innocent person, and expunging the conviction of a person adjudged as guilty in a court of law.... On this record, however, there is no allegation that the conviction was in any way improper. The sole contention is that Defendant has been punished enough, and that the presence of the conviction is unjustly interfering with her efforts to rebuild her life. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court was without power to expunge this conviction.”). Although the Defendant’s criminal record may result in financial hardship and impede his ability to obtain gainful employment, expungement typically is not appropriate unless unwarranted adverse consequences outweigh the public interest in maintaining criminal records. Janik, 10 F.3d at 472; Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226, 1231 (D.C.Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. United States, 964 F.Supp. 1429, 1432
recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants holding that while remand is appropriate where the record may contain substantial competent evidence to support findings as to the rowe factors reversal is required where the record is devoid of any evidence to support the award of attorneys fees holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete holding that the amount of alimony should not be reduced to a mathematical formula because the need for flexibility outweighs the need for relative certainty recognizing that expungement is appropriate when unusually substantial harm to the defendant not in any way attributable to him outweighs the governments need for a record of the arrest