alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Discussant Remarks 

Gary Shapiro, Westat 

This is an interesting set of papers. I have comments only for the paper by Jock Black. For the 

other two papers, I will suggest discussion questions that I hope audience members will respond to. Thus, 

the audience can provide the discussion for these papers. 

Jock Black had a good discussion on alternative ways for weighting when there are divestitures, 

splits, mergers or acquisitions. His discussion of how to produce unbiased estimates was very clear and 

thorough. 

I have some questions on the earlier portions of the paper, where the discussion in the written 

draft paper was less detailed. When there is a change in kind of business between the time of sampling 

and how it is now reported, the tabulations generally reflect the original rather than the current kind of 

business. This seems completely reasonable if the change is from retail to non-retail. However, if the 

change is from one type of retail to another type of retail, I wasn’t convinced that this is generally best. I 

welcome more elaboration on why the original classification is used. 

When a business changes size, the written paper and oral presentation discuss four possible 

weights: Unbiased weight, 1/worig; desired weight of 1.0; compromise weight of 1/3; and an objective 

alternative to 1/3(in the oral presentation but not in the written paper). I wasn’t clear as to why 1.0 is 

desired, nor why 1/worig is so bad. I would be interested in more detail as to why 1/3 tends to be used. 

Also, I was favorably inclined to the alternative weight mentioned in the oral presentation. This weight is 

objectively determined, as compared to the somewhat arbitrary choice of 1/3. 

The algorithm presented in the paper by Donna Glassbrenner applies to situations in which 

nesting occurs. I believe this is common, but would like to ask audience members if they have current or 

past situations in which the algorithm might possibly be applied. I was pleased to see this paper 

rigorously prove optimality for a procedure that might otherwise continue to be applied without any 

assurance that it actually is optimal. 

The two new record linkage methods presented in the paper by Dean Judson seem very 

promising. This paper continues a tradition of good record linkage research at the Census Bureau. I would 

like to know when Dean thinks these methods might be ready for application. My question for the 

audience is whether they have any past or current situations where these new methods might be applied. 

Are there any questions or issues that audience members can think of that pertain to your use of the 

methods?
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.1  


 
 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
  VEECO INSTRUMENTS INC.
  FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED
  EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN    
    


        
Effective January 1, 2003 


        Section 3.02
of the Veeco Instruments Inc. First Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan"), is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows: 



 3.02    Number of Shares Subject to Plan  


	(a)
	The
total number of shares of Stock available for Offerings under the Plan shall be 750,000 shares, subject to adjustment as set forth in paragraph (b) below. Such Stock may be
authorized and unissued shares, treasury shares, or shares previously issued and reacquired by the Company. Any shares for which an Offering to purchase expires or is terminated or canceled may again
be made subject to Offerings under the Plan. 
*    *    *    *    * 







This
Amendment was approved by Veeco's Board of Directors on October 24, 2002 and by its stockholders on May 9, 2003. 









QuickLinks


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO VEECO INSTRUMENTS INC. FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
STATE of Louisiana v. Matthew G. STEPHENS

NO. 2018-KH-1063

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

*579Denied. Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. State ex rel. Stephens v. State, 15-2340 (La. 3/4/16) 186 So.3d 94.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                         CERTIFICATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, George A. Powell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pride, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  May 11, 2007


/s/ George A. Powell
-----------------------------------------
George A. Powell
Vice-President, Secretary and Director
Paul GAROFOLO, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Child Support Enforcement, o/b/o Adele Elizabeth Fillyaw, Appellees.

No. 4D18-1934

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 30, 2019]

Ryan C. Shrouder of Spink, Shrouder & Karns, P.A., Cooper City, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gross, Taylor and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.9

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                           NOBLE DRILLING HOLDING LLC

                                 AUGUST 6, 2002

                  The undersigned hereby adopts the following Certificate of
Formation for the purposes of forming a limited liability company pursuant to
the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act:

                                    ARTICLE I

                  The name of the limited liability company is Noble Drilling
Holding LLC (the "Company").

                                   ARTICLE II

                  The address of the Company's registered office and the name
and address of its registered agent for service of process are as follows:

                          The Corporation Trust Company
                               1209 Orange Street
                           Wilmington, Delaware 19801

                                   ARTICLE III

                  The Company shall continue indefinitely, unless earlier
dissolved pursuant to the provisions of the Company's limited liability company
agreement or applicable law.

                  In WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Certificate of Formation to be effective as of the date first above written.

                                        By:   /s/ Courtney York
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                 Courtney York
                                                 Authorized Person
Exhibit 23.2

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

      We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos.  333-119501 and 333-33780)  pertaining
to the 1997 Stock Option and Long-Term Incentive  Compensation Plan, as amended,
of Robocom Systems International Inc. of our reports dated July 19, 2005 (except
as to Notes 5 and 8, which are as of August 16,  2005) and  September  13,  2006
with respect to the financial  statements of Robocom Systems  International Inc.
included  in the Annual  Reports on Form 10-KSB for the years ended May 31, 2005
and 2006, respectively.


                                              /s/ Eisner & Lubin, LLP

New York, New York
December 5, 2006
# C_2016383EN.01002201.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/22

---

Action brought on 26 August 2016 — FTI Touristik v EUIPO — Prantner and Giersch (Fl)

(Case T-475/16)

(2016/C 383/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harald Prantner (Hamburg, Germany) and Daniel Giersch (Monaco, Monaco)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark at issue:

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘Fl’ — Application No 12 201 273

Mark at issue:

Proceedings before EUIPO: opposition proceedings

Proceedings before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 in Case R 480/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Jeffrey Bernard STEVENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 1 of 10 PageID 2841
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2842
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 3 of 10 PageID 2843
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 4 of 10 PageID 2844
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 5 of 10 PageID 2845
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 6 of 10 PageID 2846
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 7 of 10 PageID 2847
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 8 of 10 PageID 2848
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 9 of 10 PageID 2849
Case 3:06-cv-00072-M Document 74 Filed 08/01/08 Page 10 of 10 PageID 2850
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00907]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 16, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 8, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1264 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1083, K2025-1082.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00907 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 8, 2020

a0831

Order 

Clerk

September 8, 2020

160412(20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160412

COA: 350851

Wayne CC: 94-005655-FC

DEANGELO TAJUAN JONES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 27, 

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Dennis BOTELLO, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and Sedgwick, Appellees.

No. 1D18-5169

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Pegasus Air Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric R.
Boyer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
25th day of April, 2005.



/s/ Eric R. Boyer
-------------------------------
Eric R. Boyer
Treasurer and Secretary
Pegasus Air Group, Inc.
STATE of Louisiana v. Michael MCPHERSON

NO. 2018-KH-1158

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

Denied. Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review.

*1035See State ex rel. McPherson v. State, 15-2127 (La. 3/31/17), 214 So.3d 851.

WEIMER, J., recused.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00919]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 16, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 8, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1275 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1097, K2025-1096.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00919 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
y,//d

Case 4:17-cv-00018-YGR Document 136-3 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 3
$XWREDKQ6HWWOHPHQW

32%R[

%OXH%HOO3$

A FEDERAL COURT ORDERED THIS 

NOTICE. IT IS NOT A SOLICITATION. 

127,&(2)&/$66$&7,21

6(77/(0(17±<285/(*$/5,*+76

0$<%($))(&7('

$ SDUWLDO VHWWOHPHQW KDV EHHQ SUHOLPLQDULO\

DSSURYHGLQFerrari v. Autobahn, Inc1R

FY<5* 1' &DO D FODVV DFWLRQ RQ

EHKDOI RI FRQVXPHUV ZKR EURXJKW FDUV WR

$XWREDKQ 0RWRUV IRU VHUYLFH IURP -DQXDU\ 

 WR )HEUXDU\   DQGRU SXUFKDVHG D

FHUWLILHGSUHRZQHGYHKLFOHIURP-DQXDU\

WR'HFHPEHUDFFRUGLQJWR$XWREDKQ¶V

UHFRUGV7KH 3ODLQWLIIVLQWKH FDVH DVVHUWHGWKDW

$XWREDKQ IDLOHG WR SURSHUO\ GLVFORVH ZKHQ LW

XVHGQRQ*HQXLQHSDUWVLQWKHVHUYLFHUHSDLURU

VDOH RI 0HUFHGHV %HQ] YHKLFOHV  7KH\ DOOHJHG

WKDWWKLVSUDFWLFHYLRODWHG&DOLIRUQLDODZ

35(6257('

),567&/$660$,/

863267$*(

3$,'

 1$0(

 $''5(66

 $''5(66

 &,7<67$7(=,3

 

Case 4:17-cv-00018-YGR Document 136-3 Filed 05/04/18 Page 2 of 3
$VGHVFULEHGPRUHIXOO\LQWKHGRFXPHQWVSRVWHGDW>85/@\RXDUHHOLJLEOHIRURQHRUPRUHYRXFKHUVIURP

 WR  ZKLFK PD\ EH XVHG IRU VHUYLFH DW $XWREDKQ RU UHGHHPHG IRU FKHFNV EHWZHHQ  DQG

GHSHQGLQJRQZKHQDQGKRZPDQ\WLPHV\RXYLVLWHGWKHGHDOHUVKLSDPRQJRWKHU IDFWRUV ,I\RX

SXUFKDVHGD SURGXFWFDOOHG]0D[RUSXUFKDVHGD&32YHKLFOHLQWRZKLFK]0$;PD\ KDYHEHHQDGGHG

\RXPD\DOVRVXEPLWDFODLPIRUDQDGGLWLRQDOYRXFKHUUHGHHPDEOHIRU

)XUWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ LV DYDLODEOH DW >85/@  <RX PD\ DOVR FRQWDFW WKH 6HWWOHPHQW $GPLQLVWUDWRU ZLWK

TXHVWLRQVDW>SKRQHQXPEHU@

<285/(*$/5,*+76$1'237,216,17+,66(77/(0(17

'2

127+,1*

,IWKH&RXUWDSSURYHVWKHVHWWOHPHQWDQG\RXGRQRWKLQJRQHRUPRUHVHUYLFHYRXFKHUVLQ

DPRXQWVEHWZHHQDQGZLOOEHVHQWWR\RX<RXJLYHXSWKHULJKWWRVXHWKH5HOHDVHG

3DUWLHVDQG3DUWLDOO\5HOHDVHG(QWLWLHVIRUWKH5HOHDVHG&ODLPVDVWKRVHWHUPVDUHGHILQHG

LQWKH6HWWOHPHQW$JUHHPHQW

(;&/8'(

<2856(/)

<RXZLOOQRWUHFHLYHDQ\EHQHILWIURPWKLV6HWWOHPHQWKRZHYHU\RXUHWDLQDQ\ULJKWWRILOH

DVHSDUDWHODZVXLW<RXVKRXOGQRWGHOD\LI\RXSODQWRVHHNUHOLHIRQ\RXURZQ

7R H[FOXGH \RXUVHOI \RX PXVW VLJQ DQG PDLO D ZULWWHQ UHTXHVW WR WKH 6HWWOHPHQW

$GPLQLVWUDWRU DW >DGGUHVV@ VWDWLQJ \RXU QDPH DGGUHVV DQG 3, UHTXHVW H[FOXVLRQ IURPWKH

FODVV LQ Ferrari v. Autobahn, Inc FY<5* 1' &DO ́  5HTXHVWV IRU

H[FOXVLRQPXVWEHVLJQHGDQGSRVWPDUNHGE\>GD\VDIWHUSUHOLPDSSURYDO@

2%-(&7

<RXUHPDLQDFODVVPHPEHUEXWZULWHWRWKH&RXUWDQGH[SODLQZK\\RXGRQRWWKLQNWKH

VHWWOHPHQWLVIDLUUHDVRQDEOHDQGRUDGHTXDWH'HWDLOVIRUKRZDQGZKHQWRREMHFWFDQEH

IRXQGDW>85/@2EMHFWLRQVPXVWEHILOHGDQGVHUYHGE\>GD\VDIWHUSUHOLPDSSURYDO@

Case 4:17-cv-00018-YGR Document 136-3 Filed 05/04/18 Page 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF 

ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSIVE 

BREIF TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL 

ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

VAN KEULEN

On June 25, 2020, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. filed a motion for relief from two nondispositive 

pretrial orders of Magistrate Judge van Keulen at ECF 582 and ECF 662. ECF 671. Pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 72-2, the Court REQUESTS that Defendant Cisco Systems Inc. file a responsive 

brief not to exceed five (5) pages, no later than July 20, 2020. No reply brief is permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 675 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 1
EX PARTE Charles E. DRAPER

CR-16-1241

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
Case 3:05-cv-01034-B Document 11 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 45
Case: 16-31204 Doc# 24-4 Filed: 01/05/17 Entered: 01/05/17 11:08:01 Page 1 of

 1

Case 3:17-cv-00063-CRB Document 1-4 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 1
EX PARTE David SMITH

(In re: Clayton Pierce and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. David Wayne Smith)

2170512

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 27, 2018

Dismissed.
Marquis Derrell BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1428

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# ViCAP

Select the images to display more information.

- ViCAP Unidentified Persons The Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) maintains the largest investigative repository of major violent crime cases in the U.S. It is designed to collect and analyze information about homicides, sexual assaults, missing persons, and other violent crimes involving unidentified human remains. Select the images to display more information.
- ViCAP Homicides and Sexual Assaults The Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) maintains the largest investigative repository of major violent crime cases in the U.S. It is designed to collect and analyze information about homicides, sexual assaults, missing persons, and other violent crimes involving unidentified human remains. Select the images to display more information.
- ViCAP Missing Persons The Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) maintains the largest investigative repository of major violent crime cases in the U.S. It is designed to collect and analyze information about homicides, sexual assaults, missing persons, and other violent crimes involving unidentified human remains.