That governmental investigations are the kind of discretionary functions covered by § 2680(a) is confirmed by the scores of other cases in accord. See, e.g., United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 820, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) (protecting as discretionary acts the FAA’s execution of a “spot-check” pro gram, even where the investigation of a particular aircraft was negligent); Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) (barring claims based on Customs agents’ investigation of plaintiffs); Blakey v. U.S.S. Iowa, 991 F.2d 148, 153-54 (4th Cir.1993) (dismissing claims alleging that the Navy negligently investigated a fatal explosion); S.E.C. v. Better Life Club of Am., Inc., 995 F.Supp. 167, 180 (D.D.C.1998) (<HOLDING>); Wang v. United States, No. 01-1326, 2001 WL
holding ijnvestigation and prosecution under  21 of the securities acts to be discretionary holding that a state securities claim which alleged federal mail wire and securities violations as the predicate acts did not arise under federal law and thus did not create federal jurisdiction holding the indemnification claims to be severable under rule 21 from the primary liability inquiry holding that such information is not material under securities law recognizing defense in securities case