alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruth Feisthamel, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward C. Feisthamel, Deceased, Respondent, v. Stephen Roczen, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: Coneededly, the recovery in this action is based upon the negligent operation of a police patrol car by a police officer of the City of Utica, who, at the time of the accident, was acting in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment. The City of Utica was not made a party to the action. The complaint fails to allege filing with the city *938comptroller, or a corresponding officer, and with the defendant, of the notices required by section 50-c of the General Municipal. Law as it read at the time of the accident, November 8, 1941. Under such circumstances, it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s motions to dismiss the complaint and for a directed verdict in defendant’s favor. *(Goydir*v. *Cowdell,*291 N. Y. 777; *Kosiba*v. *City of Syracuse,*287 N. Y. 283; *Derlicka*v. *Leo,*281 N. Y. 266; *Krauss*v. *Layman,*261 App. Div. 1026.) All concur, McCurn, J., in result only, on the ground that there is no proof in the record that any notice was served upon the city pursuant to the provisions of section 50-c of the General Municipal Law. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
**Exhibit
32.2**
  
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C.
§ 1350,
  AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of RF Industries, Ltd. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, William T. Gochnauer, Acting Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:
  (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  Date:
      June 14, 2005
    /s/
      William T. Gochnauer
      William
      T. Gochnauer
      Acting
      Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to RF Industries, Ltd. and will be retained by RF
Industries, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### § 667.255 Are there special rules that apply to veterans when income is a factor in eligibility determinations?

Yes, under 38 U.S.C. 4213, when past income is an eligibility determinant for Federal employment or training programs, any amounts received as military pay or allowances by any person who served on active duty, and certain other specified benefits must be disregarded. This applies when determining if a person is a “low-income individual” for eligibility purposes, (for example, in the WIA youth, Job Corps, or NFJP programs) and applies if income is used as a factor in applying the priority provision, under 20 CFR 663.600, when WIA adult funds are limited. Questions regarding the application of 38 U.S.C. 4213 should be directed to the Veterans Employment and Training Service.
EXHIBIT 4.32



|9th February 2016                          | 
|------------------------------------------ | 
|                                           | 
|Personal and PrivateMr Ian McHoul[Address] | 



Dear Ian



I am pleased to confirm the remuneration arrangements
that will apply during your temporary appointment as Acting CEO.



You will receive a supplementary salary payment
of £20,000 for each month or part month that you undertake the role. This will be paid with your normal salary from February
onwards with back payment for the month of January and will cease once the new CEO has started at which stage you will revert to
your current salary as CFO of £530,000 per annum.



For the period when this supplement is payable,
this will also be reflected in your pension allowance of 20% of base salary so that will also increase by £4,000 per month
or part-month.



For 2016, your Annual Bonus maximum opportunity
will be based pro rata on 150% of salary including the supplementary payment for the period as Acting CEO and 125% of normal salary
for the period after you revert to the CFO position.



Your 2016 LTI award will be confirmed in due
course but it is intended that this will have a face value at the time of award of £1,325,000 i.e. 250% of your ongoing CFO
salary.



Your other benefits and allowances will continue
as at present as will the other terms of your employment agreement dated 2 July 2008.



Yours sincerely



/s/
Signed for John ConnollyChairman
#### Marie Lucie JEAN, et al., Plaintiffs, Lucien Louis, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Miami Daily News, et al., Intervenors-Appellants, v. Alan C. NELSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees.

No. 82-5772.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 13, 1982.

*1312Rudolph W. Giuliani, Assoc. Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees.

Kurzban & Kurzban, P. A., Ira J. Kurzban, Michael J. Rosen, Miami, Fla., Bruce Winick, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc., Coral Gables, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.

John Kendrick Tucker, Deputy Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for intervenor-appellant State.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, and HATCHETT and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The United States has moved for a partial stay of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered June 29, 1982. Hearing and briefing have been expedited, and the Court has heard oral argument and has considered the briefs.

To justify granting the partial stay the United States would be required to show that the following circumstances exist: (1) likelihood of ultimate success on appeal; (2) irreparable injury to the government; (3) granting the stay will not substantially harm plaintiffs; and (4) the public interest will be served by the partial stay.

The government has not been able to show that any one or more of these circumstances exist.

The motion for partial stay is DENIED.

The case is expedited for hearing on an eariy orai argument calendar,
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

 828.07

 828.28

 828.52

 828.74

 828.94

 829.11

 829.29

 829.46

 829.63

 829.78

 829.93

 830.07

 830.20

 830.35

 830.50

 830.63

 830.28

 829.95

 829.53

 829.10

 828.70

 828.38

 828.22

 827.98

 827.77

 827.67

 828.62

 829.02

 829.24

 829.30

 829.27

 35.12

 35.34

 35.60

 35.84

 36.05

 36.23

 36.43

 36.61

 36.80

 36.96

 37.13

 37.28

 37.42

 37.59

 37.76

 37.90

 37.51

 37.15

 36.69

 36.22

 35.79

 35.45

 35.28

 35.02

 34.80

 34.70

 35.71

 36.14

 36.38

 36.40

 36.41

STORAGE

+0.29

+0.22

+0.26

+0.24

+0.22

+0.18

+0.20

+0.19

+0.19

+0.16

+0.16

+0.15

+0.14

+0.17

+0.17

+0.14

-0.39

-0.36

-0.46

-0.47

-0.43

-0.34

-0.17

-0.26

-0.22

-0.11

+1.01

+0.43

+0.24

+0.03

+0.01

CHANGE

177

144

162

150

139

125

129

125

124

115

115

109

103

114

115

105

172

182

135

131

149

192

280

236

254

312

877

584

487

380

371

INFLOW

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

SPILL

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 340

 340

 341

 340

 340

 340

 340

 340

 340

 339

 341

 341

 341

 341

 341

OUTLET

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 1

 0

 1

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 2

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .02

 .02

 .02

 .01

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .03

 .01

 .02

 .02

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .03

 .06

 .01

 .01

 .02

 .02

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .03

 .02

 .03

 .03

 .04

 .03

 .03

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .14

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .33

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .15

 .01

 .01

 .00

 .29

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2020 RUN DATE: 02/01/2020

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +1.59 6,793 5,201 775 20 .63 .98

ACRE-FEET +1,590 13,474 10,316 1,537 40

COMMENTS:

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

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 1,537

OUTLET

TOTAL

 10,316

 11,853

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .98

JULY 1, 2019 6.57

 34.83

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS

OCT 1, 2019 TO DATE = 6.45
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Carboniferous cephalopods of Arkansas

#### Professional Paper 460

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                
    (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp460 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:09:10
§ 680.100 What is the role of the adult and dislocated worker programs in the one-stop delivery system? ( a ) The one-stop delivery system is the basic delivery system for adult and dislocated worker services. Through this system, adults and dislocated workers can access a continuum of services. The services are classified as career and training services.
( b ) The chief elected official or his/her designee(s), as the local grant recipient(s) for the adult and dislocated worker programs, is a required one-stop partner and is subject to the provisions relating to such partners described in part 678 of this chapter. Consistent with those provisions: ( 1 ) Career services for adults and dislocated workers must be made available in at least one one-stop center in each local area. Services also may be available elsewhere, either at affiliated sites or at specialized centers. For example, specialized centers may be established to serve workers being dislocated from a particular employer or industry, or to serve residents of public housing.
( 2 ) Through the one-stop delivery system, adults and dislocated workers needing training are provided Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) and access to lists of eligible training providers and programs of training. These lists contain quality consumer information, including cost and performance information for each of the providers' programs, so that participants can make informed choices on where to use their ITAs. (ITAs are more fully discussed in subpart C of this part.)
#### Vincent Lee FOREMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6914.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2006.

Decided Feb. 28, 2006.

*167Vincent Lee Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Lee Foreman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion and his motion to amend his original petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foreman has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Foreman’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) (2000), a motion for a second or successive habeas corpus petition may not be granted for any claim that was presented in a prior application under § 2254. Because the claim Foreman raises has already been rejected by the district court in its ruling on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 motion, and by this court on appeal, *Foreman v. Johnson,*107 Fed. App’x 333 (4th Cir.2004), he fails to establish grounds for this court to authorize a successive § 2254 petition. Therefore, we decline to authorize a successive § 2254 petition. 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.

*DISMISSED*
### §1264. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–254, §4, Mar. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 65, which exempted funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this subchapter from Federal and State income taxes and provided that such distributions would not be considered as income or resources when determining the extent of eligibility for assistance under the Social Security Act, 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

DAY ELEV

 130.71

 130.69

 130.75

 130.80

 130.66

 130.72

 130.61

 130.53

 130.56

 130.67

 131.00

 130.79

 130.60

 130.76

 130.70

 130.81

 130.52

 130.56

 130.61

 130.63

 130.62

 130.53

 130.70

 130.69

 130.79

 130.78

 130.78

 130.91

 130.55

 130.59

 657

 655

 662

 667

 651

 658

 645

 636

 640

 652

 690

 666

 644

 663

 656

 668

 635

 640

 645

 648

 646

 636

 656

 655

 666

 665

 665

 679

 639

 643

STORAGE

-11

-2

+7

+5

-16

+7

-13

-9

+4

+12

+38

-24

-22

+19

-7

+12

-33

+5

+5

+3

-2

-10

+20

-1

+11

-1

+0

+14

-40

+4

CHANGE

415

458

497

486

519

512

484

486

487

471

431

393

408

421

421

449

437

431

403

387

346

346

381

383

376

373

370

335

315

317

INFLOW

 24

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 29

 35

 35

 35

 32

 30

 30

 27

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

PUTAH

 396

 438

 472

 462

 506

 487

 470

 470

 455

 429

 376

 369

 385

 379

 394

 415

 428

 402

 374

 359

 321

 325

 345

 358

 344

 348

 344

 302

 309

 289

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .29

 .30

 .30

 .33

 .29

 .28

 .27

 .22

 .32

 .15

 .35

 .39

 .47

 .50

 .30

 .34

 .30

 .36

 .37

 .27

 .36

 .29

 .27

 .27

 .27

 .16

 .16

 .18

 .20

 .15

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

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2003 RUN DATE: 10/03/2003

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -25 12,538 11,751 767 32 8.71 .00

ACRE-FEET -25 24,869 23,308 1,521 63

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 1,521

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 23,308

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2003 .28

 668

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
(No. 4601

#### The Texas Company, A Delaware Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 25, 1954.*

James W. Campbell, Attorney for Claimant.

Latham Castle, Attorney General; Marion G. Tiernan, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Fearer, J.

The complaint in this cause was filed on January 25, 1954, and attached to it was a purchase order, which was identified as claimant’s exhibit A. A bill of particulars and an order of the Court waiving the filing of brief and argument in said cause have also been filed.

On March 12, 1954, a Report of the Division of Highways made by Earl McK. Guy, Engineer of Claims, verifying claimant’s exhibit A as a true and correct copy of purchase order No. F-98331 issued to The Texas Company by the State of Illinois, Department of Finance, Division of Purchases and Supplies, was filed.

It is, therefore, the order of this Court that the claim in the amount of $172.42 be, and is hereby allowed.
#### Kathryn Missall et al., Respondents, v. Joseph A. Palma, as President of the Borough of Richmond, et al., Appellants.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Comparison of Signal Enhancement Methods for Extracting Tonal Acoustic SignalsThe measurement of pure tone acoustic pressure signals in the presence of masking noise, often generated by mean flow, is a continual problem in the field of passive liner duct acoustics research. In support of the Advanced Subsonic Technology Noise Reduction Program, methods were investigated for conducting measurements of advanced duct liner concepts in harsh, aeroacoustic environments. This report presents the results of a comparison study of three signal extraction methods for acquiring quality acoustic pressure measurements in the presence of broadband noise (used to simulate the effects of mean flow). The performance of each method was compared to a baseline measurement of a pure tone acoustic pressure 3 dB above a uniform, broadband noise background.Document ID19980201049Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJones, Michael G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1998Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberL-17736NASA/TM-1998-208426NAS 1.15:208426Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 538-03-12-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980201049.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
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

DAY HIGH

 186

 186

 184

 184

 195

 186

 189

 184

 184

 180

 171

 169

 169

 174

 170

 166

 155

 148

 147

 141

 142

 134

 137

 128

 123

 121

 118

 112

 110

 108

 181

 178

 176

 171

 176

 170

 168

 171

 170

 169

 156

 156

 154

 157

 157

 151

 130

 133

 121

 117

 121

 121

 119

 114

 105

 98

 103

 101

 90

 83

 184

 182

 180

 179

 182

 181

 178

 179

 179

 174

 166

 165

 165

 167

 166

 159

 148

 143

 141

 135

 135

 130

 128

 123

 119

 116

 110

 107

 102

 99

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 13, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
### §8811. Rule of construction

Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this subtitle shall be construed to limit sanctions imposed with respect to Iran under any other provision of law or to limit the authority of the President to impose additional sanctions with respect to Iran.

(Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title XII, §1255, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2018.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subtitle, referred to in text, is subtitle D (§§1241–1255) of title XII of div. A of Pub. L. 112–239, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2004, known as the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of subtitle D to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8801 of this title and Tables.