Based on the best practices, the guidance is as follows;
- The information should be alphanetically listed
- It should be separated with a forward slash.
- Use a double forward slash to separates the classification level and control markings
<h3>Sensitive Compartmented Information</h3>
- Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) is information concerning intelligence sources and methods and sometimes information about sensitive collection systems, analytical processing, targeting, or which is derived from it.
In conclusion, the correct guidance is as stated above.
Learn more about sensitive compartmented information here: brainly.com/question/25948574
The answer is A. delegating authority. hope it helps :)
Answer:
ANSWERED
Explanation:
If we denote the recessive allele of the gene as p and the dominant allele as P, the offspring will be of phenotypic ratio 3:1 those with chlorophyll to those without chlorophyll respectively. Genotypically, 25% would be homozygous for dominant allele, 50% heterozygous and 25% homozygous recessive.
I just took the test the answer is B.
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
