alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary: FWS Administrative Assistant Misused Government 

Purchase Card 

Report Date: May 5, 2020 Report Number: 19-0119 

The OIG investigated allegations that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administrative 

assistant made numerous personal purchases using a Government purchase card from 2016 to 

2018. 

Our investigation found that during that 2-year period the employee made 27 personal purchases 

totaling $7,454.88 using the employee’s Government-issued purchase card. We also determined 

that the employee lied during our investigation when the employee claimed some charges were 

for office supplies. We later established those purchases were for personal food and alcohol. 

The employee pleaded guilty to felony theft under a deferred judgment and was sentenced to 2 

years supervised release. The employee also agreed to pay $7,454.88 in restitution and resigned 

from the FWS. 

This is a summary of an investigative report we issued to the FWS Director. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
§ 222.12 What overpayments are eligible for forgiveness under section 8012 of the Act? ( a ) The Secretary considers as eligible for forgiveness under section 8012 of the Act (“eligible overpayment”) any amount that is more than an LEA was eligible to receive for a particular fiscal year under the Act, except for the types of overpayments listed in § 222.13.
( b ) The Secretary applies §§ 222.14-222.18 in forgiving, in whole or part, an LEA's obligation to repay an eligible overpayment that resulted from error either by the LEA or the Secretary.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7712)
[62 FR 35412, July 1, 1997] [60 FR 50778, Sept. 29, 1995, as amended at 80 FR 33162, June 11, 2015]
#### § 246.1 Notice.

If it appears to a district director that a person residing in his or her district was not in fact eligible for the adjustment of status made in his or her case, or it appears to an asylum office director that a person granted adjustment of status by an asylum officer pursuant to 8 CFR 240.70 was not in fact eligible for adjustment of status, a proceeding shall be commenced by the personal service upon such person of a notice of intent to rescind, which shall inform him or her of the allegations upon which it is intended to rescind the adjustment of his or her status. In such a proceeding the person shall be known as the respondent. The notice shall also inform the respondent that he or she may submit, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, an answer in writing under oath setting forth reasons why such rescission shall not be made, and that he or she may, within such period, request a hearing before an immigration judge in support of, or in lieu of, his or her written answer. The respondent shall further be informed that he or she may have the assistance of or be represented by counsel or representative of his or her choice qualified under part 292 of this chapter, at no expense to the Government, in the preparation of his or her answer or in connection with his or her hearing, and that he or she may present such evidence in his or her behalf as may be relevant to the rescission.

[62 FR 10385, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 27881, May 21, 1999]
#### Leon A. Wolters, Defendant in Error, v. Henry B. Mason et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 15,227.

*Evidence—when as to value of professional services improper.*If the question put to an expert as to the value of professional services did not recite all of the services rendered, the answer is improperly admitted over objection if such expert did not hear such testimony as to what services were rendered.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frank P. Sadler, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed February 3, 1911.

Mason Brothers, for plaintiffs in error.

Wyeth, Clark & Zollars, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant in error Wolters brought suit against plaintiffs in error, alleging breach of contract of employment in a certain litigation, and for monies said to have been collected for the defendant in error by the *561plaintiffs in error and converted to their own use, and for money had and received by them for defendant in error, and not accounted for.

The errors assigned and argued are erroneous rulings on evidence, erroneous instructions, and that the judgment is against the clear weight of the evidence.

We are of the opinion that the court erred in excluding the testimony of the plaintiff below on his cross-examination upon the subject of the inconvenience occasioned to him by reason of the non-payment of the Mangier rent, in connection with the affidavit of the witness filed in the Mangier case.

Evidence as to services rendered by the defendants below up to the time of their discharge was proper under the issues, and it was error to exclude testimony of services rendered after December 2, 1907.

The testimony of the witness Bates as an expert on the value of professional services was improperly admitted. The objection to the question propounded to the witness should have been sustained, for the reason that it did not recite in substance all the services testified to by defendant Mason. Bates did not hear all the testimony and did not have personal knowledge of all the services rendered. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Shires, 108 Ill. 617; Schneider v. Manning, 121 *id.*376; Pyle v. Pyle, 158 *id.*289. We think the ruling of the court permitting Bates to answer the question tended to produce injustice and was reversible error.

Inasmuch as there must be a new trial, we refrain from passing upon the weight of the evidence.

For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

*Reversed and remanded.*
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Assessing the risks of tracegases that can modify the stratosphere**
 
Volumes: 0102030405060708
 
SuDoc Number:EP 4.2:G 21/14
Item Number:0483-E-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001003202
 
July 24, 2019
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10j9


                        HOUSTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED
                           DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

                  (As Established Effective September 1, 1985)


                                Eighth Amendment


                 Houston Industries Incorporated, a Texas corporation (the
"Company"), having established the Houston Industries Incorporated Deferred
Compensation Plan, effective September 1, 1985 and as amended (the "Plan"), and
having reserved the right under Section 7.1 thereof to amend the Plan, does
hereby amend Section 1.2 (n) the Plan, effective as of October 1, 1997, by
inserting the following to the end thereof:

         "From and after October 1, 1997, employment with STP Nuclear Operating
         Company shall be deemed to constitute 'Employment' with an Employer
         hereunder for all purposes except any such Employee shall not be
         eligible to make any additional deferrals of Compensation under the
         Plan."

                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Houston Industries Incorporated has caused
these presents to be executed by its duly authorized officers in a number of
copies, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument, which may be
sufficiently evidenced by any executed copy hereof, this 13th day of November,
1997, but effective as of the date stated herein.

                                        HOUSTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED



                                        By   /s/ LEE W. HOGAN
                                          ---------------------------------

ATTEST:

/s/ RICHARD B. DAUPHIN
------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 1215
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1215 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003.

§ 1215.2 Authority of departure-control officer to prevent alien's departure from the United States. ( a ) No alien shall depart, or attempt to depart, from the United States if his departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States under the provisions of § 1215.3. Any departure-control officer who knows or has reason to believe that the case of an alien in the United States comes within the provisions of § 1215.3 shall temporarily prevent the departure of such alien from the United States and shall serve him with a written temporary order directing him not to depart, or attempt to depart, from the United States until notified of the revocation of the order.
( b ) The written order temporarily preventing an alien, other than an enemy alien, from departing from the United States shall become final 15 days after the date of service thereof upon the alien, unless prior thereto the alien requests a hearing as hereinafter provided. At such time as the alien is served with an order temporarily preventing his departure from the United States, he shall be notified in writing concerning the provisions of this paragraph, and shall be advised of his right to request a hearing if entitled thereto under § 1215.4. In the case of an enemy alien, the written order preventing departure shall become final on the date of its service upon the alien.
( c ) Any alien who seeks to depart from the United States may be required, in the discretion of the departure-control officer, to be examined under oath and to submit for official inspection all documents, articles, and other property in his possession which are being removed from the United States upon, or in connection with, the alien's departure. The departure-control officer may permit certain other persons, including officials of the Department of State and interpreters, to participate in such examination or inspection and may exclude from presence at such examination or inspection any person whose presence would not further the objectives of such examination or inspection. The departure-control officer shall temporarily prevent the departure of any alien who refuses to submit to such examination or inspection, and may, if necessary to the enforcement of this requirement, take possession of the alien's passport or other travel document.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11074

BI LLYJ M U LLI N S J R; FAR AW AYEN TE RP RI SES P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s- C ross - A pp el l ees v. TESTAM ERI CA I N C; SAGAPO N ACKPARTN ERS LP D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees- C ross - A pp el l an t s
A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 3: 02- C V

- 106

B ef ore K IN G , H IG G IN B O T H A M , an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * In vi ew of

t h i s c ou rt ’ s deci sio n to v acate t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u dg m en ton P la in tiff

F a r a w a yE n te r p r is e s ’b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t a n do th e rcla im s , s e eMul l i ns v. T est A m eri ca Inc. , N o. 08-11224 , - - - F
. 3d - - - - , 200 9 W L 8 074 58, a t*30 ( 5th C i r. M a r . 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ), t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s m e m o r a n d u m o p in io n a n do r d e ro n a t t o r n e y ’s fe e s ent e r e d on O c t o be r8, 200 8 i s her e byvac at e d. Thi s c as e i s r e m and e d t o t he d i stri ct cou rt f

or su ch f

u rth er p roc e e d i n gs as m a y b e a p p rop ri a te. E a ch pa rty sha l lbear i t s ow n cos t s. VA C A T E D a n dR E M A N D E D
. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
#### Henry S. Cox, Respondent, v. Hewlett Bay Company and Others, Appellants.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Hercules Incorporated 10K97
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          17,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  389,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    234,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               689,000
<PP&E>                                       2,088,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,401,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,411,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          799,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     610,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,411,000
<SALES>                                      1,866,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,866,000
<CGS>                                        1,169,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,638,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                593,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   269,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            324,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        5,000
<NET-INCOME>                                   319,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.13


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1




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 Annual Report of
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David M. McClanahan,
Chairman (Principal Executive Officer), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, that:





1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/
      David M. McClanahanDavid
      M. McClanahanChairman
      (Principal Executive Officer)March 10,
      2010
#### Abraham Sengerlicht, Respondent, v. Gustave H. Herbert et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
435 P.2d 1009

#### Gail HARRIS, Sotero J. Sanchez, Jr., James C. Vandiver, T. J. Graham, M. T. Sebastian, Robert J. Boyd, Rachel E. Gillard, Ed Heringa, E. J. Hooten, Harry E. Kinney, Paul D. Noland, Dwight Ohlinger, George T. Roybal, Marion Stephens, Epimenio Vigil, Carter M. Wald and Newt Whitfield, Petitioners, v. The STATE CANVASSING BOARD, Hon. David F. Cargo, Hon. David Chavez, Jr. and Hon. Ernestine Evans, Constituting the Members of the Board, Respondents.

No. 8553.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Nov. 17, 1967.

NOBLE, COMPTON and CARMODY, Justices, concurring; MOISE, Justice, dissenting.

Ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus he and the same is hereby denied.
#### § 289.2 Lawful admission for permanent residence.

Any American Indian born in Canada who at the time of entry was entitled to the exemption provided for such person by the Act of April 2, 1928 (45 Stat. 401), or section 289 of the Act, and has maintained residence in the United States since his entry, shall be regarded as having been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. A person who does not possess 50 per centum of the blood of the American Indian race, but who entered the United States prior to December 24, 1952, under the exemption provided by the Act of April 2, 1928, and has maintained his residence in the United States since such entry shall also be regarded as having been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. In the absence of a Service record of arrival in the United States, the record of registration under the Alien Registration Act, of 1940 (54 Stat. 670; 8 U.S.C. 451), or section 262 of the Act, or other satisfactory evidence may be accepted to establish the date of entry.

[29 FR 11494, Aug. 11, 1964]
#### § 325.1 [Reserved]
# Official Journal L 346/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 346 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6430 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 346

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6430 September 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1730 of 28 September 2021 on the harmonised use of the paired frequency bands 874,4-880,0 MHz and 919,4-925,0 MHz and of the unpaired frequency band 1 900 -1 910  MHz for Railway Mobile Radio
  (notified under document C(2021) 6862)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1730 of 28 September 2021 on the harmonised use of the paired frequency bands 874,4-880,0 MHz and 919,4-925,0 MHz and of the unpaired frequency band 1 900 -1 910  MHz for Railway Mobile Radio
  (notified under document C(2021) 6862)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2021) 6862)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF IMPERIAL BANCORP
All of the following subsidiaries of the Company are California corporations
except Imperial International Bank which is organized under the laws of the
United States and Imperial Trade Services, Ltd., which is incorporated in Hong
Kong. Each subsidiary is included in the Company's consolidated financial
statements.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                <C>                   <C>
Crown American Bank                                Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Asset Advisors, Inc.                      Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Asset Management, Inc.                    Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Bank                                      Imperial Bancorp      100%
Imperial Bank Realty Company, Inc.                 Imperial Bancorp      100%
Imperial Capital Trust I                           Imperial Bancorp      100%
Imperial Creditcorp                                Imperial Bancorp      100%
Imperial International Bank                        Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Securities Corporation                    Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Trade Services, Ltd.                      Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Trust Company                             Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Ventures, Inc.                            Imperial Bank         100%
Official Payments Corporation                      Imperial Bank          56%
Pacific Bancard Association, Inc.                  Imperial Bank         100%
ROC Technologies, Inc.                             Imperial Bancorp      100%
Imperial Capital Markets Group, Inc. (1)           Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Financial Group (1)                       Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Global Trading Company, Inc. (1)          Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Holdings, Inc. (1)                        Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Management, Inc. (1)                      Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Municipal Services Group, Inc. (1)(2)     Imperial Bank         100%
Imperial Plan, Inc. (1)                            Imperial Bank         100%
TNT Mortgage Services, Inc. (1)                    Imperial Bank         100%
</TABLE>

(1)  Not currently active
(2)  Previously known as Imperial Municipal Services Corporation
§ 68.38 Motion for summary decision. ( a ) A complainant, not fewer than thirty (30) days after receipt by respondent of the complaint, may move with or without supporting affidavits for summary decision on all or any part of the complaint. Motions by any party for summary decision on all or any part of the complaint will not be entertained within the twenty (20) days prior to any hearing, unless the Administrative Law Judge decides otherwise. Any other party, within ten (10) days after service of a motion for summary decision, may respond to the motion by serving supporting or opposing papers with affidavits, if appropriate, or countermove for summary decision. The Administrative Law Judge may set the matter for argument and/or call for submission of briefs.
( b ) Any affidavits submitted with the motion shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence in a proceeding subject to 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. When a motion for summary decision is made and supported as provided in this section, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of such pleading. Such response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for the hearing.
( c ) The Administrative Law Judge shall enter a summary decision for either party if the pleadings, affidavits, material obtained by discovery or otherwise, or matters officially noticed show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a party is entitled to summary decision.
( d ) *Form of summary decisions.* Any final order entered as a summary decision shall conform to the requirements for all final orders. A final order made under this section shall include a statement of: ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the reasons therefor, on all issues presented; and
( 2 ) Any terms and conditions of the final order.
( e ) *Hearings on issue of fact.* Where a genuine question of material fact is raised, the Administrative Law Judge shall set the case for an evidentiary hearing.
[Order No. 2203-99, 64 FR 7078, Feb. 12, 1999]