alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Accounting Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, David P. Suleski, the Chief Financial Officer of Canyon Resources Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:1) the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2006, (the “Form 10-Q”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: November 13, 2006 /s/ David P. Suleski David P. Suleski
#### Continental Bank & Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, Appellant-Respondent, v. Chemical Bank *&*Trust Company et al., as Executors of Jesse Sharp, Deceased, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to modify by granting summary judgment for the defendants.
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

 190

 163

 162

 0

 159

 135

 137

 142

 131

 113

 117

 134

 178

 133

 158

 134

 142

 145

 147

 147

 150

 145

 151

 146

 142

 147

 152

 152

 143

 151

 150

 137

 127

 128

 0

 124

 106

 105

 109

 105

 101

 103

 110

 116

 116

 120

 117

 124

 125

 125

 122

 127

 126

 123

 128

 127

 134

 140

 135

 131

 135

 133

 154

 143

 143

 0

 137

 117

 122

 123

 118

 107

 108

 116

 129

 123

 130

 129

 134

 137

 138

 139

 140

 138

 137

 138

 135

 140

 145

 142

 139

 141

 139

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 8, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

STEELHEAD REPORT

January-10

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG. Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Steelhead Estimated Salvage Steelhead Estimated Loss (Incidental Take 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily T

Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In CF

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

Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 2,939 1,0

2-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 2,944 1,0

3-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 2,946 1,0

4-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,859 1,0

5-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 4,354 1,0

6-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 4,515 1,0

7-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,937 1,0

8-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,908 1,0

9-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,355 1,0

10-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,550 1,0

11-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,327 1,0

12-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,507 1,0

13-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 3,991 1,0

14-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 4,321 1,0

15-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 5,096 9

16-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 4,861 1,0

17-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 5,424 1,018-Jan-10 0000 0 0 0 4000 00003 4,876 1,0

19-Jan-10 6200 6 2 6 6410 04144 4,936 1,0

20-Jan-10 0000 0 0 6 6000 00044 4,896 1,0

21-Jan-10 0000 0 0 6 6000 00044 4,944 1,5

22-Jan-10 0030 3 0 9 6002 0 2 0 6 4 582 1,8

23-Jan-10 2 2 12 0 14 2 23 8 1 1 8 0 9 1 15 5 3,802 1,8

24-Jan-10 0 0 25 0 25 0 48 8 0 0 17 0 17 0 32 5 3,432 2,4

25-Jan-10 4880 12 8 60 16 3 5 5 0 8 5 40 11 2,734 2,6

26-Jan-10 13 0 0 0 13 0 73 16 9 0 0 0 9 0 48 11 4,672 2,7

27-Jan-10 86 0 40 0 126 0 199 16 57 0 26 0 83 0 131 11 3,900 3,128-Jan-10 8 4 20 0 28 4 227 20 5 3 13 0 18 3 150 13 4,673 3,3

29-Jan-10 16 0 4 8 20 8 247 28 11 0 3 5 13 5 163 18 5,339 3,330-Jan-10 20 0 12 8 32 8 279 36 13 0 8 5 21 5 184 24 5,353 3,331-Jan-10 16 0 12 3 28 3 307 39 11 0 8 2 18 2 203 26 3,634 3,3

Total 171 16 136 19 307 35 307 39 113 11 90 13 203 23 203 26 124,607 49,7

Banks Tracy
[1]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

_____________________________________________________________

Supreme Court Cause No.: DA 20-0146

_____________________________________________________________

TED SEE and CORBIN SEE,

Plaintiffs and Appellees

v.

CHRISTENSEN RANCH PARTNERSHIP, a Montana Partnership, and CHRIS D. 

CHRISTENSEN,

Defendants and Appellants.

On Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Valley County

Cause No.: DV 2018-10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

APPEARANCES:

Matthew W. Knierim

Christofferson & Knierim

630 Second Avenue South, Suite E

P.O. Box 29

Glasgow, MT 59230

Telephone: (406) 228-2487

Email: 2matt@nemont.net

Attorney for Defendants / Appellants

Bruce A. Fredrickson

Kristin L. Omvig

Rocky Mountain Law Partners, P.C.

1830 3rd Avenue East, Suite 301

P. O. Box 1758

Kalispell, MT 59903-1758

Telephone: (406) 314-6011

Facsimile: (406) 314-6012

E-mail: bruce@rmtlawp.com

kristin@rmtlawp.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs / Appellees Ted 

See and Corbin See

05/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0146
[2]

Based upon the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice signed and 

submitted by counsel for the parties to this action, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the action stated in Montana Supreme 

Court Cause No. DA 20-0146 be and hereby is dismissed in its entirety and with 

prejudice, never to be brought again.

cc: Kristin L. Omvig

 Matthew W. Knierim

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 28 2020
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

CORRECTED JUDGMENT RENDERED

AUGUST 22, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00582

- CR

Cand e lario Cerda, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JU STICE JONES, JUSTICE S PEMBERTON AND ROSE

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment s of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Co urt ho lds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment s requiring reversal

. However, there was error in the judgment s that require correction.

Therefore, the Court modifi es the trial court’s judgment s as follows: we modify each judgment

of conviction to state that the “Statute for Offense” is “22.011(a)(2)(A) Penal Code.” The

judgment s , as modified, are affirmed

. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal,

both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000740628
<NAME> INTERFERON SCIENCES RESEARCH PARTNERS, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Kevin E. Benson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Laidlaw
International, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: November 15, 2004
    /s/ Kevin E. BensonKevin E. BensonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
### §1916. Return of custody

#### (a) Petition; best interests of child

Notwithstanding State law to the contrary, whenever a final decree of adoption of an Indian child has been vacated or set aside or the adoptive parents voluntarily consent to the termination of their parental rights to the child, a biological parent or prior Indian custodian may petition for return of custody and the court shall grant such petition unless there is a showing, in a proceeding subject to the provisions of section 1912 of this title, that such return of custody is not in the best interests of the child.

#### (b) Removal from foster care home; placement procedure

Whenever an Indian child is removed from a foster care home or institution for the purpose of further foster care, preadoptive, or adoptive placement, such placement shall be in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, except in the case where an Indian child is being returned to the parent or Indian custodian from whose custody the child was originally removed.

(Pub. L. 95–608, title I, §106, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3073.)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical Analysis of the Trailblazer Inlet Flowfield for Hypersonic Mach NumbersA study of the Trailblazer vehicle inlet was conducted using the Global Air Sampling Program (GASP) code for flight Mach numbers ranging from 4-12. Both perfect gas and finite rate chemical analysis were performed with the intention of making detailed comparisons between the two results. Inlet performance was assessed using total pressure recovery and kinetic energy efficiency. These assessments were based upon a one-dimensional stream-thrust-average of the axisymmetric flowfield. Flow visualization utilized to examine the detailed shock structures internal to this mixed-compression inlet. Kinetic energy efficiency appeared to be the least sensitive to differences between the perfect gas and finite rate chemistry results. Total pressure recovery appeared to be the most sensitive discriminator between the perfect gas and finite rate chemistry results for flight Mach numbers above Mach 6. Adiabatic wall temperature was consistently overpredicted by the perfect gas model for flight Mach numbers above Mach 4. The predicted shock structures were noticeably different for Mach numbers from 6-12. At Mach 4, the perfect gas and finite rate chemistry models collapse to the same result.Document ID20000025334Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsSteffen, C. J., Jr.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*DeBonis, J. R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1999Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberE-12010NASA/TM-1999-209654NAS 1.15:209654AIAA Paper 2000-0889Meeting InformationMeeting: 38th Aerospace Sciences MeetingLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 10, 2000End Date: January 13, 2000Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 523-31-13Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20000025334.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
**Exhibit 15.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-208678) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-165065, 333-165566, 333-69272, 333-171231, 333-172069, 333-178664, 333-188517, 333-192806, 333-201386 and333-208634) of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV of our report dated March 14, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Ambev S.A. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV for the year ended December 31, 2015. The financial statements of the Company are not separately presented in Anheuser-Busch InBevSA/NV’s annual report on Form 20-F. 

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 

DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU 

Auditores Independentes 

São Paulo, Brazil, 

March 14, 2016
§ 678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs under the Memorandum of Understanding? ( a ) In addition to jointly funding infrastructure costs, one-stop partners listed in §§ 678.400 through 678.410 must use a portion of funds made available under their programs' authorizing Federal law (or fairly evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay the additional costs relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery system. These other costs must include applicable career services and may include other costs, including shared services.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, shared services' costs may include the costs of shared services that are authorized for and may be commonly provided through the one-stop partner programs to any individual, such as initial intake, assessment of needs, appraisal of basic skills, identification of appropriate services to meet such needs, referrals to other one-stop partners, and business services. Shared operating costs may also include shared costs of the Local WDB's functions.
( c ) Contributions to the additional costs related to operation of the one-stop delivery system may be cash, non-cash, or third-party in-kind contributions, consistent with how these are described in § 678.720(c).
( d ) The shared costs described in paragraph (a) of this section must be allocated according to the proportion of benefit received by each of the partners, consistent with the Federal law authorizing the partner's program, and consistent with all other applicable legal requirements, including Federal cost principles in 2 CFR part 200 (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling) requiring that costs are allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
( e ) Any shared costs agreed upon by the one-stop partners must be included in the MOU.
### SUBCHAPTER XXXII—PAIUTE INDIANS OF UTAH: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 16319A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5481

Ms. Kelly Neubecker

UASolutions Group, Inc

5651 Talbot Boulevard

Cocoa, FL 32926

Dear Ms. Neubecker:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public docket on July 22, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of UASolutions Group, Inc (hereinafter petitioner or 

operator) for an amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and 

(c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You 

requested an amendment to change the company name from UAS Focus, LLC to 

UASolutions Group, Inc.

1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

 

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the 

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 16319

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, UASolutions Group, Inc is hereafter referred to as the operator.

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 16319 remain in effect.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
### SUBCHAPTER XXXVII—OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
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

 703.39

 703.57

 703.72

 703.91

 704.11

 704.25

 704.50

 704.63

 704.77

 705.06

 705.24

 705.53

 705.71

 705.91

 706.10

 706.25

 706.50

 706.65

 706.79

 707.20

 707.99

 708.59

 708.82

 709.04

 709.51

 709.62

 709.26

 710.28

 710.20

 710.74

 710.76

 683

 687

 691

 696

 701

 705

 711

 714

 718

 726

 730

 738

 742

 748

 753

 757

 764

 768

 771

 783

 805

 822

 828

 834

 847

 850

 840

 869

 867

 883

 884

STORAGE

+5

+4

+4

+5

+5

+4

+6

+3

+4

+8

+4

+8

+4

+6

+5

+4

+7

+4

+3

+12

+22

+17

+6

+6

+13

+3

-10

+29

-2

+16

+1

CHANGE

3

2

2

3

3

2

3

2

2

4

2

4

2

3

3

2

4

2

2

6

11

9

3

3

10

7

0

20

4

13

4

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

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 3

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2000 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 29, 2000

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +206 140 0 31

ACRE-FEET +206 278 0 61

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 61

 61

 678

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

Table 7
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19E0054. HUCKABAY v. HUCKABAY.

Upon consideration of Appellant Brian Huckabay’s “Emergency Motion for

Extension of Time for Filing Application for Discretionary Appeal,” it is ordered that

the same is hereby GRANTED. Appellant shall have until July 24, 2019 to file an

application for discretionary appeal.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 04, 2019

06/04/2019
### §4088. Education allowance

A Department employee who is on leave to perform service in the uniformed services (as defined in section 4303(13) of title 38) may receive an education allowance if the employee would, if not for such service, be eligible to receive the education allowance.

(Pub. L. 96–465, title I, §908, as added Pub. L. 118–31, div. F, title LXII, §6221(a), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 978.)