alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Assessment of Molten Metal Detachment Hazards for Electron Beam Welding in the Space Environment: Analysis and Test ResultsConditions under which molten metal detachments might occur in a space welding environment are analyzed. A weld pool detachment parameter specifying conditions for pool detachment by impact is derived and corroborated by experimental evidence. Impact detachment for the pool is unlikely. Impact detachment for a drop of metal on the end of the weld wire may be possible under extreme conditions. Other potential causes of molten metal detachment considered, vaporization pressure forces and wire flickout from the pool, did not appear to present significant detachment threats.Document ID19980119852Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNunes, A. C., Jr.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Russell, C.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Bhat, B.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Fragomeni, J. M.*(Ohio Univ. Athens, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1998Subject CategoryEngineering (General)Report/Patent NumberM-868NAS 1.15:207979NASA/TM-1998-207979Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980119852.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §5508. Assessment of Lockerbie experience

#### (a) Assessment

The Secretary of State shall compile an assessment of the Department of State response to the Pan American Airways Flight 103 aviation disaster over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988.

#### (b) Guidelines

The Secretary of State shall establish, based on the assessment compiled under subsection (a) and other relevant factors, guidelines for future Department of State responses to comparable disasters and shall distribute such guidelines to all United States diplomatic and consular posts abroad.

(Pub. L. 101–604, title II, §209, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3085.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2448

TASSIE REE LANGLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOWN OF SHARPSBURG, NC; M. L. FELLNER, Officer; JOEL BATCHELOR, Officer; BILLY PERNELL, Sharpsburg Police Chief; GEORGE BOTTOMS, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-02-269-BO) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: April 28, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tassie Ree Langley, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tassie Ree Langley appeals the district court’s order granting summary j udgment for Defendants in her action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeLangley v. Pernell , No. CA-02-269-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### George F. Sinram, Respondent, v. Edward Clemens et al., Defendants, and William H. Parry, Defendant-Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
### §1011. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 88–464, §1, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 563, which related to membership roll, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
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 HIGH

 69

 76

 79

 79

 70

 67

 71

 73

 70

 73

 81

 71

 68

 67

 67

 71

 71

 84

 77

 74

 79

 75

 84

 85

 85

 70

 73

 71

 96

 87

 80

 61

 62

 61

 64

 63

 64

 62

 63

 62

 64

 64

 62

 63

 63

 63

 61

 64

 65

 64

 63

 66

 67

 66

 66

 65

 66

 66

 65

 70

 70

 70

 63

 63

 65

 67

 66

 65

 64

 64

 64

 66

 67

 64

 65

 64

 64

 63

 66

 69

 66

 66

 69

 70

 69

 69

 68

 67

 68

 67

 75

 73

 73

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 1, 2008

HIGH LOW MEAN

 71.7

 71.9

 72.8

 71.8

 72.6

 73.5

 75.2

 75.5

 74.8

 74.9

 73.4

 72.9

 73.4

 74.2

 74.0

 73.6

 74.6

 74.5

 74.6

 72.6

 72.4

 72.9

 73.8

 74.9

 74.8

 75.3

 75.2

 74.6

 74.8

 75.1

 75.6

 67.6

 67.8

 68.0

 68.7

 68.1

 69.0

 70.9

 71.9

 71.8

 71.7

 70.5

 69.2

 69.3

 70.2

 70.3

 69.7

 69.6

 70.1

 70.1

 69.4

 67.7

 67.5

 68.9

 69.5

 70.1

 70.4

 70.7

 69.6

 69.8

 69.4

 70.4

 69.7

 69.9

 70.3

 70.2

 70.3

 71.3

 72.8

 73.7

 73.4

 73.2

 72.2

 71.1

 71.4

 72.3

 72.2

 71.9

 72.0

 72.4

 72.4

 71.2

 70.0

 70.1

 71.2

 72.2

 72.5

 72.8

 72.8

 72.2

 72.1

 72.1

 72.9

HIGH LOW MEAN

 9.1

 9.1

 9.0

 8.9

 8.9

 8.7

 8.3

 8.1

 8.4

 8.5

 8.7

 8.8

 8.7

 8.4

 8.4

 8.5

 8.2

 8.2

 8.1

 8.2

 8.4

 8.3

 8.1

 7.8

 7.7

 7.7

 7.5

 7.5

 7.5

 7.5

 7.4

 8.7

 8.6

 8.4

 8.4

 8.4

 8.1

 7.8

 7.7

 7.6

 8.1

 8.2

 8.5

 8.2

 7.9

 7.9

 7.9

 7.8

 7.7

 7.7

 7.6

 7.9

 7.8

 7.6

 7.4

 7.3

 7.3

 7.2

 7.2

 7.1

 7.0

 7.0

 8.9

 8.9

 8.7

 8.6

 8.7

 8.4

 8.1

 7.9

 8.0

 8.3

 8.4

 8.6

 8.5

 8.2

 8.1

 8.2

 8.1

 7.9

 7.8

 7.9

 8.1

 8.1

 7.9

 7.6

 7.5

 7.4

 7.4

 7.3

 7.3

 7.3

 7.2

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
§ 725.547 Applicability of overpayment and underpayment provisions to operator or carrier. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart relating to overpayments and underpayments shall be applicable to overpayments and underpayments made by responsible operators or their insurance carriers, as appropriate.
( b ) No operator or carrier may recover, or make an adjustment of, an overpayment without prior application to, and approval by, the Office which shall exercise full supervisory authority over the recovery or adjustment of all overpayments.
(No. 4315

#### Dorothy A. Farrell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed October 13, 1950.*

Dorothy A. Farrell, Claimant, pro se.

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Lansden, J.

On March 3, 1950, claimant, Dorothy A. Farrell, while employed by and in the performance of her duties for the Illinois Public Aid Commission, slipped on an ice covered sidewalk in Monmouth, Illinois, and fell fracturing her right arm.

Respondent did not furnish claimant with the necessary medical and hospital services, but permitted her to secure such services with its full approval.

It is apparent from the departmental report on file herein that such medical and hospital services were reasonably required to relieve or cure claimant from the effects of her accidental injury. Sec. 8 (a) Workmen’s Compensation Act. In fact, the results achieved from the skillful treatment by claimant’s doctors have obviated any claim for disability.

All claimant seeks is an award under Section 8 (a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the sum of $117.00 for medical expenses, which she incurred as a result of her fall, and to an award 'in such amount claimant is entitled.

*146An award is, therefore, entered in favor of claimant, Dorothy A. Farrell, for $117.00, payable forthwith as follows:

> $15.00 to claimant for the use of Dr. John O. Firth, Monmouth, Illinois,' for professional services.

> $27.00 to claimant for the use of Monmouth Hospital, Monmouth, Illinois, for X-Rays and hospital care.'

> $75.00 to claimant for the use of Dr. Russell M. Jensen, Monmouth, Illinois, for professional services.

According to the departmental report on file herein,, the Illinois Public Aid Commission has funds available for the payment of compensation awards. Therefore, it is directed that the payment of the above award be made by the State Treasurer, as Trustee Ex-Officio, from the funds heretofore deposited by the Illinois Public Aid Commission, or its predecessor, the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission, with the State Treasurer pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat. 1949, Chap. 127, Sec. 181a. Payment of the award from this fund is requested by the Illinois Public Aid Commission in the departmental report, and such request constitutes the necessary statutory direction. Ho*ppock*v. State, 16 C.C.R. 206.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor as provided in Section 3 of “An Act concerning the payment of compensation awards to State employees.”
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Ben E. Browder, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 56827;

First District (1st Division) —

July 2, 1973.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE HALLETT.

GOLDBERG, J., specially concurring.

*199James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Kenneth N. Flaxman, and Shelvin Singer, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane, Terrence McQuigg, and Mark Zubor, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-86,066-01
EX P ARTE DANNY R

AYMON G ONZA LES , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 12-2169-CR-A-AIN THE 25T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM G UADALUP E COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of eng ag ing in org anized crime a

nd sentenc ed to six y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary
. He say s that trial counsel informed him he would serve this six -y ear sentenc e concur rently with a fede ral sentenc e, and Applicant believed this
was part of the plea ag ree ment, but the sentenc es are n o t b ei n g s er ved concur rently
. There is no response from trial c ounsel or finding s from the trial c ourt. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief
. See Ex parte Huerta , 6922

S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); see also Ex Parte Moussazadeh , 361 S.W .3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the tria l court is the appr opriate f orum for f

indings of fac t. The trial court shall order co u n sel to respond to Applicant’s claim that his plea was involuntary
. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appr opriate c ase, the trial court may rely on its personal re collection. Id
. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make findings o f fa ct and conclusions of l aw as to whether Applicant pled g uilty pursuant to an ag ree ment that this sentenc e woul d run concur rently with a fede ral sentenc e and whether trial counsel informed him that the sentenc es would run concur rently
. The trial court shall also make any other f i n d i n gs o f fact and conclusions of l aw that it deems relevant and appropr iate to the disposition of Applicant’s cla im for habe as cor pus relief
. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A sup p l em en t al t ranscript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court. Filed: January

11, 2017 Do not publish
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

CHINOOK SALMON REPORT

January 2011

Note: Shaded area not verified with DFG data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Winter Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Spring Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Da

Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag 

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Jan-11 00 00 0 0 875 244 0000 0 0 0 0 7,343 

2-Jan-11 18 17 0 3 18 20 893 264 0000 0 0 0 0 6,312 

3-Jan-11 18 35 3 3 21 38 914 302 0002 0 2 0 2 6,304 

4-Jan-11 18 17 0 7 18 24 932 326 0002 0 2 0 4 6,312 

5-Jan-11 00 08 0 8 932 334 0000 0 0 0 4 8,566 

6-Jan-11 0 59 0 3 0 62 932 396 0000 0 0 0 4 8,461 

7-Jan-11 0 42 0 3 0 45 932 441 0000 0 0 0 4 8,487 

8-Jan-11 34 0 0 0 34 0 966 441 0000 0 0 0 4 8,571 

9-Jan-11 17 0 0 0 17 0 983 441 0002 0 2 0 6 8,147 

10-Jan-11 0 34 0 0 0 34 983 475 0000 0 0 0 6 7,307 

11-Jan-11 80 03 8 3 991 478 0000 0 0 0 6 8,099 

12-Jan-11 17 43 0 0 17 43 1,008 521 0000 0 0 0 6 8,050 

13-Jan-11 0 18 0 0 0 18 1,008 539 0000 0 0 0 6 7,413 

14-Jan-11 0 35 0 3 0 38 1,008 577 0000 0 0 0 6 7,413 

15-Jan-11 18 18 0 5 18 23 1,026 600 0000 0 0 0 6 7,038 

16-Jan-11 0 18 0 0 0 18 1,026 618 0000 0 0 0 6 7,038 

17-Jan-11 00 00 0 0 1,026 618 0000 0 0 0 6 7,413 

18-Jan-11 18 35 0 3 18 38 1,044 656 0000 0 0 0 6 7,413 

19-Jan-11 00 03 0 3 1,044 659 0000 0 0 0 6 7,413 

20-Jan-11 0 87 0 3 0 90 1,044 749 0000 0 0 0 6 6,237 

21-Jan-11 18 26 0 5 18 31 1,062 780 0000 0 0 0 6 7,210 

22-Jan-11 0 17 0 0 0 17 1,062 797 0000 0 0 0 6 7,038 

23-Jan-11 0 34 0 5 0 39 1,062 836 0000 0 0 0 6 6,913 

24-Jan-11 00 00 0 0 1,062 836 0000 0 0 0 6 5,745 

25-Jan-11 0 22 3 3 3 25 1,065 861 0000 0 0 0 6 4,831 

26-Jan-11 00 05 0 5 1,065 866 0000 0 0 0 6 4,433 

27-Jan-11 00 53 5 3 1,070 869 0000 0 0 0 6 4,433 

28-Jan-11 00 03 0 3 1,070 872 0000 0 0 0 6 4,884 

29-Jan-11 00 38 3 8 1,073 880 0000 0 0 0 6 4,808 

30-Jan-11 00 30 3 0 1,076 880 0000 0 0 0 6 4,808 

31-Jan-11 9 17 3 0 12 17 1,088 897 0 17 0 0 0 17 0 23 4,825 

Total 193 574 20 79 213 653 1,088 897 0 17 0 6 0 23 0 23 209,265 

Winter Run Incidental Take Levels (Oct 1 thru May 31) Spring Run Incidental Take Levels for Season Combined Total (Oct 1 thru Jun 30)

Banks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MITCHELL GATEWOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CR-96-177)

Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Culler, CULLER & CULLER, P.A., Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mitchell Gatewood appeals from the district court’s order

revoking his supervised release and imposing an eleven-month prison

term. Gatewood’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no

meritorious grounds for appeal but raising two issues: (1) whether

the district judge failed to consider the availability of substance

abuse treatment programs before revoking Gatewood’s supervised

release; and (2) whether the imposition of an eleven-month sentence

was unreasonable. Gatewood was advised of his right to file a pro

se supplemental brief but has declined to do so.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking

Gatewood’s supervised release and imposing an eleven-month

sentence. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.

1995) (providing standard of review). 

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have

reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

revocation of Gatewood’s supervised release and eleven-month

sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
- 3 -

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

d1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145385

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145385

COA: 304168

Grand Traverse CC: 

MICHAEL ROBERT PORTER, 11-011170-FC

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4655 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a minimum 

automatic extension of certain Federal tax deadlines in the case of 

Federally declared disasters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2016 

Mr. PALAZZO (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. BOST, Mr. OLSON, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. COLE, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. KIND, Mr. 

BARR, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, and Mr. MACARTHUR) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for a minimum automatic extension of certain Federal 

tax deadlines in the case of Federally declared disasters. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF CERTAIN 

4 FEDERAL TAX DEADLINES IN THE CASE OF 

5 FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7508A of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:18 Mar 02, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4655.IH H4655

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4655 IH

1 section (c) as subsection (e) and by inserting after sub2 section (b) the following new subsections: 

3 ‘‘(c) MINIMUM AUTOMATIC EXTENSION IN THE CASE

4 OF FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTERS.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a specified 

6 disaster affected person— 

7 ‘‘(A) such person shall be treated for pur8 poses of this section as having been determined 

9 by the Secretary to be affected by a Federally 

10 declared disaster, and 

11 ‘‘(B) subsection (a) shall be applied by 

12 treating the Secretary as having specified a pe13 riod of 90 days with respect to such person (or 

14 such longer period of up to 1 year as the Sec15 retary may otherwise specify). 

16 ‘‘(2) SPECIFIED DISASTER AFFECTED PER17 SON.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

18 ‘specified disaster affected person’ means— 

19 ‘‘(A) any individual who resides in a dis20 aster area at the time of the Federally declared 

21 disaster with respect to such area, and 

22 ‘‘(B) any corporation or partnership if the 

23 principal place of business of such corporation 

24 or partnership is in such area at such time. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4655 IH

1 ‘‘(d) FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTER; DISASTER

2 AREA.—For purposes of this section, the terms ‘Federally 

3 declared disaster’ and ‘disaster area’ have the respective 

4 meanings given such terms by section 165(i).’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7508A(a) 

6 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘federally declared 

7 disaster (as defined by section 165(h)(3)(C)(i))’’ and in8 serting ‘‘Federally declared disaster’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to disasters declared after the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS