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):

                                 May 12, 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 5.02.	Other Events
----------	--------------------------------------------

     On May 12, 2005, the company announced Donald B. Shackelford was elected
to the board of directors to serve a one-year term.  A copy of the press
release issued by the company is attached as Exhibit 99.1

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

     (c) Exhibits.

     99.1	Press release dated May 13, 2005 issued by the company.


                                    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: May 13, 2005                          By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Jerome E. Ball, Chief Executive Officer of ForwardIndustries, Inc. (”Forward”), and Douglas W. Sabra, Chief Financial Officer ofForward, do each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 that, to the best of theirknowledge:
    -  Forward’squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
    -  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Forward.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 1st day of August 2007. 

 

/s/ JEROME E. BALL

Jerome E. Ball

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

/s/ DOUGLAS W. SABRA

Douglas W. Sabra

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         139,459
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                   58,500
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               368,639
<PP&E>                                         90,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 736,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,002,935
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15,587
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,282,282)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   736,240
<SALES>                                        4,177,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,177,833
<CGS>                                          2,834,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,834,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,229,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (335,498)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,240,204)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,240,204)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,240,204)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.21)
        


</TABLE>
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-30-1997
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1997
[CASH]                                         1251373
[SECURITIES]                                  16810710
[RECEIVABLES]                                 61134644
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     0
[PP&E]                                         2506019
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                81732746
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                         69371951
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                          9660
[OTHER-SE]                                    12351135
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                  81732746
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               5927875
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               2368304
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             3130882
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 428689
[INCOME-TAX]                                    181500
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    247189
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                      .32
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .32
</TABLE>
#### Ray Douglas CARPENTER, Petitioner, v. Arlee BARRINER et al., Respondents.

No. 73-111.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
263 La. 357

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Arnold J. AMBEAU.

No. 52701.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1972.

Benjamin E. Smith, Smith & Scheuer-mann, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard H. Kilbourne, Dist. Atty., Fred C. Jackson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a conviction, after trial by jury, of aggravated rape (La.R.S. 14:42), for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The defendant perfected no bills of exceptions. We are therefore limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. La.C. Cr.P. Art. 920; State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971). We find none,

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-495549, No. 333-30473, No. 333-89908, No.
333-45463, No.333-55604, No. 333-63762 and No. 333-49186) and Form S-3 (No.
333-47034, No. 333-47184, No. 333-47190 and No. 333-70937) of P-Com, Inc. of our
report dated March 29, 2002 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
March 29, 2002
#### Harry KENDEL and Clara Kendel, Appellants, v. Harold E. PONTIOUS, individually, and Harold E. Pontious, d/b/a Lot Headquarters, and Henry Fernandez, Appellees.

No. 70-219.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1971.

Edward C. Vining, Jr., and R. M. MacArthur, Miami, for appellants.

Acosta & Duran and Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. We adopt the decision of the trial judge as our opinion. The opinion follows.

“THIS CAUSE came on for final hearing before me upon the complaint and answer. The Court has considered the record and file in this cause and has heard the testimony and proof of the parties and their witnesses and argument of counsel. The undisputed evidence discloses that a deposit receipt was executed by the purchaser, defendant Henry Fernandez, on January 13, 1969, and on the same date was mailed by the broker, defendant Harold E. Pontious, to the attorney for the plaintiff sellers. By letter dated January 14, 1969, addressed to defendant Pontious, the attorney for the plaintiffs acknowledged receipt of the contract and stated that he would have the contract executed forthwith and a copy returned to the broker. The contract, signed by the plaintiffs, was delivered to the office of the plaintiffs’ attorney on January 17, 1969. Notice of the execution of the contract by the plaintiffs was first communicated to the purchaser Fernandez by letter dated January 22, 1969. By letter dated January 17, 1969, *544defendant Fernandez wrote the plaintiff, Harry Kendel, with copy to his attorney, revoking the offer to purchase, which letter was in confirmation of a telegram dispatched the same date.

“Since the offer to purchase was transmitted to the seller by mail, if the offer or contract does not otherwise provide, it will be implied that acceptance would be by mail. In Morrison vs. Thoelke [Fla.App.], 155 So.2d 889, the Florida courts adopted the ‘deposited acceptance rule’ under which acceptance becomes effective as of date of deposit in the mail. Acceptance must be communicated to the offerer. Where an offer has not been accepted by the offeree, the offeror may revoke the offer provided the communication of such revocation is received prior to acceptance. 33 Fla.Jur. 365, Tucker v. Gray [82 Fla. 351], 90 So. 158, Montone vs. Bush [Fla.App.], 167 So.2d 884.”

Affirmed.
#### Larry James WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-855.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Hershell LEMLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 20, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Marc E. Kirk, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant presents three points for our consideration on this appeal. However, after considering the briefs and record in the cause we find only one has merit. The judgment and sentence entered by the trial court adjudicated the appellant guilty of murder in the second degree and sentenced appellant to the custody of the Division of Corrections “to be imprisoned at hard labor for the rest of his natural life.” Appellant contends that the court failed to give him credit for time served and that it was improper for the trial court to direct that he be imprisoned at hard labor. The appellant is correct on both counts and, accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment and sentence giving appellant credit for time which he served in jail prior to sentencing and eliminating therefrom any direction that he be imprisoned at hard labor. *McKnight*v. *State,*325 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). In all other respects the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Rhinelande rAre a Chambe ro f Commerc e 45 0 W
. Kem p St , P

O Bo x79 5 Rhinelander , W l 5450 1 www.rhinelanderchamber.co m 

# WWro f Dffr-osr-2x>ii-oic:' )

Januar y15 , 201 2 U.S
. Departmen t o fTransportatio n Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s Essentia l Ai rServic e Divisio n 120 0 Ne wJerseyAvenue , S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Attn : Mr
. Denni s J
. DeVany , Chie fEssentia l Ai rServic e Divisio n RE : Doclte t OST-2011-010 9 Rhinelander , Wisconsi n Dea rMr
. DeVany , O n behal f o fth e Rhinelande rAre a Chambe ro f Commerc e Board o f Directors , I woul d urg e yo u t o suppor t th e proposa l o fGrea t Lakes Aviation , Ltd
. t o provid e essentia l ai rtransportatio n service s t o Rhinelander , Wisconsin
. Grea t Lakes Aviatio n has a historywit h th e aviatio n communit yi n Rhinelande r an d understand s th e importanc e ai rtransportatio n provide s t o th e communit yan d surroundin g area . Reliabl e ai rtransportatio n t o majo rairlin e hub s provide s th e advantag e tha t ou rloca l businesse s an d manufacturer s nee d t o sta ycompetitiv e i n today' s marke t place : Grea t Lakes Aviatio n wil l b e providin g a n essentia l servic e t o th e Rhinelande rbusines s community
. Thi s servic e wil l als o provid e a grea t boos t t o th e touris m industry , whic h i s s o essentia l t o th e Northwood s o fWisconsi n an d th e U.P
. o f Michigan , service d b yth e Rhinelander/Oneid a Count yAirport
. Grea t Lakes Aviatio n ha s a uniqu e knowledg e o f th e Rhinelande rmarke t an d th e influenc e th e pea k summe rtrave l month s hav e o n ai rtransportatio n i n thi s area . I urg e yo u t o suppor t th e proposa l fro m Grea t Lakes Aviatio n t o provid e essentia l ai rservice s t o th e Rhinelander/Oneid a Count yAirport
.

Lar a Reed , Executiv^Directo r Rhinelande rAre a Chambe ro fCommerc e

Rhinelande rAre a Chambe ro f Commerc e ' 45 0 Wes t Kem p Street , Pos t Offic e Bo x79 5 * Rhinelander , v»/ l 5450 1 (715)365-7464'(800)23 6 4FU N * www.Rhinel3nderChamber.co m
The Dow Chemical Company

CERTIFIED PRODUCT DATA SHEET

(Properties of product "as supplied" by The Dow Chemical Company)

 Date: 18-Sep-12

 Vendor Address: 2010 Dow Center, Midland, Michigan 48674

 CPDS Update: You may wish to request updated CPDS data on an annual basis for this product.

 The Dow Chemical Company Product Name: COREACTANT 9L7 

 The Dow Chemical Company Product Description: Coreactant 

A. Density (DC)S: 8.8 lbs./gal ASTM D1475  Other 

B. Total Volatiles (WV)S 25.37 Weight Percent ASTM D2369 Other 

C. Water Content (WW)S: None Weight Percent ASTM D3792  ASTM D4017  Other 

D. Organic Volatiles (VOC) (WO)S: 25.37 Weight Percent

E. Other Volatiles (Wv)s: None Weight Percent

F. Nonvolatile and/or Solids Content (WN)S: 74.63 Weight Percent

G. Total HAP Content (HAP)S: 12.94 Weight Percent

H. Volatile HAP Content (VHAP)S: 12.94 Weight Percent

I. Constituents [List all VOC (4), HAP (2), California Proposition 65 reportables (3), SARA 313 reportables(3)]

 Indicate Method Used: Theoretical Formulation  Method 311 

Substance CAS Number Target Weight 

Percent Volatile VOC 

(4)

HAP 

(2)

California 

Prop 65 

(3)

SARA 

313 

(3)

Density 

(lbs/gal)

1330-20-7 9.95 Yes Yes Yes No Yes 7.2

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2.49 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7.2

Hexamethylene diisocyanate 822-06-0 0.50 Yes Yes Yes No Below De 

Minimis 8.7

N/A 12.44 Yes Yes No No No N/A

(1) The subscript "s" denotes each value is for the adhesive or coating "as supplied" by the manufacturer.

(2) HAP's are reported if present at 0.1% or greater which meets or exceeds both the MACT Standard for Printing and Publishing and the MACT Standard for Paper and Other Web Coatings. 

(3) Following OSHA reporting guidelines for Prop 65 and SARA 313 as reported on current MSDS.

(4) Organic volatiles must total item D above.

Layout 101108800

 The Dow Chemical Company reports Hazardous Air Pollutants present at 0.1% or greater. This meets or exceeds US EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

References: MACT Standard for Printing and Publishing (61 FR 27131; dated 5/30/1996) and MACT Standard for Paper and Other Web Coatings (67 FR 72341; dated 12/05/2002).

The above information was compiled using formulation data and available supplier CPDS information, unless noted by an X next to the 311, 2369, 4017, 3792 or 1475 methods shown above. As a result, the data may not compare 

to analytical data from Method 24 for VOC or Method 311.

 Vendor Name: The Dow Chemical Company

Xylene

Other volatile organics below reportable levels

 Persons Preparing Certified Product Data Sheet and Phone Number: Gloria Miller (847 808 3874) / Name of BPSC Specialist: Samiksha Athani
EXHIBIT 11.1

Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

Computation of Earnings Per
Share

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31,
2006 and 2005, included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.

Earnings Per Share

Net Income / Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Three months ended March 31,
|                                    |  | 2006                         |           | 2005
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                              | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                            | 600,043   |      | $ | 545,728  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                            | 0.39      |      | $ | 0.36     

No common stock equivalents exist.
#### Donald M. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6485
DERRY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR92-126, CA-96-199-S) Submitted: September 23, 1997 Decided: November 4, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derry Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Douglas Bennett, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Williams , Nos. CR-92-126; CA-96-199-S (D. Md. Mar. 1 & 27, 1996); Lindh v. Murphy , 117 S. Ct. 2059 (1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
April 3, 2020 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND EMAIL

To: Barry Augustinsky 

SIPJoin Holdings Corp. 

Suffolk, VA 

baug@sipjoin.com 

Re: Official Correspondence from the Federal Communications Commission and 

Federal Trade Commission

Dear Mr. Augustinsky, 

We have determined that SIPJoin Holdings Corp. (SIPJoin) is apparently routing and 

transmitting Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) scam robocall traffic originating from 

VoIPMax. We request that you cease routing and transmitting such traffic immediately.

On March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency concerning the COVID19 outbreak.1

 Fraudsters and unscrupulous actors have taken advantage of this national health 

crisis to send scam robocalls to consumers across the United States. These unwanted robocalls 

include fraudulent offers of COVID-19 home testing kits. This activity has the potential to 

inflict severe harm on consumers. Our agencies will aggressively pursue legal action against 

unlawful robocallers and, where appropriate, pursue legal action against voice providers routing 

or transmitting such traffic on their networks.2

Investigations conducted by our agencies, in conjunction with the USTelecom Industry 

Traceback Group, revealed that SIPJoin is a gateway voice provider for apparently fraudulent 

COVID-19 robocalls originating from VoIPMax. We will take all necessary and appropriate 

action to prevent these robocalls from entering U.S. networks. 

If after 48 hours of issuance of this letter SIPJoin continues to route or transmit 

harmful robocall traffic from VoIPMax, the FCC will authorize other U.S. voice providers 

1 Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) 

Outbreak, The White House (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamationdeclaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. 

2 The Federal Trade Commission recently obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction 

against a VoIP provider, Globex Telecom, for assisting and facilitating illegal robocalls. https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2019/12/court-halts-operations-voip-service-provider-after-ftc-ohio
to block all calls from SIPJoin and take any other steps as needed to prevent further 

transmission of unlawful calls from SIPJoin, and we will evaluate whether further action is 

appropriate in connection with your activity. 

Please direct any inquiries regarding this letter to Kristi Thompson of the FCC at 

Kristi.thompson@fcc.gov or 202-418-1318 or to Ian Barlow of the FTC at ibarlow@ftc.gov or 

202-326-3120.

Sincerely,

Rosemary C. Harold

Chief, Enforcement Bureau 

Federal Communications Commission

Lois C. Greisman

Associate Director, Division of Marketing 

Practices

Federal Trade Commission