alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Docket Number: FAA-2012-0594
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


January 22, 2015


Date of report (date of earliest event reported)





_________________________________________


Digi International Inc.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





_________________________________________





Delaware1-3403341-1532464(State of Incorporation)(Commission file number)(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)11001 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, Minnesota55343(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)


(952) 912-3444


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





___________________________________________


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 ( see General Instruction A.2. below):


 ̈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 2.02Results of Operations and Financial Condition.


On January 22, 2015 , Digi International Inc. (“Digi”) issued a press release regarding Digi’s financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014 .  A copy of Digi’s press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.


The information contained in this Current Report shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.





---







Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits.


The following exhibit is furnished herewith:





99.1Press Release dated January 22, 2015, announcing financial results for the first fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014.





---




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 duly authorized.


Date: January 22, 2015





DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC.By:/s/ Steven E. SnyderSteven E. SnyderSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer





---




EXHIBIT INDEX





No.ExhibitManner of Filing99.1Press Release dated January 22, 2015, announcing financial results for the first fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014.FurnishedElectronically
#### Joseph B. Wynn, plaintiff in error, *vs.*N. D. Knight, defendant in error.

1. That the defendant in execution failed to replevy the property levied on by giving a forthcoming bond, was no ground to dismiss his affidavit of illegality.

*5692. When a question of fact is involved in the judgment of a justice of the peace, and the amount in controversy exceeds $50 00, the proper mode of having his decision reviewed is by appeal. If questions of law are alone involved, the remedy is by *certiorari.*

Illegality. Appeal. *Certiorari.*Justice Court. Before Judge Buchanan. Troup Superior Court. May Term, 1874.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

C. "W. Mabry, for plaintiff in error.

F. S. Loftin *;*J. S. Walker, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This case came before the court below on a *certiorari*from a justice’s court. On the hearing of the *certiorari*the court dismissed it on the ground that the amount in controversy was more than $50 00, and that questions of fact were involved in the judgment of the justice’s court. Whereupon the plaintiff in *certiorari*excepted.

1. One of the errors complained of in the *certiorari*is, that the justice’s court dismissed the affidavit of illegality because there was no forthcoming bond given by the defendant. In *Herring vs. Saulsbury, Respess & Company,*52 *Georgia,*396, we held that a defendant, when he made an affidavit of illegality to an execution which had been levied on his property, *might*replevy it by giving bond and security for its forthcoming, but was not bound to do so, and that the failure to give, such bond was not a good legal ground to dismiss the affidavit of illegality. This was the error of law complained of, and we think it was an error of law for the justice to have dismissed the defendant’s affidavit of illegality because there was no forthcoming bond given.

2. But there were questions of fact involved in the judgment of the justice, as well as the question of law complained of, and when that is the ease, and the amount involved is more than $50 00, the remedy is by an appeal to the supreme *570court, and not by *certiorari.*If the only question involved is a question of law which must necessariljr control the case, then a proper remedy is by *certiorari.*We find no error in the judgment of the court in dismissing the *certiorari for the*reason given, or as to the merits of the case upon the facts as disclosed by the return of the justice. In any view of *the*case, notwithstanding the justices erred in dismissing the defendant’s affidavit of illegality for the reason given,-their judgment was right upon the facts before them, and the *certiorari*was properly dismissed.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,817
<SECURITIES>                                    35,520
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,687
<PP&E>                                          23,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,016
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,704
<SALES>                                         24,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,808
<CGS>                                            3,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   662
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,590
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,590
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00404-CR

Kenneth Burkhalter, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 960478, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

The show-cause order dated August 13, 2004, is withdrawn and the appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: August 26, 2004

Do Not Publish
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00160-CR

ARACELI TELLO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-02891-CRF-272

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal. The Clerk of the Court’s April 11, 

2014 letter to appellant’s counsel states:

Our records indicate that the appellant’s brief was due on or before 

April 3, 2014. To date, no brief has been filed.

You will notice that the trial court has been copied with this letter 

as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). 

Presumably, the purpose of notifying the trial court is to allow 

intervention by the trial court before the Court has to formally abate the 

proceeding for a hearing.
Tello v. State Page 2

Unless a brief or satisfactory response is received within 14 days, 

this Court must abate the appeal and order the trial court to immediately 

conduct a hearing pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2) & (3). 

Because appellant’s brief was not filed within 14 days, we abate this appeal to the

trial court to conduct any necessary hearings within 21 days of the date of this order in 

accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by the rule, if any, are 

ordered to be filed within 35 days of the date of this Order. See id.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Cause abated

Order issued and filed May 8, 2014

Do not publish
Exhibit 99.4

                            CERTIFICATION 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 of RADVision  Ltd. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Seligman,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ David Seligman*
-------------------
David Seligman
Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2003



* The originally  executed copy of this  Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25796]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-9743-4]

Notice of Approval of Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration Permit Issued to the City of Palmdale for the Palmdale 
Hybrid Power Project

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final action.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces that Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) Region 9 has issued a final permit decision issuing a Clean Air 
Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the City 
of Palmdale (City) for the construction of the Palmdale Hybrid Power 
Project (PHPP).

DATES: EPA Region 9 issued a final PSD permit decision for the PHPP on 
September 25, 2012. The permit also became effective on that date. 
Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 
7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final permit decision, to the 
extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for review 
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 
days of October 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to the above-referenced permit are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. To arrange for viewing 
of these documents, call Lisa Beckham at (415) 972-3811.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, Permits Office (Air-3), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-3811, 
beckham.lisa@epa.gov. Anyone who wishes to review the EPA Environmental 
Appeals Board (EAB) decision described below or documents in the EAB's 
electronic docket for its decision can obtain them at http://www.epa.gov/eab/. A copy of the PSD permit is also available at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Region 9 issued a final permit to the 
City authorizing the construction and operation of the PHPP, PSD Permit 
No. SE 09-01. The City's permit was initially issued by EPA Region 9 on 
October 18, 2011.
    The EPA's EAB received one petition for review of the PHPP permit 
from Mr. Rob Simpson. On September 17, 2012, the EAB denied review of 
Mr. Simpson's petition. See In re City of Palmdale, PSD Appeal No. 11-
07 (EAB, Sept. 17, 2012) (Order Denying Review). Following the EAB's 
action, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), EPA Region 9 issued a final 
permit decision on September 25, 2012. All conditions of the PHPP PSD 
permit, as initially issued by EPA Region 9 on October 18, 2011, are 
final and effective as of September 25, 2012.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
Elizabeth Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-25796 Filed 10-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wuiteb $tates (!Courtof§ppeaIs for tbe jf 

# eberaI (!Circuit
K-TEC, INC., 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, 

### v. VITA-MIX CORPORATION, 

### Defendant·Appellant. 2011-1244, -1484 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Utah in case no. 06-CV·0108, Judge Tena Campbell. ONMOTION ORDER Upon consideration ofK-TEC, Inc.'s unopposed motion to lift the stay of the briefing schedule and to set July 26, 2011 as the due date for Vita-Mix Corporation's opening brief, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted.K-TEC v. VITA-MIX CORP 

## Jll 182011 Date

cc: Brett L. Foster, Esq. Alan L. Briggs, Esq. 

### s21 FOR THE COURT lsI Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2



### FILED 8.s_COURTOF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT 

## JUL 182011

JANHORBALY 

### CLERK
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                                 Subsidiaries

1. CCI Group, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri.

2. POSNET Computers, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
California.

3. Javelin Systems (Europe) Limited, a corporation organized under the laws
of England.

4. Javelin Systems International Pte Ltd., a corporation organized under the
laws of Singapore.

5. Aspact IT Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd., a corporation organized under the
laws of Singapore, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Javelin Systems
International Pte Ltd.

6. Javelin Systems Australia Pty Limited, a corporation organized under the
laws of Australia.

7. RGB/Trinet Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of England.

8. Jade Communications Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of
England.

9. Dynamic Technologies, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
Pennsylvania.

10. SB Holdings, Inc., a coproration organized under the laws of Pennsylvania.

11. Restaurant Consulting Services, Inc., a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware.
Exhibit 13.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

   18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arief Yahya, President Director, (Chief Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:(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.This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Company as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.Jakarta, March 26, 2013By:

   /s/ Arief YahyaArief Yahya

   President Director / Chief Executive Officer
GREGORY ANDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1539

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 3, 2016. 

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Gregory Anderson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
For the Docket

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters Docket ID No. OW - 2009 - 0596 Meeting with Representatives from Mosaic and counsel July 13 , 2010 In Attendance: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

– Ephraim Kin g, OST Evely n Washington , OST Mosaic

– James Voyles Arnold & Porter, LL P

– Jerem y Karpatkin

Lest er Sotsky Summary : Mosaic requested the meeting to discuss the proposed Water Qualit y Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowin g Waters rule, published in J anuary 2010. Specificall y, Mosaic provided comments on:

 Instream Protection Values (IPVs) for the Bone Valley and the health of streams with high nutrient levels  Reference approach and percentile selection  Lakes criteria and delineation and the health of lakes with high nutrient levels  Procedure for Site
- specific Alternative Criteria (SSACs) and variances EPA did not provide any

information about EPA positions regarding addressing comments received or possible final rule requ irements.
#### Lydia G. Sollee *vs.*Randal Croft, et el., Executors.

A trustee allowed compensation for his personal services in going to Alabama to see after and-secure the trust property.

BEFORE DARGAN, OH., AT GREENVILLE, JULY SITTINGS, 1857.

In the report of the Commissioner upon the accounts of the ■defendant’s testator, George Croft, as trustee, six hundred dollars were allowed for the personal services of the trustee in going to Alabama, four times, to see after the property, and protect it, first, from the claims of the creditors of E. *~W.*Sollee, and again from the claims of the creditors of B. M. Pearson, (see 7 Rich. Eq. 34.)

. An exception on this account was overruled by his Honor, on circuit; and the complainant appealed, on the ground, that a trustee cannot recover compensation in Equity, over and above his commissions, for his personal services — such compensation can only be recovered at law before a jury.

*Sullivan,*for appellant.

*Perry,*contra.

*Per curiam.*

The decree of the Circuit Court appears well sustained by the judgment of the Court in *Huson*vs. *Wallace,*1 Rich. Eq. 1.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Dunkin, Dargan and Wardlaw, CC., concurring.

Johnston, Ch., absent from indisposition.

*Appeal dismissed.*
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




	 	 	 	 	 

	

	 	Mark A. Smith

CEO
	 	Molycorp Minerals, LLC

5619 DTC Parkway, St. 1000

Greenwood Village, CO 

80111

Tel 303.843.8076

Fax 303.843.8082

Mark.Smith@molycorp.com






April 16, 2010




Mr. Mark Kristoff, President & CEO

Traxys North America LLC

825 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022




Re: Letter Agreement



Dear Mark,



This letter agreement will serve to confirm our understanding regarding the purchase of Didymium
Oxide (Product) by Traxys North America LLC (Traxys) from Molycorp Minerals, LLC (Molycorp) on the
following terms:





	 	1)	 	Upon the written request of Molycorp, delivered to Traxys at any time between the
date of this letter agreement and December 31, 2010, Traxys will purchase up to Five
Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) of Product from Molycorp at a price per pound equal to the
Average of the month prior to sale of the 99% Didymium Oxide FOB China price as reported by
AsianMetal.com less 5% (the “Purchase Price”), net 10, delivered into covered storage at
Molycorp’s Mountain Pass, California facility. Title and risk of loss to pass upon delivery
into said covered storage.
	 
	 	2)	 	Both Molycorp and Traxys may market Product for resale, provided that the
conclusion of such resale shall be by Traxys in its sole discretion and upon terms and
conditions and at a price (the “Resale Price”) set by Traxys in its sole discretion.
	 
	 	3)	 	Molycorp will provide segregated storage for the Product for a period of up to
twelve (12) months from the effective date of sale, at a cost of one Dollar ($1.00) per
month or portion thereof.
	 
	 	4)	 	In the event the Resale Price exceeds an amount equal to the Purchase Price plus
storage fees, costs of resale (including but not limited to shipment to the end customer)
and an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the Purchase Price compounded annually (the
“Resale Base Price”), then and in that event, Traxys shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the
difference between the Purchase Price and the Resale Base Price to Molycorp within thirty
(30) days following Traxys’ receipt of payment of the Resale Price.




If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please countersign this letter agreement below and
return a signed copy to the undersigned.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Best Regards,

 	 
	 	/s/ Mark A. Smith
 	 
	 	Mark A. Smith 	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	Acknowledged and agreed:

Traxys North America LLC

 	 
	By:  	/s/ Mark Kristoff
 	 
	 	Mark Kristoff, President & CEO 	 



Date: 5-4-10