alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





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 Quarterly Report of LCNB Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Stephen P. Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve P. Foster, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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.













October 28, 2004

/s/ Stephen P. Wilson



Stephen P. Wilson, Chief Executive Officer







October 28, 2004

/s/ Steve P. Foster



Steve P. Foster, Chief Financial Officer





- 36 -
Swanson, Brian (OST) Fr.om: 

## c. serit: To: Subject:

'\'<"";: Greg MacMorran <gmacmorran@gmail.com> Friday, August 17, 2012 11:35 AM Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) Airline Proposal for Rhinelander Airport

Good Morning Dennis and Brian, 

### l 

## "l 3: 03

I wantto give you my feedback regarding theairline status for the Rhinelander/Oneida CountyAirport. First of all, I am glad to see the continue need for an airline out ofthis airport. This is an active airport especially during the summermonths. Wehave lots oftourists that come and go throughout the summer from various parts ofthe country. Also, it is active throughout the year with our locals flying out for leisure and business trips. I quite frequently use this facility as well. I amproposing the request for SkyWestAirlines to replace FrontierAirlines. I feel this would be a great opportunity for Rhinelander. I am glad to seethe opportunity for Delta Connect to comebackto Rhinelander. I know alot ofpeople will behappy since they canfly into a big hub like Minneapolis. Iknow in the past when Delta was here, this airline was prettypacked with passengers. Iknow SkyWest also runs United Express. Maybe in the future, I would look into have UnitedExpress come to Rhinelander as well. Wehave alot ofpeople that come up here from Chicago, Illinois. It would be neat to have two airlines again in Rhinelander. Also, this would openup the opportunity for those to fly into two majorhubs. I am a little eerie when it comes to Great Lakes Airlines. Ihave flown Great Lakes numerous times to Milwaukee when they wereherebefore FrontierAirlines. Great Lakes is a great airline. There were numerous times, I would be the only passenger orthere were no more than 5 passengers on the aircraft. Most ofthem came out ofIronwood, Michigan. I don't think it's the destination ofthe flight, it's the size ofthe aircraft that scares passengers away. Also, Ithink it was an inconvenience for passengers that took Great Lakes to connect with another airline. I feel passengers would be more comfortable for an airline (like DeltaConnect) to connect to another flight in the same airline. Also, Idon't feel comfortable with an airline (Great Lakes Airlines) that agrees to come to a city and then decides to pull out for some reason. Now, that same airline wants to re-bid again. To me, they had their chance to operate here in Rhinelander. As for SovereignAir I amnot too familiar with them. I don't think too many are either. Yes, like I saidbefore, I would love to see an airline fly to Chicago. With this airline not certifiedthrough FAA, Ijustfeel that would be a problem. I be more worried about safety factors. Also, the time that it would take them to get certified, we canhave an another airline bynow. Again, I am proposing for Sky West Airlines. Thanks again for your time. Sincerely, Greg MacMorran

1
#### § 452.120 Officers as delegates.

Officers of labor organizations who have been elected by secret ballot vote of their respective memberships may, by virtue of their election to office, serve as delegates to conventions at which officers will be elected, if the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization so provide. In such cases it is advisable to have a statement to this effect included on the ballots. Persons who have been appointed to serve unexpired terms of officers who are ex officio delegates to a convention at which officers will be elected may not vote for officers in such election.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12793]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6703-9]


Science Advisory Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee 
Meeting; Meeting Date Correction

    Incorrect meeting dates were announced for one of the two Science 
Advisory Board Executive Committee (EC) meetings at 65 FR 30589-30591, 
dated May 12, 2000. The meeting was originally announced for Monday, 
June 12, 2000. The meeting should have been announced for Friday, June 
16, 2000. There are no changes to the other EC meeting (scheduled for 
May 30, 2000) or the Drinking Water Committee meeting (scheduled for 
June 5-7, 2000) announced in that FR.
    The correct meeting announcement information is below.
    The Executive Committee (EC) of US EPA's Science Advisory Board 
will conduct a public teleconference meeting on Friday, June 16, 2000. 
Additional instructions about how to participate in the conference call 
can be obtained by calling Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson no earlier than 
one week prior to the meeting (beginning June 9) at (202) 564-4533, or 
via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bffe2e7e7eef9f2a5fbf9e2f8e8e2e7e7eacbeefbeaa5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="52263b3e3e37202b7c22203b21313b3e3e33123722337c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Availability of Review Materials--Drafts of the reports that will 
be reviewed at the meeting should be available to the public at the SAB 
website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) by close-of-business on June 1, 2000.

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12793 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
~D S1~q1.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105 4

~ PRO~

October 15, 2014

Sweetwater Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation

P.O. Box 105

TeecNosPos, AZ 86514

ATTN: Sarah Lee

Subject: Request to retain public documents at the Sweetwater Chapter for public

inspection

Dear Ms. Lee:

The purpose of this letter is to request that the Sweetwater Chapter of the Navajo Nation Reservation

retain the enclosed documents at the Sweetwater Chapter House for at least sixty (60) days for public

inspection. These documents are the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s preliminary decision

for the proposed Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration amendment permit for the

McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation near the city of

Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. These documents are currently available for public comment.

Please contact me at (415) 947-4156 or kelly.shtheerah(~,epa.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Shaheerah Kelly, Environmental Engineer

Permits Office

Air Division

Enclosures
#### § 452.31 One candidate for several offices.

Where a union constitution or other validly adopted rule provides that a single elected officer will perform the functions of more than one office, a separate election need not be held for each office.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

y0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

143905

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143905 COA: 296508 Macomb CC: 2 009-002137-FC SALAM SHAKER ZORA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
§ 458.33 Prohibition of conflicts of interest. ( a ) No officer or agent of a labor organization shall, directly or indirectly through his spouse, minor child, or otherwise ( 1 ) have or acquire any pecuniary or personal interest which would conflict with his fiduciary obligation to such labor organization, or
( 2 ) engage in any business or financial transaction which conflicts with his fiduciary obligation.
( b ) Actions prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, buying from, selling, or leasing directly or indirectly to, or otherwise dealing with the labor organization, its affiliates, subsidiaries, or trusts in which the labor organization is interested, or having an interest in a business any part of which consists of such dealings, except bona fide investments of the kind exempted from reporting under section 202(b) of the LMRDA. The receipt of salaries and reimbursed expenses for services actually performed or expenses actually incurred in carrying out the duties of the officer or agent is not prohibited.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (1189).                    

*Date/Time:*                         March 1-2, 2000; 8 am-5 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Rooms 360 and 380, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Janice M. Jenkins, Program Director, Biomedical Engineering and Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1318.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate Biomedical Engineering proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and person information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Karen York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-1235 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
SCRAP, INC., G.S.I. 

RECYCLING, INC., and D&S OF 

PENSACOLA, INC.,

Petitioners,

v.

RICHARD ADAMS, EULAINE 

ADAMS, MALINDA 

ANDERSON, MARY 

MATTHEWS, HENRY ATKINS, 

JACQUELINE ATKINS, LUCY 

MAE BELL, BETTY BROWN, 

CLAYTON BROWN, JR., 

CLAYTON BROWN, III, OSSIE 

BRUNDRIDGE, CAROL 

BRUNDRIDGE, MARY CASEY, 

WILLIE DAVISON, EMMA 

DAVISON, GIAVANIE 

PEARSON, MCBETHER HILL, 

AUDREY HOGAN, LILLIE MAE 

JOHNSON, DEBORAH 

LEGRANT, EVELYN LOVETTE, 

CLINTON MADISON, 

GERTRUDE ADAMS, EULA 

MADISON, MARY MCCANN, 

JOSEPH MILLER, LUCILLE

MILLER, CLARENCE 

SAMPSON, RONNIE SAMPSON, 

FLOYD PEACOCK, JOHNNIE 

PEACOCK, ALCONRIC PEAVY, 

VERONICA POSEY, MARY 

LOUISE POSTELL, STEPHEN 

RUSSO, ANNETTE SMITH, 

VERNA STEPHEN, RONALD 

STEWART, ANNA STEWART, 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-5757
2

HUBERT THOMPSON, CAROL 

THOMPSON, SYLVESTER 

WASHINGTON, VERNON 

WASHINGTON, EASTER 

WELCH, MAGGIE WHITE, 

FRANKLIN WILLIS, WINDER 

MAURICE WILLIS, ANTANGILA 

WILLIS, and BRANDON BARGE,

Respondents.

___________________________/

Opinion filed May 9, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

W. David Jester and Jessica L. Scholl of Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & 

Smith, PLC, Pensacola, and Robert O. Beasley of Litvak, Beasley, & Wilson, LLP, 

Pensacola, for Petitioners.

No appearances for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order consolidating multiple cases for 

trial. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they will be irreparably harmed by the 

order of consolidation as the order is subject to review on direct appeal. See

Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976, 986 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2010), disapproved on other grounds by Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 

3d 489 (Fla. 2015). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. 

ROBERTS, C. J., LEWIS and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### § 458.80 Unavailability of Administrative Law Judges.

In the event the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing becomes unavailable, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall designate another Administrative Law Judge for the purpose of further hearing or issuance of a recommended decision and order on the record as made, or both.
#### McCABE v TOM

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No. 2267.

Decided December 2, 1929

Messrs. Christensen & Christensen and Pierre K. Chase, Toledo, for McCabe.

Mr. Ralph Emery, Toledo, for Tom.

LLOYD, J.

The word default as used in relation to a judgment so taken has a well understood legal signification. A defendant to an action makes default when he fails to plead within the time allowed by law for that purpose, and although he may not plead as of right after rule day or after the expiration of any extension of time granted by the court, still a pleading so filed may not be ignored by the entry of a default judgment. As stated in Lunnon vs. Morris, 7 Cal. App., 710, our opinion is “the general rule * * * in ordinary civil actions, appears to be that, where a party pleads before default entered, though out of time or without leave, if the plea be good in form and substance, his default can not be entered while the plea stands. The proper practice in such case is to move to strike the plea from the files.” The following authorities are in accord with this conclusion:

> 6 Ency. of Pleading & Practice, 84;

> 15 R. C. L., Sec. 113, p. 665;

> *8434 C. J., Sec. 382 p. 169; 379, note 35;

> Rehrer vs. Reed, 166 Cal., 525; 37 Am. & Eng. Anno. cases (1915-C), p. 737, note page 738;

> Leahy vs. Wayne Circuit Judge, 144 Mich., 304;

> Edenfield vs. Seal Co., 74 Mont. 509;

> Gutierrez vs. Romero, et al., 24 Ariz. 382, 386.

The answer and cross petition filed by the defendant in the instant case put in issue the substantive facts alleged by plaintiff in his petition and stated in proper form an affirmative cause of action against the plaintiff, and having been filed prior to the judgment sought to be taken by default, the court of common pleas erred to the perjudice of defendant in requiring the payment of costs as a condition precedent to the vacation of the judgment.

The judgment so entered is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Williams and Richards, JJ., concur.
----

----

I Ανακοινώσεις

Επιτροπή

----

Ισοτιμίες του ευρώ (1)

2 Δεκεμβρίου 2004

(2004/C 298/01)

1 ευρώ= 

----

(1)

Πηγή: Ισοτιμίες αναφοράς που δημοσιεύονται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα.

----

----

ΝΈΑ ΕΘΝΙΚΉ ΌΨΗ ΤΩΝ ΚΕΡΜΆΤΩΝ ΕΥΡΏ ΠΟΥ ΠΡΟΟΡΊΖΟΝΤΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΚΥΚΛΟΦΟΡΊΑ

(2004/C 298/02)

Εθνική όψη του νέου αναμνηστικού κέρματος των 2 ευρώ που εκδίδει η Δημοκρατία του Αγίου Μαρίνου και το οποίο προορίζεται για κυκλοφορία

Τα κέρματα ευρώ που προορίζονται για κυκλοφορία έχουν την ιδιότητα νομίμου χρήματος σε ολόκληρη την ευρωζώνη. Η Επιτροπή, με σκοπό να πληροφορήσει όσους ασχολούνται επαγγελματικά με κέρματα, καθώς και το ευρύτερο κοινό, δημοσιοποιεί όλα τα νέα σχέδια κερμάτων (1). Σε συμφωνία με τα σχετικά συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου της 8ης Δεκεμβρίου 2003 (2), επιτρέπεται στα κράτη μέλη και στις χώρες που έχουν συνάψει με την Κοινότητα νομισματική συμφωνία για την έκδοση κερμάτων ευρώ τα οποία προορίζονται για κυκλοφορία να εκδώσουν ορισμένο αριθμό αναμνηστικών κερμάτων ευρώ τα οποία προορίζονται για κυκλοφορία, υπό τον όρο ότι μόνον ένα νέο κέρμα εκδίδεται το πολύ από κάθε χώρα και για κάθε έτος, και ότι χρησιμοποιείται η ονομαστική αξία του κέρματος των 2 ευρώ. Αυτά τα κέρματα παρουσιάζουν τα τεχνικά χαρακτηριστικά των κανονικών κερμάτων ευρώ που προορίζονται για κυκλοφορία, φέρουν όμως ένα αναμνηστικό σχέδιο στην εθνική εμπρόσθια όψη.

Κράτος έκδοσης: Δημοκρατία του Αγίου Μαρίνου.

Αναμνηστικό γεγονός: Bartolomeo Borghesi (ιστορικός, νομισματολόγος).

Περιγραφή του σχεδίου: Τα δώδεκα αστέρια της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης τοποθετημένα στην περιφέρεια του κέρματος και το έτος έκδοσης «2004», στο κατώτατο κεντρικό σημείο, περιβάλλουν την προτομή του Bartolomeo Borghesi. Αριστερά της προτομής εμφαίνεται η επιγραφή «Bartolomeo Borghesi», ενώ το γράμμα «R» και τα αρχικά του χαράκτη «E.L.F.» βρίσκονται το ένα επάνω στο άλλο. Η επιγραφή «San Marino» αναγράφεται δεξιά της προτομής.

Αριθμός εκδιδομένων κερμάτων: κατ' ανώτατο όριο: 110 000 κέρματα.

Πιθανή ημερομηνία έκδοσης: Δεκέμβριος 2004.

----

(1)ΕΕ C 373 της 28.12.2001, σ. 1, αναφορικά με όλες τις εθνικές όψεις που εξεδόθησαν το 2002.

(2)  Βλέπε τα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου Γενικών Υποθέσεων της 8ης Δεκεμβρίου 2003 για τις αλλαγές στο σχέδιο των εθνικών όψεων των κερμάτων ευρώ. Βλέπε επίσης τη σύσταση της Επιτροπής της 29ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2003 σχετικά με τον καθορισμό κοινής πρακτικής για τις αλλαγές στα σχέδια των εθνικών εμπρόσθιων όψεων των κερμάτων ευρώ που προορίζονται για κυκλοφορία (ΕΕ L 264 της 15.10.2003, σ. 38).

----

----

Προηγούμενη γνωστοποίηση συγκέντρωσης

(Υπόθεση αριθ. COMP/M.3620 — Codan et al/NAI/JV)

Υπόθεση υποψήφια για απλοποιημένη διαδικασία

(2004/C 298/03)

(Κείμενο που παρουσιάζει ενδιαφέρον για τον ΕΟΧ)

----

(1)ΕΕ L 24 της 29.1.2004, σ. 1.

(2)  Διατίθεται στην ιστοσελίδα της ΓΔ COMP:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOSE RIVERA

- LUGO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10352

D.C. No. 2:17

- cr

- 01165

- DLR

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2019 **

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Rivera

- Lugo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty

- plea conviction and 90

- month sentence for conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

, (b)(1)(B) , and

846. Pursuant to Ande rs v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rivera

- Lugo’ s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# F ILED

APR 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 10352

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Rivera

- Lugo the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental b rief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Rivera

- Lugo waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable is sue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 10.26  Oral Agreement to Extend Independent Contactor Agreement  On February 15, 2008, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and Richard R. Walters orally agreed to extend Independent Contactor Agreement dated June 30, 2003 for a period of one year, retroactively to January 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2008.  In addition, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company approved an increase in the contractor fee paid to Mr. Walters to $600 per day worked, prorated for each partial day worked, with opportunity to review and modify the fee on a quarterly basis due to potential wide variability in the ongoing activities of the Company.  The agreement was approved by resolution of the board of directors of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company dated February 15, 2008.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 943 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the period for 

which the designation of an area as an empowerment zone is in effect. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2007 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the period for which the designation of an area as an 

empowerment zone is in effect. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ROUND II AND ROUND III EM4 POWERMENT ZONES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 

6 1391(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re7 lating to period for which designation is in effect) is 

8 amended by inserting ‘‘(December 31, 2016, in the case 

9 of any empowerment zone designated under subsection (g) 

10 or (h))’’ after ‘‘2009’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 943 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of 

2 section 1391(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re3 lating to additional designations permitted) is amended by 

4 striking ‘‘2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2016’’. 

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

6 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

7 of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS