alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11213 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

–

Appellee

,

v.

RANDY FLORES ORTIZ, also known as Blue

,

Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:17

- CR

- 16

- 1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Randy Flores Ortiz has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Ortiz has filed a response. We h ave reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant
portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Ortiz ’ s response . We concur
with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 5, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Cl erk Case: 17-11213 Document: 00514500584 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2018No. 17

- 11213

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-11213 Document: 00514500584 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2018
Exhibit
23.1











Ryder
Scott Company


Petroleum
Consultants


1100
Louisiana, Suite 3800


Houston,
Texas 77002-5218


Telephone
(713) 651-9191


Fax (713)
651-0849














Consent
of Ryder Scott Company, L.P.





As
independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC to our Firm’s name
and our Firm’s review of the proved oil and gas reserve quantities of Ridgewood
Energy L Fund, LLC as of December 31, 2008.


























/s/ Ryder Scott
      Company L.P.Ryder
      Scott Company L.P.





Houston,
Texas


February
27, 2009
### **CHAPTER 23—NATIONAL ARCHIVES TRUST FUND BOARD**

Sec.
2301.
Establishment of Board; membership.
2302.
Authority of the Board; seal; services; bylaws; rules; regulations; employees.
2303.
Powers and obligations of Board; liability of members. 1

2304.
Compensation of members; availability of trust funds for expenses of Board. 1
2305.
Acceptance of gifts.
2306.
Investment of funds.
2307.
Trust fund account; disbursements; sales of publications and releases.
2308.
Tax exemption for gifts.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–497, title II, §202(c), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2294, amended item 2302 generally.

1  Section catchline amended by Pub. L. 98–497 without corresponding amendment of analysis.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10384

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS GARCIA, also known as Chucho,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-440-8

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Garcia has moved for leave to 

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10384 Document: 00513871517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2017
No. 16-10384

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-10384 Document: 00513871517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Rivera Robles, Also Known as Julio Rivera, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered August 28, 1975, unanimously reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the case remanded for a new trial. We have no difficulty whatever in sustaining denial of the motion to suppress. The police officer had several times found caches of contraband at the very place, concealed from view, from which defendant was observed to extract the box which, when defendant dropped it to the ground, the officer recovered. Defendant was seen reaching behind the billboard to an unseen area, without any prior exploratory gestures and in the absence of anything which might be thought to excite curiosity or invite exploration. Defendant’s letting go of the box did not constitute abandonment. In the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant, considering the sum of his knowledge. The trial was, however, tainted to the extent that the case must be tried again before a jury uninfluenced by the contemptuous attitude of the prosecutor toward his adversary and the court. At its best, this attitude was characterized by immature baiting of both Judge and counsel. At its worst, it was demonstrated in prejudicial remarks stressing defendant’s failure to testify and slyly advising the jury that he was incarcerated. Directed by the court again and again to desist, he repeated his improper remarks. Respondent’s brief suggests that defense counsel’s own tactics were "designed to lure the prosecutor into” intemperance. Such an excuse cannot be countenanced; in any circumstance, such conduct is unworthy of a quasi-judicial officer. Concur—Birns, J. P., Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20902

Conference Calendar

 

NICHOLAS J. BABINEAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOMMY B. THOMAS; DENISE COLLINS, Judge;

208TH DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-1674

- - - - - - - - - -

August 26, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicholas J. Babineaux filed the instant lawsuit under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Harris County Sheriff Tommy B. Thomas

and Texas District Court Judge Denise Collins had violated his

constitutional rights during criminal proceedings which resulted

in his conviction for aggregate theft. The district court

granted Thomas’s motion to dismiss the claim against him pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and dismissed the remaining claims

as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
No. 98-20902

-2-

We review the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, and we

will not affirm the dismissal unless no relief could be granted

according to any set of facts that could be proven consistent

with the allegations. See Holmes v. Texas A&M Univ., 145 F.3d

681, 683 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Babineaux failed to allege

facts that stated a claim against Thomas, both in his official

and individual capacities, see Monell v. Department of Social

Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Lozano v.

Smith, 718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th Cir. 1983), the district court

properly granted Thomas’s motion to dismiss.

The district court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous

under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it lacks an arguable basis in law or

fact. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). 

We review such a dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Id.

Examination of Babineaux’s claims reveals that they lack an

arguable basis in law or fact. See Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d

107, 110-11 (5th Cir. 1996)(judges have absolute immunity for

judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings even if the

action taken was in error, done maliciously, or exceeded her

authority, unless the act was taken in the clear absence of all

jurisdiction); Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court #3, 837 F.2d 677,

679 (5th Cir. 1988)(court-appointed defense attorneys are not

official state actors and are generally not subject to suit under

§ 1983).
No. 98-20902

-3-

 

1 Babineaux was no longer incarcerated when he filed the

instant notice of appeal. The dismissal of the instant appeal as

frivolous is therefore not counted as a strike against him for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The district court’s dismissal

of the instant action, however, is a strike. See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996).

Because Babineaux’s appeal has no arguable merit, it is

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.1 See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
|g |
|
ii
e9°36° 00" - 59° 36” 00"
a
a a _ _ _ _ | .
LL -
5 7
598.30/ 00". 59°30’ 00”
st.
ntormation see MIDDLETON ISL.
2
Ml 59°24’ 00”
~ |
5) |
Ly 7 El
= 2]
|
$ Zi
22
9 Z|
68
e aL
|
|
fa {
59° 18’ 00” |
. 1
VY J
|
2 |
Lp
SS
59° 12’ 00”
Ba

|
|
4
if
'
“ i
1
i
px |
a V g aL, y Sg a Zaz
g S a
2 LS g % 99.06" 00" |
~ a |
y - Vi]
in y es Z|
y or ON ZE cal
Km ae 4 SE 3 |
8 ; é
Lo 0, S © L Capt) Z|
9 a o. Bi
a)
- By
j - |
yy o <b Pp 0 Ce eq __t
Ye — o 0 Py
y ae > 4 p te fF D ° 2 es
4
= % L Z Sy,
as ; : ae.
a) ) cl Reo
i Po « Ke & 8 c
59°00 Ki ee a ~ Neb a? A 5 (FS Com 9) C 2 Oe 59°00"
1 3 c ’ ” 4 a a - o , aw
~147° 00’ 00” ~146°54’ 00" -146° 48’ 00” 146° 42’ 00" ~146°36’ 00" . -  -146°30’ 00” ~146° 24’ 00” 146° 18’ 00” ~146° 12’ 00" -146°06’ 00” ~146°00"00" -145954’ 00” 145° 48/00" ~145° 42’ 00 -145° 36’ 00 145° 30’ 00
pair aye -

RAINIER (EXTENDED\5901455W
SCALE: 1:100,000 :

NOS. MULTIBEAM SURVEYS =
Contours in corrected meters

Se - fo =a : a ee LM115 (exrenve?

Wid
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCAP-13-0005781 

06-OCT-2015 

04:01 PM 

SCAP-13-0005781 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

SURFRIDER FOUNDATION; HAWAII’S THOUSAND 

FRIENDS; KA IWI COALITION; and KAHEA – THE 

HAWAIIAN-ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE, 

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

vs. 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU; 

DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & 

PERMITTING, CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU; KYO-YA 

HOTELS & RESORTS LP; AND 20,000 FRIENDS OF LABOR, 

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-13-0005781; CIV. NO. 13-1-0874-03) 

ORDER OF CORRECTION 

(By: Pollack, J.) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court, 

filed on September 23, 2015, is corrected as follows: 

On page 3, footnote 2, line 6, replace the word “west” 

with the word “east.” 
 The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all 

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of this 

change. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 6, 2015. 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

- 2 -
-. . 

The Attorney General of Texas 

June 29, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Mrs. Margaret L. Rowland, R.N. 

Executive Secretary 

Board of Nurse Examiners for the 

State of Texas 

7600 Chevy Chase Drive, Suite 502 

Austin, Texas 78752 

Dear Ms. Rowland: 

Opinion No. H- 1199 

Re: Whether the Board of 

Nurse Examiners may probate a 

revocation or suspension of a 

nurse’s license. 

You have requested our opinion regarding whether the Board of Nurse 

Examiners may probate a revocation or suspension of a nurse’s license. 

Article 4525, V.T.C.S., which describes the procedure by which the 

Board shall conduct disciplinary proceedings, authorizes the Board to 

refuse to admit persons to its examinations, or . . . 

refuse to issue a license or certificate of registration 

or to issue a certificate of re-registration, or . . . 

suspend for any period up to a year, or . . . revoke the 

license or certificate of registration or certificate of 

re-registration of any practitioner of professional 

nursing. . . . 

Although the statute permits the Board to “issue a warning or reprimand” 

after a “preliminary investigation,” any disciplinary action taken against a 

licensed nurse, which action results from a hearing, is clearly limited to 

revocation or suspension of the nurse’s license. 

It is well established that an administrative agency may exercise only 

those powers which are expressly granted to it by statute, together with those 

neces&ily implied therefrom. Stauffer v. Cit; of San~Antonio, 344 S.W.2d 

158. 160 (Tex. 1961). As we said in Attornev General Ooinion H-928 (1977). the 

rules of an administrative agency may iot enlarge-upon the s&e o? the 

statute from which it derives its authority. 

Opinions H-870 (1976); H-842 (1976); H-669 (1975). 

See also Attorney General 

p. 4818 
., - 

Mrs. Margaret L. .Rowland, R.N. - Page 2’ (H-1199) 

Furthermore, a number of other boards are ~gpecifi+%lly empowered to probate 

an order revoking or suspending a practitioner’s license. See V.T.C.S. art. 4512c, S 

23 (Board of Examiners of Psychologists); V.T.C.S. art.4506 (Board of Medical 

Examiners); V.T.C.S. art. 4512b, S 14 (Board of Chiropractic Examiners). In our 

opinion, the absence of any such express authority from article 4525 indicates a 

legislative intent that probation is not an alternative which is currently available to 

the Board of Nurse Examiners. Accordingly, it is our view that, under present law, 

the Board of Nurse Examiners may not probate a revocation or suspension of a 

nurse’s license. 

SUMMARY,: ~. 

Under present law, the Board of Nurse Examiners may not 

probate a revocation or suspension of a nurse’s license. 

Attornev General of’Texas 

APPROVED: 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee ” 

jsn 

: 

P. 4819
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as amended
      by
      the Form 10-KSB/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date
      hereof (the "Report"), I, Sundaresan Raja, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
      that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of
                the
                Company.














/s/*Sundaresan
                Raja*Sundaresan
                RajaChief
                Executive Officer


April
      21,
      2008
TIER1

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT

STATEMENT

ARailInvestmentPlanfor

theNortheastCorridor

NOVEMBER2015
November 2015

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared by:

U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration

One Bowling Green, Suite 429

New York, NY 10004

Contact: Rebecca Reyes-Alicea
§ 964.120 Resident management corporation requirements. A resident management corporation must consist of residents residing in public housing and have each of the following characteristics in order to receive official recognition by the HA and HUD: ( a ) It shall be a non-profit organization that is validly incorporated under the laws of the State in which it is located;
( b ) It may be established by more than one resident council, so long as each such council: ( 1 ) Approves the establishment of the corporation; and
( 2 ) Has representation on the Board of Directors of the corporation;
( c ) It shall have an elected Board of Directors, and elections must be held at least once every three (3) years;
( d ) Its by-laws shall require the Board of Directors to include resident representatives of each resident council involved in establishing the corporation; include qualifications to run for office, frequency of elections, procedures for recall, and term limits if desired.
( e ) Its voting members shall be heads of households (any age) and other residents at least 18 years of age and whose name appears on the lease of a unit in the public housing represented by the resident management corporation;
( f ) Where a resident council already exists for the development, or a portion of the development, the resident management corporation shall be approved by the resident council board and a majority of the residents. If there is no resident council, a majority of the residents of the public housing development it will represent must approve the establishment of such a corporation for the purposes of managing the project; and
( g ) It may serve as both the resident management corporation and the resident council, so long as the corporation meets the requirements of this part for a resident council.
### §§1101 to 1110. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6603(2), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4777

Section 1101, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1002], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–128, related to the purpose of this chapter, to facilitate access to signals of local television stations for households in nonserved areas and underserved areas.

Section 1102, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1003], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–128, related to establishment of the LOCAL Television Loan Guarantee Board.

Section 1103, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1004], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–129; Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6404(b)(1), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 430; Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title II, §1216(f), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2792, related to approval of loan guarantees.

Section 1104, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1005], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–134; Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6404(b)(2), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 430, related to administration of loan guarantees.

Section 1105, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1006], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–138, related to annual audit.

Section 1106, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1007], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–138, related to improved cellular service in rural areas.

Section 1107, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1009], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–140, related to the sunset for approval of loan guarantees, which was Dec. 31, 2006.

Section 1108, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1010], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–140, related to definitions.

Section 1109, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1011], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–141; Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6404(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 429, related to authorizations of appropriations.

Section 1110, Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1012], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–141, related to prevention of interference to direct broadcast satellite services.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title X, §1001], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–128, which provided that title X of H.R. 5548, as enacted by section 1(a)(2) of Pub. L. 106–553, which enacted former chapter X and amended section 339 of this title, could be cited as the "Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000", was repealed by Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6603(2), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4777.
#### § 886.128 Termination of tenancy.

Part 247 of this title (24 CFR part 247) applies to the termination of tenancy and eviction of a family assisted under this subpart. For cases involving termination of tenancy because of a failure to establish citizenship or eligible immigration status, the procedures of 24 CFR parts 247 and 5 shall apply. The provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), apply to this section. The provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart E, of this title concerning certain assistance for mixed families (families whose members include those with eligible immigration status, and those without eligible immigration status) in lieu of termination of assistance, and concerning deferral of termination of assistance, also shall apply.

[81 FR 80813, Nov. 16, 2016]
Suggested changes to PGP Corell, Chuck [DNR]

to: Jack Faulk 01/20/2010 08:16 PM Show Details

Chuck Corell, Chief Water Quality Bureau Iowa Department of Natural Resources 515.210.4517 Page 1 of 1

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web4493.htm
§ 902.30 Financial condition assessment. ( a ) *Objective.* The objective of the financial condition indicator is to measure the financial condition of each public housing project within a PHA's public housing portfolio for the purpose of evaluating whether there are sufficient financial resources to support the provision of housing that is DSS/GR. Individual project scores for financial condition, as well as overall financial condition scores, will be issued.
( b ) *Financial reporting standards.* A PHA's financial condition will be assessed under this indicator by measuring the combined performance of all public housing projects in each of the subindicators listed in § 902.35, on the basis of the annual financial report provided in accordance with § 902.33.
( c ) *Exclusions.* Mixed-finance projects are excluded from the financial condition indicator.
#### § 92.608 Consolidated plan.

To receive an ADDI formula allocation, a participating jurisdiction must address the use of the ADDI funds in its consolidated plan submitted in accordance with 24 CFR part 91.
#### § 241.12 Prosecution of claims.

After payment by USAID to an Applicant hereunder, USAID shall have exclusive power to prosecute all claims related to rights to receive payments under the Eligible Notes to which it is thereby subrogated. If a Noteholder continues to have an interest in the outstanding Eligible Notes, such a Noteholder and USAID shall consult with each other with respect to their respective interests in such Eligible Notes and the manner of and responsibility for prosecuting claims.
### §55335. Revocations and terminations of designations

(a) Revocations.—After notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary of Transportation may revoke a designation of a vessel as an American Great Lakes vessel if the Secretary finds that—

(1) the vessel does not meet a requirement for the designation;

(2) the vessel has been operated in violation of this subchapter; or

(3) the owner or operator of the vessel has violated an agreement made under section 55332(b) of this title.

(b) Terminations.—On petition and a showing of good cause by the owner of a vessel, the Secretary may terminate the designation of a vessel as an American Great Lakes vessel. The Secretary may impose conditions in a termination order to prevent significant adverse effects on other operators of vessels of the United States.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1650.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 55335 | 46 App.:1241t(a), (c). | Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1524(a), (c), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3667. |

Section

In subsection (a)(3), the words "construction and purchase" before "agreement" are omitted because the source provision for section 55332(b) of the revised title does not say anything about construction.

In subsection (b), the words "vessels of the United States" are substituted for "United States-flag vessel" for consistency in the revised title.