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






Exhibit 10.20


SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


September 21, 2015
WHEREAS, TESCO CORPORATION, a corporation organized under the laws of the province of Alberta, Canada (the “Company”) and Christopher L. Boone (“Executive”) entered into the Employment Agreement effective on January 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2015, the Executive’s Base Annual Salary is THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($332,500); and 
WHEREAS, Executive and the Company (the “Parties”) have now agreed that, as a result of certain changes in market conditions, effective September 21, 2015 Executive’s Base Annual Salary shall be THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($324,188), reflecting a 2.5% reduction from Executive’s Base Annual Salary as set on April 1, 2015 and effective April 5, 2015 (the “Reduction”); and
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive agree that this Reduction, and the reduction made in the prior amendment, is immaterial under Section 5(a) of the Agreement, and that this Reduction shall not constitute a Good Reason under the Agreement; 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, which the Parties acknowledge is good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to the amendment of the Agreement as follows (this “Amendment”): 
The first sentence of Section 5(a) shall be replaced with the following:
“Executive shall receive a Base Annual Salary annually of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED  EIGHTY-EIGHT U.S. dollars and no cents ($324,188) U.S.) payable in bi-weekly pay periods, subject to deduction of statutorily required amounts, including but not limited to, withholding for federal, state and local income taxes, and amounts payable by employees of Employer for employee benefits.” 
Executive, by executing this Amendment, agrees that the Reduction and amendment of Section 5(a) of the Agreement as provided in this Amendment are immaterial under Section 5(a) of the Agreement and shall not constitute Good Reason under the Agreement, and Executive waives any claims or rights he may have as a result of the Reduction and the amendment of Section 5(a); provided, however,  that Employee reserves the right to consider whether further diminution to the Base Annual Salary during the calendar year 2015 along with this Reduction may constitute Good Reason under the Agreement without limiting the other requirements in the Agreement for Executive to terminate his employment for Good Reason, including the notice provisions in Section 6(e).











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement effective as of September 21, 2015.
EXECUTIVE
Christopher L. Boone


Signature:  /s/ Christopher L. Boone
    


Date:  09/24/2015




EMPLOYER:




Tesco Corporation






By:      /s/ Fernando R. Assing
                               Fernando R. Assing,
                                President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:  09/24/2015
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DEM ARKUS DANTE B ENAVIDES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10512

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00718-JSW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 21, 2015 * * B e fore : R EINHAR

DT, LEAVY, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. De m arkus Da

nte B e nav ide s a

ppe a ls the 87-m onth se n te n c e im pose d following his guilty

-ple a c onvic tion for be ing a

fe lon in posse ssion of a

fire arm , in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g). B e navide s c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha

t his prior burgla

ry offe nse is a

c rim e of viole nc e unde r the re sidua l



# FIL ED SEP 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c la

use of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2. In light of the gove rnm e nt’ s c onc e ssion in its August 17, 2015, supplem e nta l brie f that J ohnson v . Unite d State

s , 135 S. C t. 2551 (2015), a pplie s to the U.S. Se nte nc ing Guide line s , B e navide s’ se n te nc e is he re by va c ate d and the m atte r is re m ande d to the distric t c ourt for re se nte nc ing forthwith. The m andate sha ll issueforthwith. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D for r e se nte nc i ng.

1 4 - 1 0 5 1 2 2
Exhibit 10.46
                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                         SURGICAL SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC.
                        2000 STOCK OPTION AND AWARDS PLAN

     THIS AMENDMENT TO THE SURGICAL SAFETY PRODUCTS,  INC. 2000 STOCK OPTION AND
AWARDS PLAN (the  "Amendment") is approved and adopted by the Board of Directors
of Surgical Safety Products Inc. this 6th day of June 2000.

1.   The terms  contained  herein shall have the same meaning as those contained
     in the SURGICAL  SAFETY  PRODUCTS,  INC.  2000 STOCK OPTION AND AWARDS PLAN
     (the "Plan").

2.   The Plan  amended  hereby was adopted by the Board of Directors on February
     7, 2000 and  approved  by the  shareholders  of the  Company  at the annual
     meeting held on February 28, 2000.

3.   The shares underlying the Plan, that is 10,000,000 shares,  were registered
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2000 on Form S-8.

4.   The Board of Directors  has decided that it is in the best  interest of the
     Company  to modify  the Plan under  paragraph  21 thereof  such that in any
     calendar year,  options and awards to acquire no more than 1,000,000 shares
     will be granted.

5.   To date,  no  options  or  awards  have  been  granted  under  the Plan and
     accordingly,  the  rights of no  Eligible  Person  will be  altered by this
     modification.

6.   All other  terms and  conditions  of the Plan will remain in full force and
     effect and this Amendment shall be effective on February 7, 2000. 7. Copies
     of this Amendment will be provided to  participants  in the Plan along with
     the copy of the Plan.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED:

/s/ G.  Michael Swor                     June 6, 2000
-----------------------
G.  Michael Swor

/s/ Donald K.  Lawrence                  June 6, 2000
-----------------------
Donald K.  Lawrence

/s/ Sam Norton                           June 6, 2000
-----------------------
Sam Norton

/s/ James Stuart                         June 6, 2000
-----------------------
James Stuart

/s/ David Swor                           June 6, 2000
-----------------------
David Swor

/s/ Dr.  William Saye                    June 6, 2000
-----------------------
Dr.  William Saye
**Attachment C**

**Docket Numbers for**  **Fumigant Reregistration Eligibility Decisions and Supporting Documents**  Documents to support the reregistration or registration actions for the group of soil fumigants listed below can be found in the public docket at www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers: Methyl bromide: EPA- HQ - OPP - 2005 - 0123 1,3 - dichloropropene: EPA- HQ - OPP - 2005 - 0124 Metam sodium/potassium: EPA- HQ - OPP - 2005 - 0125 Dazomet: EPA- HQ - OP P - 2005 - 0128 Chloropicrin: EPA- HQ - OPP - 2007 - 0350 Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS): EPA- HQ - OPP - 2007 - 0092
#### § 11.2 Practice by attorneys.

Any person who is a member in good standing of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States or of the highest court of any State, territory, or the District of Columbia, and is not under any order of any court suspending, enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise restricting him in the practice of law, may represent others before the Government Accountability Office.
Exhibit
32
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 
 Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Columbus
McKinnon Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
 
 
 Dated:  January 29,
2010
 
 
 
 /s/ Timothy T.
Tevens
 Timothy
T. Tevens
 Chief
Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive
Officer)
 
 
 
 /s/ Karen L.
Howard
 Karen L.
Howard
 Chief
Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial
Officer)
# C_2013225EN.01001401.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Codirex Expeditie BV

(Case C-542/11) (1)

1

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Goods in temporary storage - Non-Community goods - External Community transit procedure - Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned - Acceptance of the customs declaration - Release of the goods - Customs debt)

2013/C 225/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellant:

Respondent: Codirex Expeditie BV

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 50 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Goods in temporary storage having been declared for placing under the external Community transit procedure — Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 50, 67 and 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the point at which non-Community goods, covered by a customs declaration accepted by the customs authorities for placing under the external Community transit procedure and having the status of goods in temporary storage, are placed under that customs procedure and thereby assigned a customs-approved treatment or use is the moment at which they are released.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 20.1

Chase Manhattan Grantor Trust 1996-A

From: The Chase Manhattan Bank

To:   Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.


                   MONTHLY CERTIFICATEHOLDER'S REPORT
                   ----------------------------------

Due Period 10 Beginning Date                     11/01/1996
Due Period 10 End Date                           11/30/1996
Determination Date                               12/10/1996
Remittance Date                                  12/16/1996


I.    Monthly Principal and Principal Carryover Shortfall to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                  $ 26.3452654401

II.   Monthly Interest and Unpaid Interest to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                   $ 3.1005691387

III.  Monthly Expenses Summary

      A. Servicing Fee Disbursement                                $ 879,049.37
      B. Cash Collateral Account Expense                                 $ 0.00
      C. Total Expenses paid
         (per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                $ 0.5962632951

IV.   Cash Collateral Account Deposit Amount                             $ 0.00

V.    Outstanding Advance Summary

      A. From Prior Period                                       $ 3,423,449.19
      B. From Current Period                                     $ 3,893,879.32
      C. Change in Amount Between Periods (Lines B - A)            $ 470,430.13

VI.   Pool Factor Information

      A. Certificate Principal Balance                       $ 1,016,019,375.11
      B. Initial Certificate Balance                         $ 1,474,263,764.33
      C. Pool Factor (Lines A / B)                               0.689170689596

VII.  Available Cash Collateral Account Information for Due Period

      A. Available Cash Collateral Amount                       $ 52,742,962.27
      B. Available Cash Collateral Amount Percentage            5.000000000427%

VIII. Required Cash Collateral Amount

      A. For the Current Collection Period                      $ 52,742,962.27
      B. For the Next Collection Period                         $ 50,800,968.76
# C_2010288EN.01005601.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/56

---

Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)

(Case T-357/10)

()

(2010/C 288/104)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Nacional de Chocolates SA (Medellín, Colombia)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 June 2010 in case R 696/2009-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 June 2010 in case R 696/2009-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CORONA’, for goods in class 30

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: Estonian trade mark registration No 20671 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Latvian trade mark registration No M36592 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 28143 of the word mark ‘KARŪNA’, for goods in class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the opposition division and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the marks are not similar or identical.

---
### §638a. GAO study with respect to venture capital operating company, hedge fund, and private equity firm involvement

Not later than 3 years after December 31, 2011, and every 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—

(1) conduct a study of the impact of requirements relating to venture capital operating company, hedge fund, and private equity firm involvement under section 638 of this title; and

(2) submit to Congress a report regarding the study conducted under paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, §5142, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1854.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, and also as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and not as part of the Small Business Act which comprises this chapter.
#### Annie Jacobs, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment and orders unanimously affirmed, with costs. Hoopinion. Present —Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 !
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 "
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 #
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 $
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 %
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 &
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 '
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 (
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 )
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 !
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 "
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 #
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 $
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 %
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 &
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 '
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 (
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! )
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! 
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! !
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! "
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! #
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! $
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! %
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! &
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! '
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 ! (
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " )
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " 
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " !
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " "
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " #
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " $
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " %
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " &
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " '
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 " (
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # )
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # 
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # !
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # "
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # #
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # $
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # %
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # &
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # '
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 # (
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 $ )
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 $ 

0 ' * (& 2' 0 '6 / 6 7 6 8 9 ' 27
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 $ !

: '; <= >' ? @ % A B ? C ? @ AD E F C ? B F G C A H A C C I D ? @ %

C I F I @ @ ? C E E J K @ I F E F J @ % L 3# L I C M - A B K ? @ ? @ -

@ AD E F % G I N G - - E G I M % @ I I O J E - AE P P ? - A@ H E F ? N I
 ! "# ! % & ' () * + , - '. /' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 , 5 3 5 $ "

) * /*QK ; * ('3 3
Dear Sir or Madame,

Please know that the aircraft I am seeking the 333 Exemption for is a DJI DronePhantom 2. It is a 4 prop quad copter. Basic overall dimensions are 23 1⁄4” (prop tip to 

prop tip) X 6 3⁄4 “.

It includes a GoPro Black HD Video Camera. Its Maximum cruising speed is 15 m/s. 

Radio frequency spectrum is 2412-2462 MHz

Proximity to airports is greater than 5 miles. Preflight inspections are visual only that 

insures structural integrity. 

Additional information:

Aircraft

Supported Battery

DJI 5200mAh LiPo Battery

Weight (Battery & Propellers Included)

1242g

Hover Accuracy (Ready To Fly)

Vertical: 0.8m; Horizontal: 2.5m

Max Yaw Angular Velocity

200°/s

Max Tiltable Angle

35°

Max Ascent / Descent Speed

Ascent: 6m/s; Descent: 2m/s

Max Flight Speed

15m/s (Not Recommended)

Diagonal Motor-Motor Distance

350mm

Gimbal

Working Current

Static : 750mA; Dynamic : 900mA

Control Accuracy

±0.03°

Controllable Range

Pitch : -90°-0°

Maximum Angular Speed

Pitch : 90°/s

Camera

Operating Environment Temperature

0°C-40°C

Sensor Size

1/2.3"
Effective Pixels

14 Megapixels

Resolution

4384×3288

HD Recording

1080p30 & 720p

Recording FOV

110° / 85°

Remote Control

Operating Frequency

5.728 GHz-5.85 GHz

Communication Distance (Open Area)

CE Compliance: 400m; FCC Compliance: 800m

Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER)

-93dBm

Transmitter Power

CE Compliance: 25mW; FCC Compliance: 100mW

Working Voltage

120 mA@3.7V

Built-In LiPo Battery Working Current/Capacity

3.7V, 2000mAh

Range Extender

Operating Frequency

2412-2462MHz

Communication Distance (Open Area)

500-700m

Transmitter Power

20dBm

Power Consumption

2W

DJI VISION AppIe

System Requirement Of Mobile Device

iOS version 6.1 or above/ Android system version 4.0 or above

Mobile Device Support

Recommended: iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPod 5 

 available but not recommended: iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad mini)

 Android recommended: Samsung Galaxy S3, S4, Note 2, Note 3 or phones 

 of similar configuration
### §2764. Monetary allowance for transportation of household effects

The transportation and reimbursement authorized by section 453(c) of title 37 shall be available hereafter to pay a monetary allowance in place of such transportation to a member who, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, participates in a program designated by the Secretary in which his baggage and household effects are moved by a privately owned or rental vehicle. This allowance shall not be limited to reimbursement for actual expenses and may be paid in advance of the transportation of the baggage and household effects. The allowance shall, however, be in an amount that will result in savings to the Government when the total cost of the movement of baggage and household effects is compared with the cost that otherwise would have been incurred under section 453(c) of title 37.

(Added Pub. L. 96–376, §7(a), Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1510, §512; amended Pub. L. 97–295, §2(16), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1302; Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VI, §631(f)(4)(B), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1465; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, §1076(a)(9), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1948; renumbered §2764, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226; Pub. L. 117–263, div. A, title VI, §626(d), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 2629.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–263 substituted "section 453(c)" for "subsection (b) of section 476" in two places.

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 512 of this title as this section.

2013—Pub. L. 112–239, §1076(a)(9), made technical amendment to directory language of Pub. L. 112–81, §631(f)(4)(B). See 2011 Amendment note below.

2011—Pub. L. 112–81, §631(f)(4)(B), as amended by Pub. L. 112–239, §1076(a)(9), substituted "476" for "406" in two places.

1982—Pub. L. 97–295 struck out ", United States Code," after "title 37" first time appearing, and ", United States Code" after "title 37" second time appearing.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2013 Amendment

Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, §1076(a), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1947, provided that the amendment made by section 1076(a)(9) is effective Dec. 31, 2011, and as if included in Pub. L. 112–81 as enacted.