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

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ELIZABETH KARNAZES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-00767 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER VACATING OSC

ORDER RE MEET AND CONFER

This matter is currently scheduled for an Order to Show Cause hearing on February 11, 2010. 

The relevant background leading up to the OSC can be found in the Court’s January 20, 2010 Order

to Show Cause (Dkt. #39). The Court is now in receipt of declarations from both sides in response

to the OSC. (Dkt. ## 40, 41.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s reasons for failing to appear at a scheduled

meet-and-confer session, and in an effort to avoid any “he said, she said” contentious developments

that do nothing to aid in the resolution of this case, the Court hereby VACATES the February 11,

2010 OSC hearing. However, Plaintiff should be mindful of her duty to comply with her discovery

obligations. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1) Plaintiff shall contact Defendant’s counsel within five days of the date of this Order

and provide her availability for a meet and confer session regarding the issues raised

in Mr. Silberman’s December 22, 2009 Declaration (Dkt. #36-1). Plaintiff shall

provide her availability for all weekdays, up through and including February 26,

2010.

2) Once Plaintiff provides her availability, Defendant’s counsel shall choose one of the

available dates for a meet and confer, and shall inform Plaintiff of his choice as soon

as possible, but no later than 48 hours in advance.

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 42 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

3) The parties shall thereafter comply with the undersigned’s discovery standing order if

unable to resolve their disputes at the meet and confer session.

4) Because this is an e-file case, email is an acceptable form of communication and both

parties are considered on notice when email is sent to the address registered in this

case.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 42 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2
### §678. Rule of construction

Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State courts from exercising their discretion to protect the health and safety of children in individual cases, including cases other than those described in section 671(a)(15)(D) of this title.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §478, as added Pub. L. 105–89, title I, §101(d), Nov. 19, 1997, 111 Stat. 2117.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 678, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §478, as added Oct. 22, 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, §1883(b)(10)(A), 100 Stat. 2917, excluded from AFDC unit child for whom foster care maintenance payments are made, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–508, title V, §5052(b), (c), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–228, applicable with respect to benefits for months beginning on or after the first day of the sixth calendar month following November 1990.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Nov. 19, 1997, except as otherwise provided, with delay permitted if State legislation is required, see section 501 of Pub. L. 105–89, set out as an Effective Date of 1997 Amendments note under section 622 of this title.
### §3796ff–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ff–1 was editorially reclassified as section 10422 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.33 Labor standards. ( a ) The requirements set forth in 29 CFR parts 1, 3 and 5 for compliance with labor standards laws apply to projects under these programs to the extent that labor standards apply as provided in section 212 of the Act, provided that: ( 1 ) The labor standards provisions do not apply to projects insured under sections 207 or 232 pursuant to section 223(f) of the Act; and
( 2 ) Supplemental loans under section 241 of the Act are subject to the provisions of section 212 applicable to the section or title pursuant to which the mortgage covering the project is insured or pursuant to which the original mortgage was insured.
( b ) The requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 70 apply to those programs with respect to which there is a statutory provision allowing HUD waiver of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates for volunteers.
( c ) Project commitments, contracts and agreements, as determined by the Commissioner, and construction contracts and subcontracts, shall include terms, conditions and standards for compliance with applicable requirements set forth in 29 CFR parts 1, 3 and 5 and section 212 of the Act.
( d ) No advance under a loan or mortgage that is subject to the requirements of section 212 shall be eligible for insurance unless there is filed with the application for the advance a certificate as required by the Commissioner certifying that the laborers and mechanics employed in construction of the project have been paid not less than the wage rates required under section 212.
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

ROGER GALLUP, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-0210 SC

ORDER APPROVING REQUEST FOR

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TO

ATTEND MEDIATION BY PHONE

Date: March 19, 2010

Mediator: Judith Mazia

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant United States Postal Service’s representative,

Joseph Doyle, is excused from personal attendance at the March 19, 2010, mediation before Judith

Mazia. Mr. Doyle shall be available to participate by telephone at all times during the mediation,

pursuant to ADR Local Rule 6-10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By:

Dated Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

February 5, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00210-SC Document 21 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 1
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed June 16, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D19-1938; 3D20-1378

Lower Tribunal No. 14-5373

________________

Aaron Haddad,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

vs.

Monica Medina,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia B. 

Caballero, Judge.

Aaron Haddad, in proper person.

Monica Medina, in proper person.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

The instant appeals are taken of the trial court’s September 5, 2019

final judgment of paternity and establishment of parenting plan and its 
2

August 24, 2020 partial amendment to the final judgment following rehearing. 

Pursuant to the amended final judgment, the trial court ordered the parties 

to prepare new child support guidelines worksheets based on its revised 

findings. Both parties filed proposed revised child support guidelines 

worksheets, but the court has yet to approve or file any revised child support 

guidelines. “It is reversible error for the court to fail to include a child support 

guidelines worksheet in a final judgment establishing paternity and child 

support.” Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. K.A.N. v. A.N.J., 165 So. 3d 846, 848 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citations omitted). Accordingly, reversal is warranted. 

See Garcia v. Espinosa, 314 So. 3d 619, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding 

the trial court’s failure to include a child support guidelines worksheet in the 

final judgment precluded this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate 

review of the award and warranted reversal); see also J.A.D. v. K.M.A., 264 

So. 3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“Additionally, the trial court did not

include in the final judgment a child support guidelines worksheet. This, too, 

was error.”). 

Reversed and remanded.
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Jun 18 2010

Mr. David M. Shinn

6264 East Saddleback Street Mesa, AZ 85215

Dear Mr. Shinn:

In your March 6, 2010 letter, you petitioned the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to amend Part 71 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regul ations (14 CFR).

You have made some good points. However, when the FAA responds to petitions for rulemaking, it must follow the requirements of 14 C FR Part 11, particularly those guidelines for processing petitions for rulemaking found in § 11.73. As stated in that section, the FAA uses the following criteria when m aking a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition fo r rulemaking:

1) the immediacy of the safety or security concerns th e petition raises; 2) the priority of other FAA issues; and 3) the resources we have available to address these is sues.

The reclassification of airspace of Falcon Field Ai rport (KFFZ) in Mesa, Arizona, from Class D to Class B as proposed by the petitioner wo uld place an inordinate burden on the air traffic control (ATC) system and General Aviati on Operations, and potentially interfere with the operations at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. In addition, KFFZ does not meet the minimum 5 million enplaned p assengers or the 240,000 air carrier operations annually required for a Class B airspace designation.

You believe the reclassification of airspace would result in a significant reduction of aircraft operating over housing developments in clo se proximity to KFFZ without having an appreciable impact on its operations.

The reclassification of the KFFZ Airspace would imp ose unnecessary restrictions on a large number of pilots and aircraft. The negative ramifications that would result from an implementation of Class B Airspace would have a ser ious impact on current primary flight training activities conducted at KFFZ. Furt hermore, some types of preliminary2

flight training cannot be conducted within Class B airspace. This is particularly important for the use of practice areas for general aviation flight training, which at times involve the distractive environment of a flight ins tructor providing a learning experience for a fledgling student pilot. You stated that you were advised “that in Class D airspace, pilots can do whatever they want without regard to operations over anything.” All aircraft operations in Class D airspace are subject to FAA operating rules and equipment requirements specified in Part 91. Prior to enteri ng a Class D airspace area, pilots are required to contact the controlling air traffic con trol facility and comply with ATC

instructions.

Additionally, you stated that the reclassification of the airspace would result in moving the aircraft traffic patterns to uninhabited desert area; there is no information to provide a

foundation for this contention.

For the reasons above, we are unable to consider an d thereby deny your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Accordingly, Docket No. FAA-2010-0472 is being clos ed.

Sincerely,

/s/ Elizabeth Ray Director, Aerospace and Aeronautical Information Ma nagement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR ESTRADA,

Petitioner,

v.

FRANCISCO JAQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-0939 SI (pr)

JUDGMENT

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Judgment is entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: April 26, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00939-SI Document 9 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 1
114 STAT. 1044 PUBLIC LAW 106–296—OCT. 13, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1605:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–536 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Apr. 3, considered and passed House.

Oct. 4, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–296

106th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 402

North Walnut Street in Harrison, Arkansas, as the ‘‘J. Smith Henley Federal

Building and United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building and United States courthouse located

at 402 North Walnut Street in Harrison, Arkansas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘J. Smith Henley Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building and

United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Smith Henley Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

Approved October 13, 2000.

Oct. 13, 2000

[H.R. 1605]
I'pl:!-.:<7-99 16,54 FROM, 8U~CAU OF AIR MANCEMENT 10, 860 424 4063 PACE 2

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

S'IATE III-" I·ONNECTIr.1 IT

:Illd

V.~I.L lINIVFI{";! IV

TRADING NiREI"ivll,Nl AND

ORDER NO. ~J 1(1 MOlliFICATION

J ((ALlINI; AS.H'hl'MI'NJflNIJ IJl\IWR MUIIIII<jITION

III thl' m;\lh',. uJ' a Trading Agn,:t.:m":111 and UrJ..:r hctVYt.:cll the t\lIllmi~sillnl.:r or Fllvironmt:nt~1

I'rnh.:~,i(ll\ (""( 'otllllli:-.sioner") :lIld YalL' IJniVt:rsily (""Yak'').

WIIEREAS. til..: <"\llIl1llissilln~r and Y:lh... having agreed lolhl,,' Il,:rlllS <Il1d conditions 51-:1

lill'lll in Trilliing i\~rCl:llll'l1l ,IIH1 Ordl:r Nil. Jo:; II () IsslJl...·d on July 1(), Jt}()(l. dll now, hy mutual

~\gl't.:l:llll:I\L Il1lll.!!!:" pnr~lgraph:,; A. J7., D,2., F..1. ;ll1d [.'.11. as follows:

I, Ck1l1)!l.: Ill,.; d:l\l' SPl.:(;iJjl~U II) Ih,.; lnfil ....l:nll'nc,.; oj'p:lr;l~r;lph A.17. J'rum May J, Jt)C)')

10 May 1.2001.

1, (·h;tlll,.'.C till: St.:l'Olld dale spl,;L'ilil,:d in th..: C)l,;l;ond pilr:lgr:lph wilhin pari.lgruph r),2,

(r\llll M~IY 1. 191.)9 hi M;IY I, '2(JO."i,

:1. ('h;mj;c Ihl' first liillc spc~'jfjcU ill 11lL' sl.:c.:ond paragraph ......'ILhin pnragraph 1-'.3. from

Sq>l<':lllhcr I, I C)(JX It) Scptemb":l J. ~O()?.

·1, ('h:lIll,;,L: Ihe scc.:l'llltl da!c spl'(ilil'd ill till' sl.:l'ond J1i\r:l~'.r"ph within paral;rl1ph F,l

I"rUJll M:IY \, )()l)l) ll) Muy 1. ?()()~ .

.'i. ('h;lllJ;l' the iiI'S! d~11t: sp";l·iljl..'d in J);Ir:.I~r:JJ1h F.I J. I"nf!l1 ~1:ly l. 1I)')l) In

May J. ~OO.1,

(!'nnICc! On II.cc)clcd "'.pc.r)

19 lOlHl Slrc.c.l • Ihnfnrd, CT UIII06. S121

hll?:/fdcp,IIlIC,~I.U'

All £1/"';11 0PP'''fl""ry Ernr'oyu

1""< fZ[/;7
,"

YAI.E lINIVI'RSll'Y 2

I .... · ......... ..., .........

lR,\DIN(i AGRF.EMr:NT

AI D OIWI'R 0, XI Itl

MODII'lCATIO

./

All u11lL'1' I\~nll~ ;l11d cunditiollS ofTr'I<.ling Agn:-:.tllCnl and Order Nu. RII 0 issl1L:d hy t.hL:

l.'ullllnis:--illt1L:1' ucting lllllh.:r SL:l.:Liu!1s 22i.1·(), 22a·171, 2'2u·174, 2:l'1·17(1. 221.1-177 and 22a·17X or

lhl.: ClIIlI1L~l.:liult (i-:llL:r,d St;l\uLcs sh~dl l"l::ll1,lin in d'fl.:CL

Yak tJnivL:rsily Ill.'l"chy L:UJlSL'IIt~ to lllL: l,:lllry ~d"lhis IllmJific:lliull to rill.: Tradlug J\grcl.'l1lcnt ilml

()nkr wilhtlllt furlhl'l" JlI)(ic:~.

"

TypL: NaJll~

Typl'TitlL':

___--1Qseph ':: MuHi:.:.o:.:.lx _

Vice Presidenr for

Finance 8. Administrorion

,-,--

..J,!~<-.::JL_ 191)'),

I:ntl:ll.:d "" ;l 11 IIKl iJil.:;Jlil)ll of illl Ordt:.r ld" thl.: l'umm i~:'Iiu er or Envi rUlllnclltal Protedion nUlTlb.::n:tl

Rll0this _ Ai

'J, R""I"", .II',

u IHISS10ilLT

tHY 01 NI'IV II!\VI',N

LAND Rn:Ol{l)S

MAILEIl l"I'Rl""UJ MAil ..

11I,:TIIRN RI',CUP'!' REQlIESTi'D

1\;ninL:d !)11('.1I11lL:1J( NIl.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                        |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 12, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton              
|                        |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                        |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier
BPL Exploration, /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 27, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00087

- CV

CODY TEXAS, L.P.,

Appellant

v.

BPL EXPLORATION, LTD

., Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6,097

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Clerk’s Notification of Late Record is GRANTED. The clerk’s record is due on

Feb ruary 28, 2014.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the sea l of the said

court on this 27th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Cash Compensation of Outside Directors



  
 Exhibit 10.3

 Cash Compensation of Outside Directors 
 Cash Compensation of Non-Employee Directors is as follows: 
 Annual Retainer:
$36,000 
 Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Board: $30,000 

Additional Annual Retainer for Audit Committee members:

							
	 Chairman:
	 	$	20,000	  	 	
	 Other members:
	 	$	8,000	  	 	

 Additional Annual Retainer for Compensation Committee members:

							
	 Chairman:
	 	$	15,000	  	 	
	 Other members:
	 	$	6,000	  	 	

 Additional Annual Retainer for Nominating and Governance Committee members:

							
	 Chairman:
	 	$	8,000  	  	 	
	 Other members:
	 	$	3,200  	  	 	

 Fees are paid quarterly in arrears. There are no per meeting fees.
### §8912. Authorization of appropriations

For the expenses of carrying out the carbon dioxide study authorized by section 8911 of this title (as determined by the Office of Science and Technology Policy) there are authorized to be appropriated such sums, not exceeding $3,000,000 in the aggregate, as may be necessary. At least 80 percent of any amounts appropriated pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be provided to the National Academy of Sciences.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title VII, §712, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 775.)
#### Reaaz Hafiz BACCHUS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60209

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2007.

Frank J. Hancock, Forest Hills, NY, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Don George Scroggin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Reaaz Hafiz Bacchus, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The IJ determined that Bacchus was ineligible for cancellation of removal after Bacchus admitted in his application and at his hearing to two possession-of-marijuana convictions that occurred before he had been in the United States for seven years.

Bacchus argues (1) that his due process rights were violated when his notice to appear was amended to charge convictions that he admitted in his application for cancellation of removal, (2) that smoking marijuana is not a crime of moral turpitude, and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support an offer to prove the two non-charged convictions that he admitted where the only record produced was a rap sheet. Bacchus did not raise any of these *283issues before the BIA. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); *Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.2004); *Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Bacchus’s petition for review is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

*

 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.
### §5313a. Duplication of benefits

The Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report annually to the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to prevent fraud and abuse of funds made available under this heading including duplication of benefits.

(Pub. L. 110–329, div. B, title I, Sept. 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 3601; Pub. L. 113–76, div. L, title II, §236, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 635.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This heading, referred to in text, refers to the headings "Community Planning and Development" and "community development fund" of title I of div. B of Pub. L. 110–329, known as the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, and also as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, and not as part of title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Similar Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 110–252, title III, June 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2353; Pub. L. 113–76, div. L, title II, §236, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 635.

Pub. L. 109–234, title II, June 15, 2006, 120 Stat. 473; Pub. L. 113–76, div. L, title II, §236, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 635.

Pub. L. 109–148, div. B, title I, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2781; Pub. L. 113–76, div. L, title II, §236, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 635.