alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 33.101 Standards and requirements. This program has been developed to assist your jurisdiction with selecting and obtaining high quality armor vests in the quickest and easiest manner available. The program will assist your jurisdiction in determining which type of armor vest will best suit your jurisdiction's needs, and will ensure that each armor vest obtained through this program meets the NIJ standard. ( a ) Your jurisdiction will be provided with model numbers for armor vests that meet the NIJ Standard in order to ensure your jurisdiction receives the approved vests in the quickest manner;
( b ) If you are a State or unit of local government, your jurisdiction will be required to partner with the Federal government in this program by paying at least 50 percent of the total cost for each armor vest purchased under this program. These matching funds may not be obtained from another Federal source;
( c ) If you are an Indian tribe, your jurisdiction will be required to partner with the Federal government in this program by paying at least 50 percent of the total cost for each armor vest purchased under this program. Total cost will include the cost of the armor vests, taxes, shipping, and handling. You may use any funds appropriated by Congress toward the performing of law enforcement functions on your lands as matching funds for this program or any funds appropriated by Congress for the activities of any agency of your tribal government;
( d ) BJA will conduct outreach to ensure that at least half of all funds available for armor vest purchases be given to units of local government with fewer than 100,000 residents;
( e ) Each State government is responsible for coordinating the needs of law enforcement officers across agencies within its own jurisdiction and making one application per fiscal year;
( f ) Each unit of local government and Indian tribe is responsible for coordinating the needs of law enforcement officers across agencies within its own jurisdiction and making one application per fiscal year;
( g ) Your individual jurisdiction may not receive more than 5 percent of the total program funds in any fiscal year;
( h ) The 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, together with their units of local government, each may not receive less than one half percent and not more than 20 percent of the total program funds during a fiscal year;
( i ) The United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, together with their units of local government, each may not receive less than one fourth percent and not more than 20 percent of the total program funds during a fiscal year; and
( j ) If your jurisdiction also is applying for a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG), then you will be asked to certify: ( 1 ) Whether LLEBG funds will be used to purchase vests; and, if not,
( 2 ) Whether your jurisdiction considered using LLEBG funds to purchase vests, but has concluded it will not use its LLEBG funds in that manner.
Robert L. Bauman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer 

 I, Robert L. Bauman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, certify that: 
      -   I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-KSB of Hickok Incorporated (the "small business issuer");  
      -   Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  
      -   Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small businessissuer as of, and for,the periods presented in this annual report;  
      -   The small business issuer's othercertifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave:    a) Designed such disclosurecontrols andprocedures,  or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared;    b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthesmall business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and    c) Disclosed in this report anychange in the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recentfiscal quarter(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomateriallyaffect, the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting;and  
      -   The small business issuer's othercertifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer'sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):    a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thesmall business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize andreportfinancial information; and    b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer's internal control overfinancialreporting. 

 By: 

 /s/ R. L. Bauman 

 R. L. Bauman 

 Chief Executive Officer 

 December 26, 2007
(No. 77-CC-1201

#### Robert Hendricks, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 10, 1979.*

Polos, C.J.

*673Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

Claimant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that while an inmate at the Pontiac Penitentiary, he was placed in segregation and placed his personal property in the control of the State of Illinois. When he returned from segregation certain items of his property were damaged, and others were missing.

This Court held in *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl._*_, deciding that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions.

While bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and involuntary bailments have been recognized:

> “A constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession thereof.” 4A Illinois Law and Practice 550, Bailments, citing *Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc., v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, et al., 57 Ill. App. 2d 90, 207 NE2d 84.*

In *Chesterfield,*the Court quotes from *Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So2d. 172, at 174,*as follows;

> “An actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where, otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law, generally *674treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.”

The loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence.

At the trial of this cause the State presented no testimony to explain the disappearance of Claimant’s property, and presented no testimony of its freedom from negligence.

The presumption that the State was negligent in caring for Claimant’s property therefore stands unrebutted.

Claimant has established that the value of the property lost by the State was $165.00.

It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $165.00.
# Official Journal C 42A/20 F

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 42A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5220 February 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 42A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5220 February 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2009/C 042A/01 | Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/100/07 — Linguistic administrators (AD 5) having English as their main language in the field of translation | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2009/C 042A/01

Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/100/07 — Linguistic administrators (AD 5) having English as their main language in the field of translation

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7443** 

JAMES DAVID WESLEY CARR , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden; NICKY SEIFERT, Unit Manager; DAVID BALLARD, Warden, M.O.C.C.; JOHN P. SULLIVAN, P.D.; DON MORRIS, D.A.; DAVID PROCTOR, M.D. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00040

- GMG

- JSK )

Submitted : February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James David Wesley Carr, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James David Wesley Carr appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (20 12 ). We have reviewed the record and find no

re versible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Carr v. Seifert , No. 3:13

- cv - 00040

-
GMG

- JSK (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 21, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presen ted in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

**FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:** 85 FR 12956, March 5, 2020

**PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:** Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.

**CHANGES IN THE MEETING:** The Open Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 9:30 a.m., has been cancelled and will be rescheduled for a future date.

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:** For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: March 9, 2020

Vanessa A. CountrymanSecretary
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 374 

Expressing support for the designation of October 23, 2019, as a national 

day of remembrance of the tragic terrorist bombing of the United States 

Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 23, 2019 

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. JONES, Mr. 

CRUZ, Ms. ROSEN, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

COONS, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. CASEY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of October 23, 2019, 

as a national day of remembrance of the tragic terrorist 

bombing of the United States Marine Corps barracks 

in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983. 

Whereas, in 1982, the United States deployed members of 

the Armed Forces to Lebanon as part of a multinational 

peacekeeping force; 

Whereas, early on the morning of October 23, 1983, a truck 

packed with explosives detonated outside of a building at 

Beirut International Airport that served as quarters for 

several hundred members of the Armed Forces deployed 

as part of the peacekeeping force; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 374 IS 

Whereas 241 members of the Armed Forces were killed in 

the blast; 

Whereas the members of the Armed Forces killed included 

220 Marines, members of the Battalion Landing Team, 

1st Battalion, 8th Marines Regiment, which made October 23, 1983, the deadliest day for the Marine Corps 

since the Battle of Iwo Jima in February and March 

1945 during World War II; 

Whereas, in addition to the Marine Corps casualties, 18 Navy 

sailors and 3 Army soldiers were killed, and more than 

100 other members of the Armed Forces were injured; 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces from 39 States and 

Puerto Rico died while serving in Beirut, Lebanon, from 

1982 to 1984; 

Whereas, on the same day as the bombing of the Marine 

Corps barracks, another suicide bomber killed 58 French 

paratroopers housed at another building in Beirut; and 

Whereas it is fitting and proper to recognize the events of 

October 23, 1983, and the members of the Armed Forces 

of the United States who died in Beirut on that day 

through the establishment of a national day of remembrance on October 23, 2019: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a national day 

3 of remembrance on October 23, 2019, for members 

4 of the Armed Forces of the United States who were 

5 killed or injured by the terrorist attack on the 

6 United States Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, 

7 Lebanon, on October 23, 1983; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 374 IS 

1 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

2 to support and participate in appropriate cere3 monies, programs, and other activities in observance 

4 of such a national day of remembrance. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7342]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on March 30, 2011 at 
10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be:
    Item 1: The Commission will consider whether to propose joint rules 
with other Agencies to implement Section 941(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to credit risk 
retention by securitizers of asset-backed securities.
    Item 2: The Commission will consider whether to propose a new rule 
and rule amendments to implement Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires the 
Commission to direct the national securities exchanges and national 
securities associations to adopt certain listing standards with respect 
to compensation committees and compensation advisers. Section 952 also 
requires the Commission to adopt new disclosure rules concerning the 
use of compensation consultants and conflicts of interest.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, determined that no earlier 
notice thereof was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

     Dated: March 24, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7342 Filed 3-24-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Company Filings

Skip to Main Content
              -  About                  - Careers
                - Commissioners
                - Contact
                - Reports and Publications
                - Securities Laws
                - Mission 
              -  Divisions & Offices                  - Corporation Finance
                - Enforcement
                - Investment Management
                - Economic and Risk Analysis
                - Trading and Markets
                - Examinations
                - Office of Administrative Law Judges
                - Regional Offices
                - All Divisions and Offices 
              -  Enforcement                  - Litigation Releases
                - Administrative Proceedings
                - Opinions and Adjudicatory Orders
                - Accounting and Auditing
                - Trading Suspensions
                - How Investigations Work
                - Receiverships
                - Information for Harmed Investors 
              -  Regulation                  - Rulemaking Index
                - Proposed Rules
                - Final Rules
                - Interim Final Rules
                - Other Orders and Notices
                - Self-Regulatory Organizations
                - Staff Interpretations 
              -  Education                  - Investor.gov
                - Five Questions to Ask Before You Invest
                - About Investment Professionals
                - Check Your Investment Professional
                - Investing Tools and Calculators
                - Investment Products
                - Understanding Fees
                - Investor Alerts and Bulletins
                - Glossary 
              -  Filings                  - EDGAR Search & Access
                - Company Filing Search
                - How to Search EDGAR
                - Requesting Public Documents
                - Forms List
                - Information for Filers
                - About EDGAR 
              -  News                  - Press Releases
                - Speeches and Statements
                - Spotlight Topics
                - Upcoming Events
                - Webcasts
                - SEC in the News
                - SEC Videos
                - Media Gallery 

# Revised Open Meeting Agenda

## Wednesday, July 18, 2018

| **Item 1:** | **Securities Act Rule 701**                                         |
|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Office:     | Division of Corporation Finance                                     |
| Staff:      | David Fredrickson, Tamara Brightwell, Anne Krauskopf, and Adam Turk |
||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 83998 / August 30, 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18473

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of :

 :

VISIUM ASSET MANAGEMENT, LP : ORDER ESTABLISHING FAIR FUND

:

Respondent. :

___________________________________ :

On May 8, 2018, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Ceaseand-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21C of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act 

of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (the 

“Order”)1against Visium Asset Management, LP (“Visium”). The Commission determined that, 

from at least July 2011 to December 2012, Visium, through two of its portfolio managers, 

engaged in a mismarking scheme, using sham broker quotes to falsely inflate the value of 

securities held by a fund for which Visium acted as investment adviser (the “Credit Fund”). As a 

result, the Credit Fund reported falsely inflated returns, overstated its net asset value (“NAV”), 

misclassified certain distressed assets, and paid approximately $3.15 million in falsely charged 

performance and management fees. The Commission ordered Visium to pay to the Commission 

disgorgement of $4,755,223, prejudgment interest of $720,711, and a civil money penalty of 

$4,755,223. The Commission further ordered that the entirety of the monetary relief could be 

distributed to investors harmed by the conduct described in the Order (the “Harmed Investors”) if 

a Fair Fund is established pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as 

amended.

Visium has paid in full and the Commission currently holds more than $10.2 million, 

comprised of $5,475,934 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, a $4,755,223 civil money 

penalty, and accrued interest. The Commission staff has determined that funds in addition to the 

approximately $5.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest will be necessary to 

compensate the Harmed Investors and pay the taxes, fees, and expenses of distribution.

The Division of Enforcement recommends that a Fair Fund be established, pursuant to 

Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, so that the ordered civil money 

 

1

Securities Act Rel. No. 10494 (May 8, 2018). 
2

penalty can be added to the approximately $5.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest 

for the benefit of the Harmed Investors. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that pursuant to Section 308(a) of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, a Fair Fund is established so that the civil money 

penalty can be added to the disgorgement and prejudgment interest paid by Visium for the 

benefit of harmed investors

By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary