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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6769

BRANDON S. SAUL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00169-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: April 17, 2024 Decided: April 30, 2024

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon S. Saul, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6769 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon S. Saul seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. 

McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saul has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6769 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dagoberto LULE-GANTES, also known as Ramiro Lopez Lule, also known as Antonio Martinez Taguado, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11270

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 13, 2006.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Dagoberto Lule-Gantes raises argu*379ments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*528 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Albert Miller, Respondent, v. Village of Mamaroneck, Appellant.

Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
Amendment Letter to Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 4.50 
  





 
 April 18, 2013 

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL 

Mr. Jean-Christophe Bédos 
 32, Chemin Anwoth 

Westmount, Québec 
 H3Y 2E7 

Dear Jean-Christophe, 
 Re: Incentive Compensation

 We refer you to your Employment Agreement entered into as of January 4, 2012. Section 2.2 a) thereof states that your target bonus for
the annual cash bonus opportunity is 65% of your Base Salary (as this term is defined in the Employment Agreement). 
 Upon the recommendation of the
Compensation Committee, the directors unanimously agreed at the Board meeting of April 18, 2013 to adjust your variable Incentive Compensation package by (i) modifying the target bonus percentage for your annual cash bonus and
(ii) granting you a stock option to purchase 100,000 Class A voting shares of the Company upon terms and conditions that are in accordance with the Company’s Long-term Incentive Plan. This letter is to confirm that the target bonus
for the annual cash bonus is modified from 65% to 85% of Base Salary effective as of the date of this letter and that a stock option agreement will be provided to you in relation to the stock option grant. 

All other terms of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged. 
  

	
	Yours truly,
	
	 /s/ Lorenzo Rossi di Montelera

	LORENZO ROSSI DI MONTELERA
	Chairman
§ 10.117 What happens if, in any claim, the employer contests any of the facts as stated by the claimant? ( a ) An employer who has reason to disagree with any aspect of the claimant's report shall submit a statement to OWCP that specifically describes the factual allegation or argument with which it disagrees and provide evidence or argument to support its position. The employer may include supporting documents such as witness statements, medical reports or records, or any other relevant information.
( b ) Any such statement shall be submitted to OWCP with the notice of traumatic injury or death, or within 30 calendar days from the date notice of occupational disease or death is received from the claimant. If the employer does not submit a written explanation to support the disagreement, OWCP may accept the claimant's report of injury as established. The employer may not use a disagreement with an aspect of the claimant's report to delay forwarding the claim to OWCP or to compel or induce the claimant to change or withdraw the claim.
2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-25-2005 

# U SA v . B arb our P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 01-3523

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . B ar bour " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1138. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1138NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 01- 3523

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. OTT O BARBOUR, A ppel l ant
ON REM AN D FRO M THE SUPREM E CO UR T

O F TH E U N I TED STA TES D
. C
. C ri m . N o . 0 0 -cr-00 4 1 9 -7 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Eduar do C
. R obr eno

Subm i t t ed: M ar ch 29, 2005
B efor e: A L I T O , B A R R Y , and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed M ay25, 2005)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A p p e lla n t O tto B a rb o u r w a s s e n te n c e d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1 t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 235 m ont hs fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on on drug di s t r i but i on char ges . H i s convi ct i on and s ent ence w er e af fi r m ed byus on appea l , and he2

there af ter pe ti ti o n ed fo r a w ri t of ce rt iorari. O n Jan u ary2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , the S u p rem e C o u rt
e n ter e d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g c e rtio ra ri, v a c a tin g th e ju d g m e n t, an d re m a n d in g th e c a se to th is C o u rt f o r f u rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n in lig h t o f U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). H avi ng det erm i ned thatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues appel l antr ai s es ar e bes tdet erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w i l l r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor
r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker
. A ppel l antr ai s es no chal l enge t o hi s convi ct i on
a n d w e w ill, a g a in , a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n .
Order entered December 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00848-CV

A22 TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Appellant

V.

RONALD THOMAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-19059

ORDER

Before the Court is the December 23, 2020 request of Antionette Reagor, 

Official Court Reporter for the 68th Judicial District Court, for an extension of 

time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to 

January 27, 2021. We caution Ms. Reagor that further requests will be 

disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
### §76aa. Site for museum and sculpture garden

#### (a) Appropriation and availability

The area bounded by Seventh Street, Independence Avenue, Ninth Street, and Jefferson Drive, in the District of Columbia, is hereby appropriated to the Smithsonian Institution as the permanent site of a museum and the area bounded by Seventh Street, Jefferson Drive, Ninth Street, and Madison Drive, in the District of Columbia is hereby made available to the Smithsonian Institution as the permanent site of a sculpture garden, both areas to be used for the exhibition of works of art.

#### (b) Powers and duties of Board of Regents

The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized to remove any existing structure, to prepare architectural and engineering designs, plans, and specifications, and to construct a suitable museum within said area lying south of Jefferson Drive and to provide a sculpture garden for the use of the Smithsonian Institution within the areas designated in subsection (a) of this section.

(Pub. L. 89–788, §1, Nov. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 1403.)
### §1066e. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–244, title III, §306(d), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1647

Section, Pub. L. 89–329, title III, §346, formerly title VII, §726, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title VII, §704, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 746; amended Pub. L. 103–208, §2(j)(17), Dec. 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 2481; renumbered title III, §346, Pub. L. 105–244, title III, §301(a)(3), (4), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1636, prohibited institution receiving a loan under this part from receiving grant under former part A of subchapter VII of this chapter.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1132c–5 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 105–244.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105–244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–244, set out as an Effective Date of 1998 Amendment note under section 1001 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

§ 70.481 Agreements for payment of liability in installments. ( a ) *Authorization of agreements.* The appropriate TTB officer, is authorized to enter into written agreements with any taxpayer under which such taxpayer is allowed to satisfy liability for payment of any tax in installment payments if the appropriate TTB officer determines that such agreement will facilitate collection of such liability.
( b ) *Extent to which agreements remain in effect* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b), any agreement under paragraph (a) of this section shall remain in effect for the term of the agreement.
( 2 ) *Inadequate information or jeopardy.* The officer who entered into an installment agreement under paragraph (a) of this section may terminate such agreement if: ( i ) Information which the taxpayer provided prior to the date such agreement was entered into was inaccurate or incomplete, or
( ii ) The appropriate TTB officer believes that collection of any tax to which an agreement under this section relates is in jeopardy.
( 3 ) *Subsequent change in financial conditions* — ( i ) *In general.* If the officer who entered into an installment agreement under paragraph (a) of this section makes a determination that the financial condition of the taxpayer has significantly changed, the officer may alter, modify, or terminate such agreement.
( ii ) *Notice.* Action may be taken by the appropriate TTB officer under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section only if: ( A ) Notice of such determination is provided to the taxpayer no later than 30 days prior to the date of such action, and
( B ) Such notice includes the reasons why the officer believes a significant change in the financial condition of the taxpayer has occurred.
( 4 ) *Failure to pay an installment or any other tax liability when due or to provide requested financial information.* The officer who entered into an installment agreement under paragraph (a) of this section may alter, modify, or terminate such agreement in the case of the failure of the taxpayer: ( i ) To pay an installment at the time such installment payment is due under such agreement,
( ii ) To pay any other tax liability at the time such liability is due, or
( iii ) To provide a financial condition update as requested by the appropriate TTB officer.
(26 U.S.C. 6159)
[T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47655, Nov. 14, 1990, as amended by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29029, May 29, 2001]
Order entered July 31, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00877-CR

MICHAEL GLEN GARZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 31429

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file his brief. A 

review of this appeal shows the notice of appeal was filed August 1, 2018. After a seven-month 

delay, the reporter’s twenty-nine volume record was filed on April 16, 2019. Appellant’s brief 

was initially due May 18, 2019. When it was not filed, we notified appellant by postcard dated 

May 22, 2019, and directed him to file his brief and a motion to extend time within ten days. 

That same day, appellant filed a motion for extension of time. We granted that motion, along 

with a second motion, making the brief due date July 24, 2019, ninety days after the reporter’s 

record was filed. In our June 26th order granting appellant’s second extension of time, we 

cautioned him that the failure to file a brief by that date might result in the appeal being abated 
for a hearing under rule 38.8(b)(3). Appellant now requests an additional two months, noting in 

his third motion for extension that additional time is required because the record is large.

We GRANT appellant’s third motion to the extent we ORDER appellant’s brief DUE on 

or before September 16, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by that date, the Court will abate 

the case for a hearing to determine the adequacy of representation.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Keli Aiken, 

Presiding Judge, 354th Judicial District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Sigmund Feinblatt, an Attorney.

*Attorney and client— disbarment.*

Application to discipline an attorney by the Bar Association.

Irgraham, P. J.:

The respondent was charged with misappropriating the sum of $460 which he had collected for the inmates of an orphan asylum at Atlanta, Ga., who were legatees under the will of one Harris Levy, who died a resident of the city of Hew York. The respondent admits the receipt of the money. He testified that he gave it to his brother in cash to take to his clients in Georgia, and that his brother had disappeared without delivering the money to his clients. The matter was referred to an official referee, who after careful consideration has filed his report finding the respondent guilty as charged, and that to try to save himself the respondent has testified falsely as to his disposition of this money. The official referee further states that the charges set forth in the petition are sustained and the respondent is guilty of misconduct in his office as an attorney and counselor at law. The testimony fully justifies the referee’s report. The report is, therefore, approved, and the respondent is disbarred. McLaughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred. Respondent disbarred. Order to be settled on notice.
###### Editorial Note on Part 46

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 46 appear by T.D. ATF-457, 66 FR 32220, 32221, June 14, 2001.

#### § 46.91 Scope of subpart.

This subpart contains rules relating to special (occupational) taxes that must be paid by manufacturers of tobacco products, manufacturers of cigarette papers and tubes, and export warehouse proprietors.
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

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,198.10

 1,198.06

 1,198.03

 1,198.00

 1,197.96

 1,197.93

 1,197.90

 1,197.86

 1,197.82

 1,197.79

 1,197.76

 1,197.72

 1,197.69

 1,197.67

 1,197.64

 1,197.61

 1,197.57

 1,197.54

 1,197.51

 1,197.48

 1,197.45

 1,197.43

 1,197.40

 1,197.37

 1,197.33

 1,197.30

 1,197.27

 1,197.24

 1,197.20

 1,197.18

 1,197.15

 48.07

 48.00

 47.95

 47.90

 47.83

 47.77

 47.72

 47.65

 47.58

 47.53

 47.48

 47.41

 47.35

 47.32

 47.27

 47.22

 47.15

 47.09

 47.04

 46.99

 46.94

 46.90

 46.85

 46.80

 46.73

 46.68

 46.63

 46.58

 46.51

 46.47

 46.42

STORAGE

-0.04

-0.07

-0.05

-0.05

-0.07

-0.05

-0.05

-0.07

-0.07

-0.05

-0.05

-0.07

-0.05

-0.03

-0.05

-0.05

-0.07

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.04

-0.05

-0.05

-0.07

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.07

-0.04

-0.05

CHANGE

2

-12

-2

1

-11

-3

-4

-12

-10

-1

-3

-9

0

11

5

0

-9

1

0

0

-2

6

-3

-5

-14

-2

-2

-6

-14

2

-2

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 5

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

OUTLET

 15

 15

 15

 19

 15

 14

 14

 14

 16

 16

 15

 17

 18

 19

 22

 18

 17

 18

 17

 17

 15

 15

 14

 12

 12

 15

 15

 11

 12

 11

 15

C.F.S.

 .26

 .26

 .27

 .34

 .26

 .24

 .24

 .24

 .28

 .29

 .26

 .30

 .31

 .34

 .39

 .32

 .31

 .32

 .31

 .30

 .26

 .26

 .25

 .21

 .22

 .27

 .26

 .20

 .21

 .19

 .26

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2016 EAST PARK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 09/12/2016

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -1.66 -98 275 0 478 8.43 .00

ACRE-FEET -1,660 -194 545 0 948

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 AM.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 545

 545

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2016 .00

 48.11
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

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 359.73

 359.73

 359.90

 359.89

 359.90

 359.92

 359.90

 359.92

 359.92

 359.92

 359.92

 359.92

 359.92

 359.92

 359.77

 359.77

 359.77

 359.77

 359.76

 359.76

 359.77

 359.77

 359.77

 359.83

 359.92

 359.90

 359.90

 359.90

 359.92

 359.90

 359.92

 518

 518

 530

 529

 530

 531

 530

 531

 531

 531

 531

 531

 531

 531

 521

 521

 521

 521

 520

 520

 521

 521

 521

 525

 531

 530

 530

 530

 531

 530

 531

STORAGE

-4

+0

+12

-1

+1

+1

-1

+1

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

-10

+0

+0

+0

-1

+0

+1

+0

+0

+4

+6

-1

+0

+0

+1

-1

+1

CHANGE

 72

 72

 60

 72

 96

 98

 121

 156

 111

 103

 121

 136

 136

 115

 84

 105

 21

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 22

 44

 64

 99

 137

 203

 284

 210

 201

 326

 409

 402

 404

 402

 400

 398

 403

 402

 404

 402

 403

 276

 205

 200

 203

 204

 202

 203

 202

 203

 273

 342

 402

 401

 402

 403

 403

 400

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2021 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 1, 2021

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +9 0 10,090 2,532

ACRE-FEET +9 0 20,014 5,022

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 30,774

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 5,022

 55,810

 522

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 511

 670

 790

 1,006

 1,136

 1,138

 1,165

 1,200

 1,181

 1,144

 1,145

 1,147

 1,146

 1,135

 943

 889

 795

 758

 664

 614

 615

 614

 613

 679

 760

 859

 911

 976

 1,086

 1,183

 1,289

 28,762

 57,049

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 20,014

 229

 383

 383

 502

 604

 604

 614

 618

 628

 609

 591

 581

 581

 589

 554

 546

 532

 513

 436

 392

 392

 393

 392

 393

 393

 417

 449

 482

 546

 581

 588

 15,515

 30,774

RIVER CANALS
### §1131e. Gifts and donations

The Institute is authorized to receive money and other property donated, bequeathed, or devised to the Institute with or without a condition of restriction, for the purpose of providing financial support for the fellowships or underwriting the cost of the Junior Year Abroad Program. All funds or property given, devised, or bequeathed shall be retained in a separate account, and an accounting of those funds and property shall be included in the report described in section 1131d of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title VI, §628, formerly §626, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title VI, §601, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 736; renumbered §627, and amended Pub. L. 105–244, title VI, §603(b)(1), (f), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1783, 1785; renumbered §628 and amended Pub. L. 110–315, title VI, §§617(1), 619, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3341, 3342.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 628 of Pub. L. 89–329 was renumbered section 629, and is classified to section 1131f of this title.

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–315, §619, substituted "report described in section 1131d" for "annual report described in section 1131d".

1998—Pub. L. 105–244, §603(f), made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 1131d of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–244 effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105–244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–244, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title.