alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 report): November 10, 2004


                            AMS HEALTH SCIENCES, INC.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)


   OKLAHOMA                         001-13343                   73-1323256
(State or Other                 (Commission File              (IRS Employer
 Jurisdiction of                    Number)                   Identification
 Incorporation or                                                 Number)
 Organization)

                   711 NE 39th Street, Oklahoma City, OK          73105
                  (Address of Principal Executive Offices)      (Zip Code)


       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (405) 842-0131

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))

<PAGE>

Information To Be Included in the Report

Item 7.01.  Regulation FD Disclosure.

     On November 10, 2004, David D'Arcangelo, president of the Company presented
a powerpoint presentation at the 27th Annual Westergaard Smallcap Conference in
New York City updating investment professionals on the Company's business
activities, trends and current developments.  A copy of the slideshow from the
presentation is attached as Exhibit 99.1.

Item 9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Exhibit No.     Description
-----------     -----------

99.1    Westergaard Conference Powerpoint presentation

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.

                                      AMS HEALTH SCIENCES, INC.

                                           REGGIE COOK
                                      By:  Reggie Cook
                                           Chief Financial Officer

     Date: November 10, 2004

                                 EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.     Description                         Method of Filing
-----------     -----------                         ----------------

99.1        Westergaard Conference            Filed herewith electronically
            Powerpoint presentation
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):

                               February 2, 2012

                       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 8.01.    Other Events
----------   --------------------------------------------

     The following is a summary of assets under management as of January 31,
2012 (in millions):


	By Investment Vehicle
	---------------------

Separate Accounts	 	$  3,408
Mutual Funds 			   4,336
Sub-Advised Mutual Funds	     989
Private Investment Funds	     163
                                --------
Total			       	$  8,896

	By Investment Strategy
	----------------------
Small Cap			$    969
Small-Mid Cap		             293
Select				     336
Large Cap 			   4,954
Long-Short		           2,163
Strategic Income		     181
				--------
Total			        $  8,896

                                    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: February 2, 2012	                    By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Secretary
#### Abraham GOLDBERG and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Stephen L. SPARKS, Appellee.

No. 73-559.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 11, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County.

Appeal dismissed.
(March 6, 2001)

#### Ray Meyerson, Respondent, v Arthur Tullman et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[721 NYS2d 517]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered September 17, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, enjoined the defendant corporate general partner and its employees from paying legal fees related to the defense of this action out of the assets of the restaurant operated by the limited partnership, and directed defendants to reimburse the restaurant for legal fees previously paid, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs motion to enjoin payment of legal fees and to require defendants to reimburse fees paid thus far denied.

The motion court erred in granting plaintiffs motion since the limited partnership agreement specifically provides for *171defendants’ indemnification, including attorneys’ fees that may be “paid as incurred,” barring fraud, willful misconduct or unless such indemnification is prohibited by law. Plaintiffs unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misconduct are insufficient to bar indemnification pursuant to this provision. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
----

|   | 1. | I      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Benihana      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. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      July      26, 2010 |   |        /s/ Richard C. Stockinger |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |        Richard C. Stockinger     |
|                          |   |        Chief ExecutiveOfficer    |
#### Glimmert BECKHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 5, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Bennett H. Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The contention presented by the defendant as a ground for reversal of his con*31viction is ineffective assistance of his counsel in the handling of the cause in the trial court. There as here, the appellant was represented by the p'ublic defender. On the authority and reasoning of Geiger v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 449, the judgment is affirmed, without prejudice to apply in the trial court for relief under Rule 3.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A.

It is so ordered.
EXHIBIT 31.1

 CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM PRESIDENT, PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                         AND ITEM 307 OF REGULATION S-K

I, David Pollock, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Hydron Technologies,
   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 quarterly 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. I am 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 my supervision, to
      ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 conclusion 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's first
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5. 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:

   a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control 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 control
      over financial reporting.

/s/: David Pollock
------------------
David Pollock
Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

November 17, 2006
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles W. DAVIS.

No. 61456.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 1978.

Frank J. Kenner, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Wm. L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Charles W. Davis, Edward R. Vernon, Jr., and Cynthia J. Mendenhall were charged in the same information in two separate counts with the crimes of armed robbery (La.R.S. 14:64) and attempted first degree *1205murder (La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:3o).1 Davis’ motion to be tried separately was granted by the trial judge. After a separate trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged on count one and guilty of attempted second degree murder on count two. On his conviction for armed robbery, defendant was sentenced to serve twelve years at hard labor and to pay court costs of seventy dollars, in default thereof to serve thirty days in the parish prison. On his conviction for attempted second degree murder, defendant was sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor, which sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on his armed robbery conviction. Defendant was given credit toward service of his sentences for time spent in actual custody prior to imposition of sentences. On appeal, he relies on seven assignments of error for reversal of his convictions and sentences.2

We have reviewed the record and find no merit to defendant’s assignments of error. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions and sentences.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.

SUMMERS, J., concurs.

1

. The state subsequently amended count two of the information as to Vernon and Mendenhall to charge them with attempted second degree murder.

2

. Defendant has neither briefed nor argued Assignment of Error No. 1. Therefore, we consider this assignment of error to have been abandoned. *State v. Blanton,*325 So.2d 586 (La.1976); *State v. Carlisle,*315 So.2d 675 (La.1975).
Metropolitan Area,Reports per 100K Population"Casper, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area",428"Cheyenne, WY Metropolitan Statistical Area",508,"This chart identifies Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of 81,000 or more.  Metropolitan areas are defined by Office of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 15-01, ""Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas"" (July 15, 2015).",
<TABLE>
Exhibit 11            COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      Fluke Corporation and Subsidiaries

<CAPTION>                           QUARTER ENDED          TWO QUARTERS ENDED
                                 10/25/96    10/27/95     10/25/96    10/27/95
                               <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>
<S>
Shares issued and outstanding
  at beginning of period        8,695,711   8,560,517    8,652,955   8,475,725
Net issuance of shares under
  employee stock plans,
  weighted average                    327      42,469       28,084      85,471
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding            8,696,038   8,602,986    8,681,039   8,561,196
Assumed exercise of stock
  options, weighted average
  of incremental shares           237,004     280,905      256,150     291,549
Average shares and
  share equivalents
  outstanding                   8,933,042   8,883,891    8,937,189   8,852,745
Earnings per share             $     0.72  $     0.61  $      1.34  $     1.11
Net Income                     $6,404,000  $5,403,000  $11,963,000  $9,859,000
</TABLE>
[ARTICLE] 5
[MULTIPLIER]   1,000
<TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.1
                  CORNERSTONE IMAGING, INC.
        COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME(LOSS) PER SHARE (1)
           (in thousands, except per share amount)
<CAPTION>
                                          Year Ended December 31,
                                        ----------------------------
                                          1996      1995      1994
                                         ------    ------    ------
<S>                                     <C>       <C>       <C>
Weighted average common shares
   outstanding                            7,548     7,202     6,864
Common equivalent shares assuming
   conversion of stock options               --       384       452
                                         ------    ------    ------
Shares used in per share calculation      7,548     7,586     7,316
                                         ======    ======    ======
Net income (loss)                       $(1,163)   $6,158    $4,816
                                         ======    ======    ======
Net income (loss) per share             $ (0.15)   $ 0.81    $ 0.66
                                         ======    ======    ======
 
</TABLE>
 
(1)  There is no material difference between primary and
fully diluted net income per share for any period presented.
From: "Bob Ferguson" < facomail@sover.net >

To: Gil Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "David Menotti" < dmenotti@crowell.com >, "Allan Cagnoli" < cagnoli@hpba.org >, "'John Crouch'" < john.crouch.hpba@sbcglobal.net > Date: 08/10/2011 02:49 PM Subject: Utility Heaters

Hi Gil,

Under the direction of HPBA, I am sending you the utility heater applicability/definition language we have been

working on for the past several months. The background section includes details about the proposal. We feel that

we have reached a consensus within the industry a nd we are hopeful that this proposal will meet EPA’s objectives

for this product category.

My suggestion is that you look this over and that we discuss this on the call that David has been working on

scheduling with you.

I will be out of the office aft er noon tomorrow and not back in the office until Tuesday, August 16 th ,so please direct

any immediate questions you might have during that timeframe to David.

Best regards,

Bob

Robert W. Ferguson Ferguson, Andors & Company

P.O. Box 678 South Royal ton, VT 05068

Voice: 802

- 763

- 2339

Fax: 802

- 419

- 3799

************************************************************************************************************************

********************************

The information contained in or attached to thi s email is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the original intended recipient of this email, or a person responsible for delivering it to the original intended recipient, you are strictly prohi bited from disclosing, copying, distrib uting or retaining this email or any part of it. This email may contain information which is confidential and/or covered by l egal, professional or other privilege under applicable law. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediate ly by return email and destroy all copies of the information contained in or attached thereto. Thank you for your cooperation. To ensure complia nce with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Inte rnal Revenue

Code.

***************************************************************************** ***********************************************************************************

******************************* 

### (See attached file: NSPS Utility Heater Applicability.Definition Prop
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Gregory BAILEY, Appellee.

No. 71-4.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 7, 1971.

Appeal 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 w e 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 APPEALS2 21

- 30248

vulnerability to COVID

- 19 and by improperly weigh ing 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 c ourt 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 r egarding 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 circum stances 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 discr etion

1 To the extent that Riley’s briefs contain new factual allegations regarding a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report suppo rting 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.