alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 287.10 Expedited internal review process. ( a ) *Violations of standards for enforcement activities.* Alleged violations of the standards for enforcement activities established in accordance with the provisions of § 287.8 shall be investigated expeditiously consistent with the policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security and pursuant to any guidelines issued by the Secretary.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any persons wishing to lodge a complaint pertaining to violations of enforcement standards contained in § 287.8 may contact the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, 245 Murray Drive—Building 410, Washington, DC, 20548, or telephone 1-800-323-8603. With respect to employees of the former INS, persons may contact the Office of Internal Audit, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC, 20536.
( c ) *Expedited processing of complaints.* When an allegation or complaint of violation of § 287.8 is lodged against an employee or officer of the Department, the allegation or complaint shall be referred promptly for investigation in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Department. At the conclusion of an investigation of an allegation or complaint of violation of § 287.8, the investigative report shall be referred promptly for appropriate action in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Department.
( d ) *Unsubstantiated complaints.* When an investigative report does not support the allegation, the employee or officer against whom the allegation was made shall be informed in writing that the matter has been closed as soon as practicable. No reference to the allegation shall be filed in the official's or employee's official personnel file.
( e ) *Jurisdiction of Department of Justice organizations.* Nothing in this section alters or limits, is intended to alter or limit, or shall be construed to alter or limit, the jurisdiction or authority conferred upon the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorneys, the Criminal Division or the Civil Rights Division, or any other component of the Department of Justice that may have jurisdiction regarding criminal violations of law.
[68 FR 35281, June 13, 2003]
### Bedrock geology of the Wickford quadrangle, Rhode Island

By: Roger B. Williams

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1158C

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Butler, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Butler, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Butler, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Butler, Defendant-Appellant. *131United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Butler, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 01-6584, 01-6625, 01-6585, 01-6780, 01-6595, 01-7065.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 28, 2001.

Decided May 14, 2002.

James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James A. Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001), his motion for reconsideration, and various preliminary motions. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Butler,*No. CR-91-44 (E.D. Va. Mar. 9 *&*29, 2001 & Apr. 27, 2001). We also deny Butler’s motion to supplement the record on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------
                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference of our report dated October 3, 2001  included in this Form 10-K,  into
Herley  Industries,  Inc.'s previously filed  Registration  Statements File Nos.
333-72427,  333-17369, 333-19739, 333-46777, 333-35485, 333-95327, 333-95975 and
333-71476.



                                                 /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Lancaster, PA
October 22, 2001



<PAGE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

p0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

140495 & (46)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140495 COA: 285753 St. Clair CC: 07-002780-FC DOUGLAS RICHARD RUTKOFSKE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for
miscellaneous relief is GRANTED.
SERVED NOVEMBER 7, 2011 _,.., . ,,^^^05: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOTjJrVp^i^ATlOHS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ^ '' 

WASHINGTON, DC ^A ^ -8 P I'- ^2 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

QUENTON T. BROWN 

Respondent 

FAA DOCICET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011 -1009 

NOTICE OF 

LITIGATION SCHEDULING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 

You Are Hereby Notified: 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.205 et seq., a Litigation Scheduling Conference will 

be held by telephone on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at lOiOOam, Eastern Time. All 

parties in this case must attend the telephone conference, either personally or by a 

representative who has the authority to schedule pre-hearing litigation dates and hearing 

times. The Office of Hearings will initiate the conference call. 

The conference will convene promptly at the time specified above. The parties 

should plan to attend for approximately 30-40 minutes. The purpose of the Litigation 

Scheduling Conference is to address all litigation calendaring issues, including due dates 

and deadlines for the following: exchange of witness lists, exchange of discovery, the 

scheduling of any knovm motions, the due date for a settlement status report, and the 

scheduling of the hearing day(s), place and time. 

The parties are directed to informally consult with each other prior to the start 

of the Litigation Scheduling Conference, so that stipulations and/or agreements on 

Page 1 of2 
various litigation due dates may be proposed at the start of the Conference. NB; The 

Respondent shall also file a written Answer to the Complaint. 

The Office of Hearings will contact all parties at their phone number of record. 

Any alternate phone number must be given to the Office of Hearings at least 24 hours in 

advance of the Conference (Contact: Diane Mays, Legal Assistant (202)-366-2132). 

After the Litigation Scheduling Conference is adjourned, a Litigation Procedural 

Order codifying the Litigation Schedule and any other agreements by the parties will be 

filed and served. 

Ivan 

frative Law Judge 

Attachment -Service List 

Page 2 of2 
FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL Si ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGCr430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Quenton T. Brown, Respondent 

622 W.Miller Street 

Orlando, FL 32805-4502 

TEL: 321-594-8501 

Mark G. Camacho, Complainanl's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportafion 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.-' 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30.
### §11. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act May 10, 1926, ch. 277, §1, 44 Stat. 491, related to medical attention for employees of the National Park Service. See section 101303(a) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 6622 Filed 03/07/19 Entered 03/07/19 17:11:59 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 6622 Filed 03/07/19 Entered 03/07/19 17:11:59 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
§ 222.16 What information and documentation must a local educational agency submit for an eligible overpayment to be considered for forgiveness? ( a ) Every LEA requesting forgiveness must submit, within the time limits established under § 222.14(b), the following information and documentation for the fiscal year immediately preceding the date of the forgiveness request (“preceding fiscal year”): ( 1 ) A copy of the LEA's annual financial report to the State.
( 2 ) The LEA's local real property tax rate for current expenditure purposes, as described in § 222.17(b).
( 3 ) The average local real property tax rate of all LEAs in the State.
( 4 ) The average per pupil expenditure (APPE) of the LEA, calculated by dividing the LEA's aggregate current expenditures by the total number of children in average daily attendance for whom the LEA provided a free public education.
( 5 ) The APPE of the State, as defined in section 8013 of the ESEA.
( b ) An LEA requesting forgiveness under § 222.14(c)(2) (manifestly unjust repayment exception), or § 222.17(a)(3) (no present or prospective ability to repay), also must submit written information and documentation in specific support of its forgiveness request under those provisions within the time limits established under § 222.14(b).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7712)
[62 FR 35413, July 1, 1997]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 12


                      HIGH VOLTAGE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                     (In thousands, except ratio amounts)
                               (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                            APRIL 24,     APRIL 25,     APRIL 26,     APRIL 27,    APRIL 29,
                                              1999           1998         1997          1996          1995
                                           ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------   ----------
<S>                                        <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>
Earnings:
    Income (loss) from continuing
      operations before income taxes,
      discontinued operations and
      extraordinary item.................  $   2,205    $  (15,536)    $  (3,020)     $ (4,629)   $   (2,316)
                                           ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------   ----------

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense, accretion of
      redeemable put warrants and
      amortization of debt discount
      and premium on all indebtedness....     19,854        18,159        10,845        10,292         7,777
    Portion of rent under long-term
      operating leases representative
      of an interest factor (1/3)........        658           683           483           287           344
    Accretion of redeemable preferred
      stock..............................        266           270            --            --            --
    Preferred stock dividend requirement.      2,597         3,085           479           446           896
    Capitalized interest.................         --            --            --            --           113
                                           ----------    ----------     ---------    ----------   ----------
         Total fixed charges.............     23,375        22,197        11,807        11,025         9,130
                                           ----------    ----------     ---------    ----------   ----------
    Earnings from continuing operations
      before income taxes, discontinued
      operations, extraordinary item
      and fixed charges..................  $  25,580     $   6,661     $   8,787      $  6,396      $  6,814
                                            ---------     ---------    -----------   ----------   ----------
                                            ---------     ---------    -----------   ----------   ----------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.......       1.09x           --            --            --            --

</TABLE>

The Company's earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $15,536,
$3,020, $4,629, and $2,316 in fiscal 1998, 1997, 1996 and 1995, respectively.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

t0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144748

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144748

COA: 307334

Sanilac CC: 10

- 006782

- FC

GARY RICHARDS CURRIE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### George W. Salisbury, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of John H. Roy, Doing Business under the Name of John H. Roy & Co., Appellant, v. Jenette Deady and John Q. Deady, as Surviving Executors, etc., of W. N. Deady, Late of Lyons, Wayne County, Deceased, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred; Robson, J., not sitting.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Ex12
                               Idaho Power Company
                       Consolidated Financial Information
                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges



                                            Twelve Months Ended December 31,
                                                 (Thousands of Dollars)
                                        1997         1998        1999       2000           2001

                                  <c>          <c>          <c>         <c>         <c>
Earnings, as defined:
  Income from continuing operations
  before  income taxes               $ 135,908    $ 133,021   $ 119,872   $ 128,139   $     48,250
  Adjust for distributed income of
  equity investees                      (3,943)      (4,697)       (837)     (3,116)        (1,620)
  Equity in loss of equity method
  investments                                0          476           0           0              0
  Minority interest in losses of
  majority owned subsidiaries                0         (125)          0           0              0
  Fixed charges, as below               61,743       61,394      62,969      58,833         64,964

     Total earnings, as defined      $  193,708    $ 190,069   $ 182,004   $ 183,856   $   111,594

Fixed charges, as defined:
  Interest charges                   $   60,761    $  60,593   $  62,014   $  57,797   $    64,002
  Rental interest factor                    982          801         955       1,036           962

     Total fixed charges, as
     defined                         $   61,743    $  61,394   $  62,969   $  58,833   $    64,964

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges        3.14x        3.10x       2.89x       3.13x         1.72x



</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

                            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 Liska Biometry,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lam Ko Chau, Chief
Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  to my best  knowledge  and belief,
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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


By:      /s/ Lam Ko Chau
         Lam Ko Chau
         President and CEO


Dated:  August 16, 2004

                                       18
Summary: NPS Employee Misused Government Purchase 

Card 

Report Date: December 18, 2020 Report Number: 19-0629 

The OIG investigated allegations that National Park Service (NPS) employee Stephanie Wallace 

used another NPS employee’s Government purchase card to make personal purchases. We found 

that Wallace used the employee’s purchase card to pay for her children’s private school tuition. 

Wallace pleaded guilty to theft of Government property. She was sentenced to 5 days of home 

detention and a probationary term of 1 year, and she was ordered to pay restitution totaling 

$8,328.24. 

This is a summary of an investigative report we issued to the Counselor to the Secretary, who is 

exercising the delegated authority of the NPS Director. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 20 1 1

- NM

- 109

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

RE: Sean Christian Jones XXX-XX-7071 Case No. 18-35123

DIRECTIVE FOR WAGE DEDUCTION

WALMART

702 SW 8TH STREET

BENTONVILLE, AR 72716-6299

PAYROLL DEPARTMENT

The Debtor(s), S e a n C h r i s t i a n J o n e s, having filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code,

thereby having subjected his property and all his future earnings to the jurisdiction of this Court until further notice

from this Court; and this Court having assumed exclusive jurisdiction over so much of the Debtor's future earnings

as are necessary to fund the Debtor's plan, which funds are not subject to levy or garnishment, except continuing

wage withholding orders for current child support; and the Debtor herein having requested the issuance of this

Directive to implement his plan; and Section 1325(b) of title 11 of the United States Code providing for the entry of

a wage assignment document;

IT IS DIRECTED:

That the above Employer be, and is hereby directed to deduct from Debtor's earnings for payment to fund the

debtor's plan, the sum of $ 3 7 0 . 0 0 M o n t h l y beginning I m m e d i a t e l y and to forward said deduction at least monthly

to SUZANNE E. WADE, TRUSTEE, P.O. BOX 983, Memphis Tennessee 38101-0983.

THE EMPLOYEE-DEBTOR NAME AND ABOVE CASE NUMBER MUST BE ON YOUR PAYMENTS.

The above employer is hereby enjoined from imposing any form of penalty or disiplinary action against the

Debtor because of the issuance and effect of this Directive, the same having been issued to implement the Debtor's

voluntary Chapter 13 plan as authorized by the Bankruptcy Code. Any such employer action is prohibited by

section 525 of Title 11 of the United States Code.

THIS DIRECTIVE IS ENTERED PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 04-1 OF THE UNITED

STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT.

Dated: September 22, 2021

/S/Suzanne E. Wade

Suzanne E. Wade, Trustee

Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division

IF ANY INFORMATION IS DESIRED REGARDING THIS DIRECTIVE, CALL THE TRUSTEE'S

OFFICE AT 804.775.0979 OR FAX TO 804.775.0986

PLEASE NOTIFY THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE IF AND WHEN THIS DEBTOR LEAVES YOUR

EMPLOYMENT

The Trustee does hereby certify that a copy of this Directive was mailed to the debtor, debtor's counsel and the

employer on the date above written.

/S/Suzanne E. Wade

Suzanne E. Wade, Trustee

Case 18-35123-KRH Doc 39 Filed 09/22/21 Entered 09/22/21 08:53:15 Desc

Page 1 of 1