alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Winkelmann, Guardian, Respondent, vs. Brickert and another, Appellants.

*January 13*

January *31, 1899.*

*Sills and notes: Payments to supposed agent.*

The purchaser of a negotiable note and the mortgage securing it is not chargeable with payments thereafter made by the mortgagor to a third person who did not have possession of the papers and was not the agent of the purchaser, where the latter did no act authorizing a belief that an agency existed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dodge county: James J. Dick, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Malone dé Baelv-*huber, and oral argument by *J. E. Malone.*

*Hcwiow*Pease, for the respondent.

Winslow, J.

This is an action for the foreclosure of a' mortgage upon real estate executed January 29, 1883, and owned by the plaintiff. The sole question in issue between the parties was whether W. T. Rambusch was the agent of the plaintiff during the years 1892 to 1896, inclusive, so that certain payments made during those years by the defendant mortgagors to Rambusch should be credited upon the mort*51gage. The plaintiff bought the note and mortgage July 2, 1892; the note was negotiable, and was not then due. The purchase was made of the Citizens’ Bank of Juneau, through Mr. Hemmy, the cashier, and the plaintiff has had possession of the same ever since. The defendants thereafter made several payments of interest and instalments of principal to Rambusch, believing him to be the agent of the owner of the mortgage. He was not such agent, and he converted the moneys to his own use. The testimony not only shows that Rambusch was not the agent of the plaintiff, but that the plaintiff had never done any act which would authorize any one to think so. The defendants were grossly negligent in making payments to Mr. Rambusch without production of the note or any proof that he was authorized to receive such payments. The court held that the agency was not proven, and hence that the payments could not be credited, and the finding is the only one that the evidence would justify. A more detailed statement of the evidence would not be useful.

*By the*Oowrt.— Judgment affirmed.

Bardeen, J., took no part.
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of HEI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 3, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Mark B. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley AcT of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ Mark B. Thomas   Mark B. Thomas   Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   Date: April 2, 2007A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HEI, Inc.and will be retained by HEI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
#### Baumgarten, Appellant, vs. Matchette, Respondent.

*April 11*

May *1, 1914.*

*Appealable orders: Suppressing examination of adverse party.*

An order of the circuit court affirming an order of the Milwaukee civil court suppressing an examination of the defendant under sec. 4096, Stats., until after the service and filing of the complaint, is not appealable.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: OscaR M. Fritz, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

*Charles F.*Hammersley, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Miller, Mach & Fairchild,*and oral argument by *8. J. McMahon.*

Kbrwin, J.

This action was commenced in the civil court of Milwaukee county. At the time of the commencement thereof an affidavit and notice for examination of the respondent and his agent under sec. 4096, Stats., before a court commissioner were served. Afterwards a motion was made in the civil court by the respondent to deny and suppress the notice, subpoena, and examination under sec. 4096, Stats., and *231all other proceedings had for the purpose of such examination, and to stay all proceedings for the purpose of procuring such examination until the plaintiff served his complaint. The motion was heard before the civil court, and an order made granting it and staying proceedings until the plaintiff filed his complaint. An appeal was taken from this order to the circuit court; the circuit court affirmed the order of the civil court, and the appellant appealed to this court from such order of the circuit court.

The question arises whether this order is appealable. Sec. 3069, Stats., specifies what orders of the circuit court may be brought here by appeal, and the present order is not included in the appealable orders mentioned in this section. This case is ruled by *Wildes v. Franke, ante,*p. 189, 146 N. W. 1119.

*By the Court.*— The appeal is dismissed.
REF ID:A673~ (.>.. ~ -~· 

NATIONAL SECURI'l'f AGEllCY 

Washington 25, D. c. 

BSA HmULATION 

RUMBER 10-1~ Jl December 195~ 

EFFECTIVE UJITIL l JANUAlf.( 1956 t.'RL!SS BOOHER 

RESCINDED- OR SUPE:BSEDED 

ESTABLISHMENT OF A TJ!X:BNICAL JOURHAL 

SECTION 

PURFOSE •••••••• • • • • 

EDITORIAL DlRl!.'CTION • 

SUPERVISION • • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

SECTION I - PURPOSE 

I 

II 

III 

In the interests of aiding the growth of all NBA techniciana 

in knowledge of their subjects, skill in the tecbnique11 of their 

cratta, and understanding of tbe broad nature of the cryptologic 

f1.tnct1on1 a technical Journal is established in the AE;eney. I 

SECTION II • EDITORIAL DIRECTIO! 

1. The NSA Technical Journal Editorial Policy Boa.rel w1ll 

be establ iahed a"ld membership announce'! by General om.rs. rJi 

~~-= 'fllf 2. The boa.r.l will consist of' a chairman and one representative :.iss,.1114'9 

from each of the following: PR>D, COMSEC, R/;J, AG, TEC, TBO@_P/~StC. • 

3. The Editorial Policy Board will: 

a. Establish initial policy with respect to claas1f1• 

cation, distribution, format and scope of material to be publlabed, 

and such other matters as require determination. 

b. Publish policy stawm.enta for guidance of tbe .Manas· 

:l.ng Dl1tor a.ad the ae"reral elements of the Agency. 

c. Review iaauea at the Jburnal. and operating P"OCedurea 

ot the Editorial Statt for conformance to pol1c1. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 05-29-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
REF ID:A67319 • ,... "\I. ... 

!1 Deaember 195Jc. 

SICTIOR III - SUPERVISIOR 

Supemaion tor the 1mplaaentat1on ot the pol:lcJ' eata'b11sbe4 

herein ts the respou1b111t7 ot the Chief', Technical Int'ormt:lon 

Dina:lon. 

B. M. CJIISCll 

Lt. Colonel, .AOC 

Acting ~utant Qeneral 

Dnmu:BU'.mll' "III ---

L. B. J"ROST 

Rear Ac1miral,, u. s. 11av 

Chief' ot Statt 

- 2 -
From: Mills, Alberta E.
To: Heggs, Angela Subject: FW: March 11th Letter from Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter
Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:40:07 AM Attachments: 2015_03_11_InhofeVitterLetter.pdf



### Hi Angie,

comments for the phthalates rulemaking.

From: Tsacoumis, Stephanie Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:36 AM To: Mills, Alberta E. Cc: Levine, Jason; Boyle, Mary; Pollitzer, Patricia Subject: FW: March 11th Letter from Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter



### For inclusion in the rulemaking record on the phthalates rule.

Many thanks in advance.

From: OLA e-mail Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 6:03 PM To: Kaye, Elliot; Fong-Swamidoss, Jana; Adkins, Patricia; Tsacoumis, Stephanie; Wolfson, Scott; Richardson, Julia; Midgett, Jonathan; Hatlelid, Kristina Subject: FW: March 11th Letter from Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter



### Letter on phthalate rule.

CCs other commissioners.

Will need to go in public record I suppose.

Will post in OLA database tomorrow.

Jason K. Levine Director Office of Legislative Affairs CPSC 301-504-7853

From: Ledbetter, Rachel (SBC) [ mailto:Rachel_Ledbetter@sbc.senate.gov ] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:17 PM To: OLA e-mail Cc: Cormier, Ward (SBC) Subject: March 11th Letter from Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter



### Mr. Levine,

### I am emailing on behalf of Ward Cormier from Senator Vitter’s Office. Please find the attached

March 11 th 

### , 2015, letter regarding the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks,



## Rachel Ledbetter

Staff Assistant Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship Chairman David Vitter 428A Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5175
cAnt

A4CrE At I

AL REF ENI- -/

arliP•T ••••• •

'I.

/q39

WA NO RECEIVED

lil) i NIL 23112 1lDD ARTig

'P 116552

le MEN, 1W IIIIIIIIMI Acno N k/Dr

AMN *SD VASE DC . 11 FEB,I959 23 .70i TO CON AFBND LOS ANEW CALIF INFO COM ARDC ANDRES AF2 IN FC: a14)....k:-. 4A

sr

AMOQVID ENTIAL//DEF 95,47,4 FROM OLD ARPA SC) I

, TI CONFIRM TELECON 50 FEBRUARY COL. NADLER, ARM AND COL. Arms, Rapt

REQUEST FY 5P AND 40 COST ESTIMATES, PURPOSE AND LOCATION IF FACILITIES FOR DISCOVERER SENTRY AND MIDAS PROGRAMS. nu contra ARPA sun INCLUDE

NT 41•541. a imro am la Fri

IBIS IS AN AC MSC -AC--PARAPHRASING NOT REQUIRED EXCEPT PRIOR TO OORY B CATE- ENCRYPTION PHYSICALLY REMOVE ALL INTERNAL Rer- 11/31172 FEB HJHEINF THIS I 'MINCES BY DATE-TIME GROUP PRIOR 

NO UN TO DECLASSIFICATION--

CLASSIFIED REFERENCE IF DATE-TIME GROUP IS QUOTED."

NNNN EMI ACX FOR ONE PLS.

'IUD IND T

DUI.

ODED A T 12

DWNGRA

YEAR

INTERVALS; NC.)

Ut.,ANICALLY

DEO-AS.5°0. 

DOD De 52004

•
NRO to host Federal Reconnaissance Users 

Conference

4 December 2001 

The National Reconnaissance Office will host the Federal Reconnaissance Users Conference 

Feb. 4-7 at its headquarters in Chantilly, Va. 

This classified conference is a forum to examine current and future reconnaissance capabilities to 

respond to threats and explore applications of remote sensing data across an expanding user base. 

Key objectives of the conference are to identify data needs of federal users, to explore areas of 

common interest and concern, and to demonstrate those successful data applications. 

Appropriately cleared policy makers, planners, project managers and operators and 

representatives from the remote sensing, geospatial, and information technology community are 

invited to attend. For more information on the conference and registration procedures call (703) 

808-3371.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1263

MARTIN GUBB,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

P&M SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Marc Lorelli , Brooks Kushman P.C., of Southfie ld, Michigan, argue d for plaintiffappellee. With him on the brief was Mark A. Cantor

.

Mark S. Demorest , Demorest Law Firm, PPLC, of Birmingham, Michigan, argued

for defendant-appellant.

Appealed from: United States District Cour t for the Eastern District of Michigan

Senior Judge Julian Abele Cook, Jr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1263

MARTIN GUBB,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

P&M SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.



# Judgment

ON APPEAL from the UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

In CASE NO(S). 2:04-CV-72432.

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam: (MAYER, GAJARSA and MOORE, Circuit Judges ):

AFFIRMED . See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _March 4, 2008 ____ / s / Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ OPTIMUM POWER SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant,
v. HEWLETT
- PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________ 2013
- 1277

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPTIMUM POWER SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant,
v. SONY ELECTRONICS , INC. , Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________ 2013
- 127 8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPTIMUM POWER SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant,
v.O PTIMUM P OWER S OLUTIONS V . H EWLETT -P ACKARD C OMPANY 2 LENOVO (UNITED STATE S), INC., Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________ 2013
- 1279

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPTIMUM POWER SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant,
v. DELL INC., Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________ 2013
- 1280

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No s . 12
- CV

- 3125, 12
- CV

- 3126, 12
- CV

- 3127, and 12
- CV

- 49 99, Judge William H. Alsup.

______________________ Before D YK , W ALLACH , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges
. P ER C URIAM O R D E R T he judgment s of non

- infringement in favor of the d efendant -appellees Hewlett

- Packard Co., Sony Electronics , Inc. , Lenovo , Inc. , and Dell, Inc. are affirmed. We base our decision solely on our agreement with the district court’s construction of the phrase “ wherein the power control means supply power to said memory integrated circuit .” Un der the parties’ stipulation, o ur agreement with this aspect of the district court’s claim constructionO PTIMUM P OWER S OLUTIONS V . H EWLETT -P ACKARD C OMPANY 3 is sufficient to support the non

- infringement judgment. We do not reach any other issues raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED
F OR THE C OURT December 12, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
cc: Bryan G. Harrison Paul Alexander
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50748

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Menchaca, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-78-2

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Menchaca challenges his sentence for conspiring to transport 

illegal aliens and transporting illegal aliens for financial gain. The district 

court applied a sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6)

after it determined that Menchaca created a substantial risk of death or 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 21, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50748 Document: 00516246020 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-50748

2

serious bodily injury to the aliens he transported. Menchaca contends that 

the circumstances of his offense do not warrant the enhancement. 

We review a district court’s interpretation and application of the 

Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States 

v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. 

Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2011). The vehicle at issue was 

overcrowded with 15 aliens (one driver and 14 passengers), with multiple 

individuals lying on top of each other, and was visibly carrying a lot of weight.

1

 

As the commentary to § 2L1.1 provides “carrying substantially more 

passengers than the rated capacity of a motor vehicle,” § 2L1.1, comment. 

(n.3), as an example of reckless conduct that would support such an

enhancement, the district court did not clearly err when it applied the § 

2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement on these facts, see Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d at 

207; Rodriguez, 630 F.3d at 380.

AFFIRMED.

1

 In his brief to this court, Menchaca claims he was unaware of the number of 

passengers who would be in the suburban. This argument was not raised in the district 

court, and he failed to properly brief before this court any claim of plain error, so we do not 

consider this argument. See United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006)

(noting that inadequately briefed arguments are deemed abandoned).

Case: 21-50748 Document: 00516246020 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
• • DD _6_-

~s 

?f~-q.~ 

~ 

USCIB: 14/2.86 .U'P&!DED DOCUt'~'l'S CONTAIN CODE WORD MATERIAL 

16 March 19S3 

'!eP SB0BBP = SEEHJRPH l:RPelBQfteH 

Ml!HORANDUK FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

Ref'erence: 

COHINT Arrangements tor SACLANT. 

USOIB 14/273 dtd 9 February 1953• 

The enclosure. 'Nhich re.fleets the views ot USCIB 

expressed at the Eigbt7-second Meeting with regard to 

the re.terenca. has been sent to the Chairman, London 

Signal Intelligence Board, and is forwarded herewith 

tor intormaticm. 

Enclosure 

CIB II 00024 dtd 

7 March 195.3. 

USCIB: JJ+/286 

~J....t!..AJ 

r~~~E Acting Executive Secret.ar.r, USCIB 

~·PPENDJID JJOCUI'1.&NTS CON-

·rAIN COD!!: WORD MAT.l!:'RIJ\L 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-26-2015 pursuantto E .0. 1352\3 

TOP SECRET 

25 
,· 

• 

ThJS document JS to be r ,nly by thoae peraonnel officially indoe\nnated in accordane< n rom• munieatioll intelbgenee sec11rity reglllatlons and a11thorized to receive the information repnrt.ed herein, 

CENTRAL MELLIGENCE AG.ENCY 

WASHINGTON 2S. D. C. 

OFFICE rl fHE DIREC'l'OR 

CIB II 00024 

7 March 19S3 

!OP SEef:11IP 9M9E - SECURITY INPORHATION 

DMOIWmUK FOR THE CHAIRMAN, LCllb SIGNAL INTELLIG:nJCE BOARD: 

Subject: COMINT Arrangemits tor SACLAN'l'. • 

lo At its Februar.r Meeting, USCIB considered. the amendments to 

the final Report; and Reconmendat1G1S of the US/UK/Canadian P~ 

Oonterence m 11COMIN'J.' ArrangemeDts tor SACLANT11 proposed 1n LSIB/26/S'J, 

21 J&nuarJ' 1953. 

2, USCIB viewa with reg&rd to the reterenced paragraphs ot 

LSIB/26/53 were as follows: 

_J 

(a) Reference paragraph 2a. LSIB agreement with USCIB 

proposed amendments to par~~s 11 and 12 ot SAC/E/R/7 and 

paragraphs 14 and 1.5 ot SAC/E/R/(6) was not.ad. 

(b) Reference par&RQph 2b. The Board was of the opiilion 

that ccnsiderat.im ot this-.\\llltter should be deterred. pending acceptance or a revised veraiOli ot Appendix B, BRUSA. 

(c) Reference paragrapha 2c and 2d. The proposed rewordi!Jg was approved. . (d) Reference p&rasfaph 2e. It is anticipated that u.s. 

authorities will nminate a representative for consideration 

tor the position or SACLAm "I" otticer. 

T (Signed) 

I _.ALLEN W. DULLES 

Chairman• United St.ates 

Cammmications Intelligence Board 

Copy to: Chairman, Communications Research Camd.ttee 

I 

--' 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY - Fo111781-C10SC TQP - 1 Jul Si SECRET CANOE
#### Marjorie V. Brown, Appellant, v Zandra Lawrence et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 528]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, Jr., J.), entered January 13, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict in her favor on the issue of liability and upon the granting of the defendants’ motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, made at the close of the plaintiffs case and renewed at the close of trial, dismissed the complaint. Justice Howard Miller has been substituted for Justice Robert W. Schmidt *(see*22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a linoleum floor in the defendants’ home, after her daughter, the defendant Zandra Lawrence, mopped an area of the floor. The plaintiff testified that she did not see any substance on the floor before, during, or after her fall, and merely speculated that she slipped because the floor had just been mopped.

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, made at the close of the plaintiffs case and renewed after the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff *(see Fielding v Rachlin Mgt. Corp.,*309 AD2d 894 [2003]; *Malanga v City of New York,*300 AD2d 549 [2002]; *Greenberg v New York City Tr. Auth.,*290 AD2d 412, 413 [2002]). Krausman, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
• 

USCIB: 2$.16/4 

3 September 1954 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

l'O:i ii'.~ y,s. SES ONnY PL 86-36/$0 USC 3605 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ~BERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Terms of Reference for U.s.~._ ___ .... lcCMINT Negotiations. 

Reference: USCIB 2$.18/17 dated 16 August 1954. 

1. Tne Report of the Ad Hoc Committee described in the reference 

is circulated herewith in connection with item 2 bf the agenda for the 

106th Meeting of USCIB to be held Friday, 10 September 1954. 

2. THIS DOCUMENT AND ITS ENCLOSURE CONTAIN COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION AND SHALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNELS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR CCMINT. 

Enclosure 

a/s 

USCIB: 2$ .16/4 

24 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-29-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

TOP SECRET.
NSA Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaints Data

Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act

FY22 (3rd Quarter)

I. Complaints of Discrimination Filed

34 34

Number of Individuals Filing Complaints 31

Number of Individuals Filing Two or More Complaints 3

II. Bases of Complaints Filed

Age 5

Color 6

Disability 12

National Origin 3

Race 7

GINA 6

Religion 12

Reprisal 4

Sex 8

1. Equal Pay Act 0

2. Pregnancy Discrimination Act 0

III. Issues of Complaints Filed

Assignment of Duties 1

Awards 0

Disciplinary Action

Warning 2

Removal 0

Suspension 0

Disciplinary 11

Duty Hours 0

Evaluation/Appraisal 0

Examination/Test 0

Harassment (Sexual) 0

(Non-Sexual) 6

Promotion/Non-selection 4

Reasonable Accommodation 4

Reassignment - Denied 0

Termination 0

Terms and Conditions of Employment 10

Time and Attendance 0
Training 0

IV. Average Complaints Processing Time to Completion

All Investigations

1. Hearing Not Requested 34

2. Hearing Requested 10

Final Actions by Agency

1. Processing Time Without a Hearing/FAD 274

2. Processing Time With a Hearing/Final Order 177

V. Dismissals

Number of Dismissals 0

Average Days Pending At the Time of Dismissal 0

VI. Withdrawals

Number of Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants 4

VII. Findings of Discrimination

Findings Rendered with a Hearing

Number of Findings 0

Findings Rendered without a Hearing

Number of Findings 0

Issues of Findings of Discrimination

Number of Issues 0

Bases of Findings of Discrimination

Number of Bases 0

VIII. Pending Complaints Carried Over From Previous FYs

Complaints Open Any Length of Time During Reporting Year

1. Number of Individuals Filing These Complaints 17

2. Number of These Complaints Currently Pending 17

Status of These Cases:

1. Investigation 45

2. Final Agency Action 13

Hearing 16

 Appeal 4

IX. Complaints Pending Any Length of Time This Fiscal Year Not 

Investigated Within 180 Days (plus any authorized extensions)

0