alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2010199EN.01002901.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/29

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2010/424/CFSP

of 26 July 2010

amending Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 15 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 15 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1).

| (2) | Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP was last extended by Joint Action 2009/572/CFSP (2) until 14 September 2010. The financial reference amount provided for to cover the expenditure related to EUMM Georgia until that date was set at EUR 49 600 000. The financial reference amount should be increased by EUR 2 500 000 in order to allow for additional operational needs of the Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP was last extended by Joint Action 2009/572/CFSP (2) until 14 September 2010. The financial reference amount provided for to cover the expenditure related to EUMM Georgia until that date was set at EUR 49 600 000. The financial reference amount should be increased by EUR 2 500 000 in order to allow for additional operational needs of the Mission.

| (3) | Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 14(1) of Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission shall be EUR 52 100 000.’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 26 July 2010.

For the Council

The President

C. ASHTON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 248, 17.9.2008, p. 26.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 197, 29.7.2009, p. 110.

2

---
NO. 07-04-0275-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JULY 7, 2004

______________________________

SADIE RAYNE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 105,893; HONORABLE PAMELA COOK SIRMON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After appellant Sadie Rayne Williams filed a notice of appeal challenging her

conviction, on June 2, 2004, the trial court signed an order granting her motion for new trial.

Pending before this Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss her appeal which is accompanied

by a certified copy of the trial court’s order. We grant the motion.
2

The granting of a motion for new trial in a criminal case is governed by Rule 21.9 of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The legal effect of granting the motion restores

the case to its position before the former trial. See State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306, 310

(Tex.Cr.App. 1994); see also Waller v. State 931 S.W.2d 640, 643 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1996,

no pet.).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue

mandate.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sam Smookler, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of P-Com, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report;

         3. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

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

         (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financing reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
         the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

         4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer 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  the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         (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: November 3, 2003

/s/ Sam Smookler
----------------
President and Chief Executive Officer
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011- 0/o 7 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEI\1ENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED / 

DOCKET OST- ZOU- h I b> J ACTION DATE <^^ - "Z ^ 11 

This approval atij s'P'^'- ofriniiinist immiiiiiiy is subject, where applicable, 

10 conditions previously iivipos:;d. 

Tiiif< nctiin i». •jHecfiv.' p.ikr 7 days unles- P. oe'itlon is filed under 

14 Ci-R JHj.iO ov:; review i'5 unileitdkcp on Liic Depariincnl's cvvn m'j'.ion. 

Ill \iew ortheagrtfciiienl's noncontrovcrsifi! nature anfl liie ^ivi'.ilability ol 

the abovMSFkcedure, the-^:<tt[>ftfHoji in 14 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

director. Office of Intemationat Aviation 

6 September 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

Intemational Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St. N.W.#12"'Floor 

Washington DC 20006 
Summary DOCKET: OST-2011-XXXX US DOT ORDER: pending 

Date; 

Filing fee / lATA Acct: 

US/UST involved: 

6 September 2011 

USD 61 / 0000-06 

No 

End of Government Filing Period: 12 September 2011 

Meeting site, date: 

Intended effective date: 

Agreement: 

Mail Vote 690 

1 November 2011 

PTC COMP Mall Vote 690 

Resolution 024d 

Currency Names, Codes, Rounding Units and Acceptability of 

Currencies - Kyrgyzstan 

Intended Effective Date: 1 November 2011 

(Memo PTC COMP 1647) 

R1 024d
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Frawley Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Michael P. Frawley as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                    
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                      
|/s/ Michael P. Frawley
|Name:                  |  | Michael P. Frawley                                 
|Title:                 |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                  |  | August 5, 2005                                     



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
#### Joseph N. TRAIGLE, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. FAIR GROUNDS CORPORATION.

No. 54526.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 5, 1974.

In re: Fair Grounds Corporation applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 288 So.2d 409.

Writ refused. No error of law in the judgment.
256 La. 841

#### Euell LaFLEUR, Individually, and on Behalf of his Wife, Marie LaFLEUR v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50727.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1970.

In re: Euell and Marie LaFleur applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Evangeline. 236 So.2d 251.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Exhibit  32.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection with the annual report of Rick's Cabaret International, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-KSB  for  the  period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Eric S. Langan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec.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) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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

Date:  December  29,  2003              By:     /s/ Eric S. Langan
                                                -------------------------------
                                        Eric  S.  Langan
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>
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, 2009 and 2008, 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 endedMarch 31,
|                                    |  | 2009                        |           | 2008
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                             | 1,589,411 |      |   | 1,589,411
|Net Income                          |  | $                           | 523,594   |      | $ | 636,341  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                           | 0.33      |      | $ | 0.40     

No common stock equivalents exist.
Guide to IPM Documentation for the Final Transport Rule 

The version of IPM (Integrated Planning Model), the power sector model used in preparing the 

Final Transport Rule, revises and enhances features of the model that was used for the 

Proposed Transport Rule. The earlier version of the model (designated EPA Base Case, 

v.4.10) was fully documented and released for public review in a Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA) on September 1, 2011. The documentation for that version of the model appears under 

the title Documentation for EPA Base Case v.410 Using the Integrated Planning Model. 

On March 16, 2011, between the proposed and final Transport Rule, EPA issued the proposed 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). In conjunction with issuing the proposed MATS, 

features and enhancements, specifically required for air toxics modeling, were added to the 

model. The version of the model used for the MATS proposal was designated EPA Base Case 

v.4.10P_Tox. Its particular features and enhancements were detailed in the form of a 

supplement to the previous documentation under the title “Documentation Supplement for EPA 

Base v.4.10_PTox – Updates for Proposed Toxics Rule. 

The version of the model used for the Final Transport Rule (designated EPA Base Case 

v.4.10_FTransport) builds upon the features of the model described in the previous two 

documentation reports and incorporates changes submitted in the public comment process for 

the proposed Transport Rule and NODA. These changes are presented in the form of a 

supplement to the previous documentation under the title Documentation Supplement for EPA 

Base Case v.4.10_FTransport – Updates for Final Transport Rule

All three volumes of the documentation are attached. The previously publicly released first and 

second volumes of the documentation are also available for viewing and downloading via the 

Internet at the web addresses indicated below: 

Online Documentation for Proposed Transport Rule 

Title: Documentation for EPA Base Case v.410 Using the Integrated Planning Model. 

Web Address: www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html. 

Online Documentation for Proposed MATS 

Title: Documentation Supplement for EPA Base v.4.10_PTox – Updates for Proposed Toxics 

Rule. 

Web Address: www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/toxics.html
#### George ALEXANDER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 20, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Anthony Ray REEDER v. STATE.

8 Div. 993.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Robert Gonce, Florence, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Breland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BOWEN W. SIMMONS, Retired Circuit Judge.

Appellant, an indigent, was indicted for burglary in the second degree, breaking in a laundromat. On arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. A jury convicted him and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment.

It appears in the record that the State’s attorney asked the prosecuting witness, Mr. Brown, manager of the burglarized premises for eleven years, the question which follows:

> “Q Have you had a problem with brea-kins (sic) within the last year or two years?

> “An objection is noted by the defendant with no grounds stated therefor.”

Thereupon, the Court instructed the jury:

> “THE COURT TO THE JURY:

> “Ladies and gentlemen, we will allow him to answer the question. I presume from the opening statement, the question was asked for the purpose of showing why Mr. Brown happened to be there on that occasion, but the fact that Mr. Brown had had other breakins (sic) in the past is not a circumstance for you to consider against this defendant at all and it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. It is introduced in evidence for the sole purpose of showing why he was there on that occasion. Go ahead Mr. Brown and answer the question.

> “A Well, I have been (sic) had several breakins (sic) for the last three years. It was just like walking out every other night, every other night, every nother (sic) night.”

Later the witness, Mr. Brown, testified without objection, that:

> “. . .1 went home and layed (sic) down until I recon (sic) about 1:30 I imagine. I didn’t go to sleep, I just layed (sic) down. My mind told me to get up.

> *1163I got up and left my car at home and went by my friend’s and picked up his truck. I got my gun and put it in the truck and pulled the truck around behind the building just enough that I could see around the corner of the filling station.

We think the question and answer about the prior burglaries of the business were permissible in explaining why the witness was near the premises when the instant burglary occurred. The ruling was free of error in light of the Court’s above quoted admonition to the jury.

We find no error in the record. Appellant’s counsel does not assert any other error.

The judgment is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable Bowen W. Simmons, a retired Circuit Judge, serving as a Judge of this Court, under the provisions of § 6.10, of the new Judicial Article (Constitutional Amendment No. 328); his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.
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): December 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 November 30, 2014 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$9,669Sub-advised funds655Institutional accounts4,982Total$15,306





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,576Small-Mid Cap1,236Large Cap7,760Select (All Cap)442Long-Short4,042Strategic Income250Total$15,306








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:December 2, 2014By:/s/ James F. LairdJames F. Laird, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### EDWARDS PACKING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Charles E. ARNOLD et al., Appellees.

No. 71-648.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 1972.

E. Snow Martin, Jr., of Martin & Martin, Lakeland, for appellant.

William L. Eagan, of Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, Orlando, for appellee William W. Arnold.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Rudman v. Baine, Fla. App.lst 1961, 133 So.2d 760.

LILES, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Nathaniel CREWS, individually and as father and next friend of Ernest Crews, a minor, and Ernest Crews, individually, Appellants, v. Elliott BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellees.

No. 71-853.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 1, 1972.

Lester & Oppenheimer, and Martin M. Dernis, Miami, for appellants.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Oliva v. Baum, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 319.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries*

ALS
Acquisition Corp.
American Economics Group, Inc.(a)
APS Services Acquisition Corp.(b)
Associate Record Technician Services Acquisition Corp.
California Medical Record Service Acquisition Corp.(b)
Copy Right, Inc.(1)(b)
Data Center Del Norte, S.A. De C.V.(3)
Deliverex Acquisition Corp.
Doctex Acquisition Corp.
ELS Acquisition Corp.
Economic Research Services, Inc.(6)(a)
Edle Enterprises of Puerto Rico, Inc.(7)
Exigent Computer Group, Inc.(2)
Fastrieve, Inc.
Global Direct, Inc.(8)(d)
Image Entry Acquisition Corp.
Image Entry Federal Systems Inc.(9)
Image Entry Inc.(9)
Image Entry of Alabama Inc.(10)
Image Entry of Indianapolis Inc.(11)
Image Entry of Owsley County Inc.(9)
Information Management Services, Inc.(e)
Input Management, Inc.
Input of Texas, L.P.(12)(c)
Kinsella Communications, Limited(f)
Lexicode Corporation(13)
Lifo Systems, L.P.(12)(g)
Lifo Management, Inc.
Mailing & Marketing Inc.(2)
Managed Care Professionals, Inc.(14)
MAVRICC Management Systems, Inc.(15)
MMS Escrow and Transfer Agency, Inc.(15)
Net Data Services, Ltd.(16)
Newport Beach Data Entry, LLC(17)
Permanent Records, L.P.(12)(b)(c)
Permanent Records Management, Inc.
PLM Limited Partnership(18)
PLM Management, Inc.
PMI Imaging Systems Acquisition Corp.
Premier Acquisition Corp.(b)
QCS Inet Acquisition Corp.(c)
Quality Copy Acquisition Corp.(b)
Quality Data Conversions, Inc.(19)(c)
Recordex Acquisition Corp.(b)
RTI Laser Print Services Acquisition Corp.(e)
Rust Consulting, Inc.(20)
SOURCECORP BPS Inc.
SOURCECORP BPS Maryland LLC
SOURCECORP BPS Northern California Inc.
SOURCECORP BPS Southern California Inc.(2)

---

SOURCECORP
DMS Inc.
SOURCECORP HeatthServe Radiology, Inc.(b)
SOURCECORP HS Inc.
SOURCECORP Legal Inc.
SRCP Investments, Inc.
SRCP Investments Holding, Inc.
SRCP Management, L.P.(12)
Stat Healthcare Consultants, Inc.(2)
Synergen LLC(21)
The Rust Consulting Group, Inc.(22)
United Information Services, Inc.(5)
ZIA Information Analysis Group, Inc.(2)
Zip Shred Canada Acquisition Corp.(23)

*
This list reflects all of the Companies subsidiaries as of March 3, 2004 without regard to whether any individual subsidiary would qualify as a "significant subsidiary" as defined in
Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X. All subsidiaries are incorporated or organized in Delaware, except as otherwise noted.

2

---