prevail, he 

# shouldbepreparedtopaytheregularservicefeesforcopiesof the 

### documents. After the trial court 

### issues a 

### ruling in the civil 

### proceeding, the person may seek a civil appeal of the trial court' s action, if he 

### desires. See La. R. S. 

### 44: 35(C). 

### State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 

### 98-2258 ( La. 

### App. 1st Cir. 

### 1998), 742 So. 2d 894 ( per curiam) . Moreover, 

### because the 

### limitations period of La. Code Crim. P. art. 

### 930. 8(A) has expired, in the event that relator seeks 

### documents, 

## including those to which he 

### is entitled as of right such as the 

### indictment, the 

### district court minutes for various portions of his trial, and the uniform commitment order, see State ex rel. Simmons v. 

### State, 

### 93-0275 ( La. 

### 12/ 16/94), 647 So.2d 

### 1094, he must 

### demonstrate that he has made a 

### showing of particularized need 

### by 

## filing an application for Postconviction relief which would fall under one of the enumerated exceptions of La. Code Crim. P. art. 

### 930. 8(A) 

# andthathe needsthe requesteddocuments to support a claim. State ex rel. 

## Fleuryv. State, 

### 93-2898 ( La. 

### 10/ 13/95), 

### 661 So.2d 488. JMG PMC JEW
Exhibit 31(c)
I, Wallace A. Patzke, Jr., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Florida Rock Industries,
Inc;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a.	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls 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 report is being prepared;

b.	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosures controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluations; and

c.	disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

a.	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information and

b.	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date:  August 4, 2004
                                                WALLACE A. PATZKE, JR.
                                                WALLACE A. PATZKE, JR.
                                                Vice President, Controller
                                                and Chief Accounting Officer

1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7880

RANDOLPH WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00213-TSE)

Submitted: March 19, 2007 Decided: June 1, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Deana A. Malek, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams 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 and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1345 

TP 15-00842 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF KWESI NOBLE, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Michael M.

Mohun, A.J.], entered May 13, 2015) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the amended petition is dismissed. 

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### J. A. CANTOR, individually, Broadripple Operating Account with J. A. Cantor as Operating Partner, and Broadripple Hotel, Appellants, v. Herman SCHWARTZ and Esther Schwartz, Appellees.

No. 70-654.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### TRI-SOUTH MORTGAGE INVESTORS v. FOREST AND WATERWAY CORPORATION.

No. 61844.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: Tri-South Mortgage Investors, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31212 

Summary Calendar

__________________

DEBRA G. MOORE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-1261

- - - - - - - - - -

May 20, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Debra G. Moore appeals the district court's judgment for the

defendant and dismissal of this Federal Tort Claims Act action. 

The district court's finding that Moore failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that her fall was caused by a

defect is not clearly erroneous. See Broussard v. United States,

989 F.2d 171, 178 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
### SERVED: March 4, 2013 

# Pr-r'EfVED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

## TRANSPORTATION~' . "

- . ·

In The Matter Of: CLIFFORD PRESS Respondent 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

## MAR 1 12tl13 WASHINGTON, DC 

## HEARING DOCKET ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2011-1006 Case No. 2011EA150045

ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING OnFebruary 21, 2013, an Order Setting Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference was filed. Among otherthings, this Order set a Second Pre-Hearing Conference for March 6, 2013. On March 1, 2013, the Respondent, through counsel, filed Mr. Press' Withdrawal of Request for Hearing requesting that the proceedings be terminated. Afterreviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference set for March 6, 2013 is cancelled. 2. The 3-dayhearing currently set to beginon April23, 2013 in Islip, NewYork is cancelled. 3. Pursuantto 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn his request for hearing, andthis proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.**Jud~e** JcE. Sulli U.S.''AQn:inis tive LawJudge

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2W1000 1

Ms. JudithL. Vaughan, Esq. Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AEA-7 Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1AviationPlaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3255 FAX: 718-995-5699 Ms. Kathleen A. Yodice, Esq. Respondent's Counsel Yodice Associates 411 Aviation Way, Suite 245 Frederick MD 21701 TEL: 301-695-2300 FAX: 301-695-2151 Judge J.E. Sullivan US Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington,DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1006 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. Page 2 of2
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 2, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00346

- CR

Jassen BARNES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR9420

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Bri ef is hereby GRANTED. The

State ’ s brief is deemed filed as of May 29, 2014.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10(S)(4)

                                LOCK-UP AGREEMENT



                                  June 28, 2001

Renaissance US Growth & Income Trust PLC
BFSUS Special Opportunities Trust PLC
c/o Renaissance Capital Group, Inc.
8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 210-LB-59
Dallas, Texas 75206

         Re:      Cover-All Technologies Inc.

Gentlemen:

         The undersigned executive officer, of Cover-All Technologies Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), owns 0(zero) of common stock, $.01 per
share ("Common Stock"), of the Company and understands that you propose to enter
into a Convertible Loan Agreement, dated as of June 28, 2001 (the "Loan
Agreement"), with the Company providing for a convertible loan to the Company in
the aggregate principal amount of $1,400,000 (the "Loan"). In consideration for
your execution of the Loan Agreement, your providing the Loan and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the
undersigned agrees with you that for a period beginning on the date of the Loan
Agreement and continuing to and including the date twelve (12) months after the
date of the Loan Agreement (the "Lock-Up Period"), the undersigned will not,
directly or indirectly, offer, sell, contract to sell, transfer, assign or
otherwise dispose of any shares of Common Stock beneficially owned or controlled
by the undersigned (including subsequently acquired shares or securities
convertible or exercisable into shares), without your prior written consent,
except for transfers to family members, family partnerships and trusts for the
benefit of family members or for estate planning purposes, provided that prior
to any such transfer, any such transferee shall have executed and delivered to
you a lock-up agreement substantially in the form of this Agreement for the
remaining period covered hereby or upon death. The contractual restrictions set
forth in this letter shall terminate upon the death or divorce (provided and to
the extent such shares of Common Stock were transferred to the former spouse) of
the undersigned. The undersigned agrees and consents to the entry of stop
transfer instructions with the Company's transfer agent against any transfer of
shares of Common Stock owned by the undersigned not in compliance with this
Lock-Up Agreement.


                                     Very truly yours,



                                     /s/ Ann R. Massey
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Ann F. Massey, Chief Financial Officer and
                                     Secretary