alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 1, 2015

Mr. Anthony Gallo

AirCam Productions, LLC

P.O. Box 26550

Austin, TX 78755

Dear Mr. Gallo:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.119(c), 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 407(a)(1), 409(a)(2), and 417(a) and (b)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of AirCam Productions, LLC into the public 

docket (No. FAA−2015−1205) on April 27, 2015, but we are unable to process your request 

any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    (S) 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Smart & Final Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 5, 2003 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: November 17, 2003                           /s/  Richard N. Phegley
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                      Richard N. Phegley
                                                  Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
### Re gul a tory Eva lu a ti o n Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD



### /l.vo u mak e chauges to the l 'a lues in the tabl e below. you must ensure the tot als upda1e accordingly. 

## fl th ey do 

### not, click (or Tab) 

### illto 

### and then out of th e c han!{ ed 

### ce ll. Estim ate d Costs : Action Cos t s per P r od u c t ( e.g., aircraft , engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller , appliance) Work-hou rs Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include onco ndition costs here access , testing, (@$85/h parts) R eg istered and c l ose-up) our) Prod u cts 

## Post Mo di fica tio n 32.0 S2.720.0 '-2,720.00 59 \ i ()(1;1 

### xo ()fl 

## InsQection 0 I <:, 0.00

**~** 0.00 

### ' (}IIi l I 

## s 0.00 I

**~** 0.00 ,, I) I }I)

**~** I <; 0.00 I \ 0.00 •l !'•) I I 

### -:. tl.OO 

### I 

# ' 0.00 {; . !11) I 

## s tl.OO \ l) (J(J ' 0 •!i ) <.; 0.00 \ 1)/1(1 n !•l I 

### ::. 0.00 

# ' 0 . 00 

### . 

### n 10 

## s fJ. \)0 

### -:, 0.00 

## :' 0 {)ll <.; 0.0() \ 

## o.on '1. I) !)() 

# s n.on <; () .00 ':> O.fl(t 

### '-: 0.00 \ 0.00 ) 0.()0 (: 0 ()() 

# ' 0.00 

## '" n nt 1 I ...; 

### n.OO 

# ' 0.00 I ) 0 .0<1 I

**·~** 1).00 

# ' O.O(J <. p (;O \ 0.00 <, 

### 0.011 

## ' !).I l l,., I 

### ·' <;.Of} 

# ' (I Oil 

### ' ( 1 1 ( 1 \ 0 (1\)

**~** O.!J(I !I !I f) \., 0.00 \ !tliO \ ( 1 0\) 

# s 0. 0() 

# s fl.fJO tJ.ll ' I The known number of products in compl iance: Total Costs of complian ce for U.S. fleet: $160,480 Costs covered u nder warranty 

### (if known) $ On-Con di t io n C o sts: .. Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspect io n, (include access, (@$85 /hour)

rep lace m e nt) testing , and closeup)

**~·** 

### ·' 0.00

**~** ll fll.l 

# s 000 

## .., IJ.UII ) 0.0!1 <, 0.!)') 

### ' 0.00 I ; 

# ' ,l.OO 

# .. S p ec i a l co n s id eratio ns for Eco nomi c An a lysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs tabl e that was assumed or mi ght not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

### Executive Ord er 12866: Could the AD be consider e d 

## a "s ignificant r egulatory



# ac **ion ~·**  YES*0

**NO~** 

### *Exp lana tion: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant ?
- YES*0

**NO~** 

### * Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant econom ic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No



# an

**r. ~**  YESO

**NO~** 

### Ex planation: Intra state Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intra s tate aviation in Alaska. 

### Is i t appropriate to include s pecific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska whe r e aviation might be the on l y mode of transportation?



# ~ YES*O

**NO~** 

### * E xplanation:
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY

ROSENAU/CR06-157MJP

 PLATT & BUESCHER

 Attorneys at Law

 P.O. Box 727

 Coupeville, WA 98239-0727

 Phone: (360) 678-6777

 Fax: (360) 678-0323

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

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY C. ROSENAU

 Defendant.

NO. CR06-157MJP

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL PRODUCTION 

OF DISCOVERY

This matter having come on before the undersigned Court on motion of the Defendant for 

an Order extending time within which to file pretrial motions pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. 

Having considered the files and records herein, and pleadings of the parties, the Court

hereby grants the Defendant’s motion to compel production of discovery. The Government is 

Ordered to produce the following materials and provide them to the Defendant:

1. Full copies of all RCMP reports prepared in conjunction with the investigation;

2. Viewable copies of all photographs contained in the Discovery provided to the defendant 

to date, or to be provided;

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 30-2 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY

ROSENAU/CR06-157MJP

 PLATT & BUESCHER

 Attorneys at Law

 P.O. Box 727

 Coupeville, WA 98239-0727

 Phone: (360) 678-6777

 Fax: (360) 678-0323

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

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

3. Copies of all reports prepared by Anne Minden, in conjunction with the investigation of 

this case;

4. A Witness List of all witnesses the Government intends to call at trial;

5. Any and all Interagency or Joint Operating Agreements in existence, relevant to the 

investigation conducted in this case.

SO ORDERED this ______ day of September, 2011. 

 ___________________________________ 

 MARSHA J. PECHMAN

United States District Court Judge

Presented by:

s/ Craig Platt

CRAIG PLATT

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 30-2 Filed 09/06/11 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

September 20, 1956

No. 60247.

protest 240772-K (New York).

#### Crystal Craft, Inc. *v.*United States,

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This protest is limited to the merchandise described on the invoice as “Miniature knife (your No. 8156-W),” which was assessed with duty at the rate of 65 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1527 (c) (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, as articles, valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, designed to be worn on *369apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person. Plaintiff claims that the articles in question are penknives and that they are properly classifiable under the provisions of paragraph 354 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 52739, supplemented by T. D. 52820, which, so far as pertinent, read as follows:



It was stipulated between counsel for the respective parties that the knife in question is under *1%*inches in length, that it is in chief value of metal, and that it is valued at over 20 cents per dozen pieces and under 40 cents per dozen pieces.

Plaintiff, an importer of “sundry novelties,” which include 25 items of penknives in different sizes, introduced a sample (plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 1) and the oral testimony of the manager of its import department. The uncontra-dicted evidence establishes that the article in question is a penknife, approximately 1 *%*inches in length, equipped with a folding blade, 1 inch long, and having attached thereto a so-called “jump ring,” which permits the knife to be readily attached to a key chain or other article for convenience in use. This penknife is used to “sharpen pencils, scrape out a pipe bowl, cut string, cut the end of a cigar” (R. 5).

That the penknife in question may be carried on or about the person, does not militate against its classification under paragraph 354, as amended, *supra.*The provisions thereof are most comprehensive, as they include all penknives which, like the articles in question, have a folding blade, and are valued at “Not over 40 cents per dozen.”

On the basis of the record herein, we hold the penknives, represented by the invoice item, “Miniature knife (your No. 8156-W),” to be classifiable under paragraph 354, as amended, *supra,*and dutiable thereunder at the rate of five-eighths of 1 cent each and 25 per centum ad valorem, as claimed by plaintiff.

Although defendant requested time to file a brief, none was filed. In lieu thereof, counsel filed a “Notice,” stating that “upon consideration of the record made and the brief filed by counsel for the plaintiff, this office does not desire to file a brief on behalf of the United States in the above-entitled case.”

To the extent indicated, the protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

September 25, 1959

No. 63387.

protests 58/2404 and 329446-K (Los Angeles).

#### Foster’s *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed *351upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 3:06-cv-05201-RBL Document 3 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 1
From: John Mietus

To: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Subject: RE: POLL: Aeromexico Mexico City-Washington DC (scheduled, combination)

Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:05:59 PM

Attachments: AM exemption app MEX-IAD.pdf

Bob, I have completed the poll of U.S. carriers, and there are no objections.

Best regards, John

From: John Mietus 

Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:55 AM

To: 'carl.nelson@aa.com'; 'robert.wirick@aa.com'; 'sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com';

'jeff.morgan@delta.com'; 'bkeiner@crowell.com'; 'lhalloway@crowell.com'; 'gmurphy@crowell.com';

'dan.weiss@united.com'; 'jonathan.linde@united.com'; 'steve.morrissey@united.com';

'howard.kass@usairways.com'; 'robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com'; 'patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com';

'benjamin.slocum@usairways.com'; 'nssparks@fedex.com'; 'gbleopard@fedex.com';

'jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com'; 'jcanny@amerijet.com'; 'anita.mosner@hklaw.com'; 'pmurphy@gghairlaw.com'; 'sharfst@usa3000airlines.com'; 'slachter@lachter-clements.com'; 'efaberman@wrf.com';

'bob.kneisley@wnco.com'; 'jyoung@yklaw.com'; 'dkirstein@yklaw.com'; 'msinick@ssd.com';

'agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com'; 'urskr@state.gov'; 'john.allen@faa.gov'; 'robert.finamore@dot.gov';

'info@airlineinfo.com'

Subject: POLL: Aeromexico Mexico City-Washington DC (scheduled, combination)

Dear all, attached please find an Aeromexico exemption application for Mexico City-Washington,

DC scheduled, combination authority. A response with your carrier's position on the application

will be greatly appreciated.

Best regards, John

POLL LIST:

carl.nelson, robert.wirick@aa.com

sascha.vanderbellen, jeff.morgan@delta.com

bkeiner, lhalloway, gmurphy@crowell.com for United

dan.weiss, jonathan.linde, steve.morrissey@united.com

howard.kass, benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

nssparks, gbleopard@fedex.com

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com + jcanny@amerijet.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com for UPS

pmurphy@ggh-airlaw.com for USA 3000

sharfst@usa3000airlines.com

slachter@lachter-clements.com for Astar

efaberman@wrf.com; bob.kneisley@wnco.com for Airtran

robert.cohn, patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com for Frontier

jyoung, dkirstein@yklaw.com for Spirit

msinick@ssd.com for Alaska

agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com for Ryan Int'l

_________________________
John Mietus

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC

6701 Democracy Blvd Ste 300

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500

(202) 747-5212

(240) 396-5362 fax

john@mietuslaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise

protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not review, use, disclose, distribute or copy the information

it contains; destroy this e-mail and notify the sender by reply e-mail or an e-mail to admin@mietuslaw.com. Thanks.
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

Order of Continuance/

U.S. v Bennum, CR06-189TSZ - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Thomas S. Zilly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-189TSZ

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

) ORDER OF CONTINUANCE

)

VAN XUAN BENNUM, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

The Court having reviewed the stipulated motion by the United States and

defendant VAN XUAN BENNUM to continue the trial date, and having reviewed the

records and files herein, makes the following findings and enters the following order;

The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and §3161(h)(8)(B)(i),

(ii) and (iv), the ends of justice served by continuing the trial date from November 20,

2006 to February 12, 2007, outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in

a speedy trial. Defense counsel John Henry Browne substituted in this matter on October

23, 2006. Due to the complexity of the case, it is unreasonable to expect Mr. Browne to

be adequately prepared for trial before November 20, 2006. Additionally, failure to grant

a continuance to February 12, 2007, would deny the defendant the time necessary for

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result

in a miscarriage of justice.

Case 2:06-cr-00189-TSZ Document 50 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Order of Continuance/

U.S. v Bennum, CR06-189TSZ - 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that trial in this matter is continued from 

November 20, 2006 to February 12, 2007. Defendant BENNUM shall file a waiver of

speedy trial not later than November 17, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the purpose of computing the time

limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act U.S.C. §§3161-3164, the period of delay

from November 20, 2006, up to and including February 12, 2007, is excludable time

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

DATED this 15th day of November, 2006.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Presented by:

 /s Jill Otake 

JILL OTAKE

Assistant United States Attorney

WA Bar # 28298

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 553-4254

Fax: (206) 553-0755

E-mail: jill.otake@usdoj.gov

Approved as to form:

/s John Henry Browne

Case 2:06-cr-00189-TSZ Document 50 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2
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 ORDER - 8

Case 3:06-cv-05157-FDB Document 30 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 1
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5236 FDB

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objection, Plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS:

(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted;

(2) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED;

(3) Plaintiff shall pay the required filing fee ($350.00) to the Clerk of the Court within thirty

(30) days of the date of this Order, otherwise this action will be dismissed; and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, any other party that has

appeared in this action, and the Hon. Karen L. Stombom.

DATED this 17TH day of November, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05236-FDB Document 19 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 12,962.

#### SMALLWOOD v. VIOLET.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 516.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term. 1808.

Recokds — Under Seal op State Uoukt — Jcnoment — Proof of.

1. Records certified under the seals of the respective state courts are admitted, under the agreement of (lie bar, without other authentication.

2. An execution is not the best evidence of a judgment.

This was an action upon a judgment of J. Franklin, a justice of the peace of Charles county, in Maryland.

Mr. W. D. Simms, for plaintiff,

ottered in evidence a paper purporting to be an execution issued by J. Franklin, against the defendant, and in favor of the plaintiff, upon which there was a certificate of the clerk of Charles county, that J. Franklin was a justice of the peace.

Mr. E. J. Lee, for defendant,

objected that the commission of the justice should be produced.

But

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge, absent,)

reminded him of the agreement of the members of the bar of the 17th July, 1807, “that copies of records of any state court should be received in evidence if certified and authenticated in such manner as would make them evidence in the courts of the state from whence they are br ight;” and overruled the objection.

Mr. Lee, then objected, that the execution is not the.proper evidence of the judgment; and that a copy of the judgment ought to be produced.

And THE COURT, being of that opinion, the plaintiff became nonsuit.
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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SILVER VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC, et al,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

RAY DE MOTTE, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. CV05-5590 RBL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO UNSEAL AND

GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND

SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Unseal Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint,

[Dkt. #100], and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the Scheduling Order. [Dkt. #117]. Defendants oppose the

Motion to Unseal arguing that the information contained in the First Amended Complaint discloses private and

proprietary information that should remain confidential. 

The purpose of the Protective Order is to keep as confidential “any material that contains information

that . . . constitutes legitimately confidential, proprietary, private, or similarly protected information.” [Dkt.

#100, 2:11-13]. As Defendants and Plaintiffs agree, the document in dispute for this motion, the First

Amended Complaint, does contain information derived from banking and financial records. Although these

records are and should remain confidential, the general allegations in the First Amended Complaint based on

a review of these records do not include information detailed or specific enough to require it be kept

confidential. Therefore, the document does not fall under the protection of the Court’s Protective Order and

is not required to be under seal. 

Protective Orders are narrowly drawn in order to preserve the open nature of litigation. This is a public

Case 3:05-cv-05590-RBL Document 130 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 ORDER

Page - 2

court and its business should be conducted publicly unless the information in dispute clearly falls within the

narrow confines of the Court’s Protective Order. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Unseal the First Amended Complaint

is GRANTED. 

Both Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that all parties will benefit from an amended case order, although

Plaintiffs ask for a ninety day extension of existing deadlines and Defendants request the Court issue a new

scheduling order setting the trial date for one year-and-a-half after the date the First Amended Complaint was

filed. The Court finds ninety days sufficient to give newly joined Defendants adequate time to prepare their

defense. Plaintiffs’ Motion [Dkt. #117] for a ninety day extension of existing deadlines is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2006

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05590-RBL Document 130 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7

Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal retirement cost-of-living

adjustments should not be delayed.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 13, 1997

Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. AKAKA)

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Governmental Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal retirement

cost-of-living adjustments should not be delayed.

Whereas over the years, Federal employees and retirees have

regularly been forced to bear a disproportionate share in

connection with deficit reduction: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that cost3 of-living adjustments for Federal retirees should be paid

4 beginning in January of each year, as current law pre5 scribes, and should not be delayed, whether as part of a

6 budget agreement or otherwise.

Æ