alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014395EN.01003402.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T-51/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Lucknow, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Casucci, N. Ferreti and C. Galli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 3. | Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---
!
"# $  	 $  %&	 	 '& ( )	
 *%
# '"" *+%
# '"" %
#

,	& -   

.//011234 435 67 189:2;05 <=,( 

>?3@ 435 ABA( .C04/D5 E=( A 

>?3@ FD>05 G(!E <HH+$=E),I$ EJ=$$$-) >?3@ 1F.F815 )$=,-E)$! 

1F.?F5 A '$ A F0?K5 B -HI  :D5 

24L01F2C.F3?5 <<E=)M J N

>0?:3?K24C 241F2F8F2345 

%H=- +H,-) OEH=E)H=M 

 %H=-( +H,-) =!P +H HQ 77A 

<E=,!J$P E=MOE-! B

RSTUVTWXYZ Y[ \YZ]R^STWXYZ _^T\WX\R R[[R\WXSRZR]] XZ `TWR^ aVTUXWb

_^YWR\WXYZ XZ WcR \cY_WTZd ^XSR^ `TWR^]cRe

39@0/F2L015 $
"

 	
& 

	

&	  -=<('(E <
	 +&
 

"  =$  EEJ-,+( &	"
  	 *	

	
"	 

	

&	 


	 	
  
	 <
 =	 N	

	 )
	 & "  

 f	 
  g#


	 "#  *	"
P "  "	 	P  		 	 "  
	&
P 
	 & 

*	" "	  	
#
	&   f	 
	&
P   		"  "
	 "#



"P *

  	 
	  	
&	 *	" 
		
  	 &	&	 	



.>>?3./h5 )

 f	 &	
 
	 
	  

" *	 g"# 
	
 
 	
  
	

<
 =	 N	

	 *
 	 & *
 
	 
*	

	
 *
 #

			
  <=+  <=$+ 
""
 )

  *"" 	 
	  "   *	

	

&	"  	"	 
	 				

  
	 	
 

 
 <=+  <=$+ E 
	  A


*	

	
 i 
		
    B 	 
	&
j *"" 	 &	 	 
	 "*  
&


  	
  
	 *	 g"# 
 J,( &
 *
 

 	
" 
	
 

" 
	P 
" #	
P  
	 	"	 *	 g"# &	
"	 	
 *"" 	 
	  
 
	

&	" )

 f	 *"" 	&"#  &"
"#P &"
"	 
  &		 f	 "
  
	


	*	
  
	 <
 =	 N	

	P " 		

" i	P !	"& #
jP "
P

 		 *	"
 E 		*  
 	
	
   ""		  

 f	 


&"	
 G(J( f	
 *"" 	 
	  "  	" &	"   *	 "* 

*	"
  
#"""# "	 
	&
  		 	&
" 
	
 ,& 


#"#P *	 
	&
#P  	""  *"" 	 ""		  #" *	" 
	
P 	

	g""# 	*		 		 i	j *	"
  "P 	
	 *	"
P ""#


#"""# 	
	 *	"
P  	"	"# 
	 *	"
 =	&	"# 
	
	 &	#P

	
 & 
#
	& iJ,(j 	
"#P  
&"	 	
	&" 	"


 *"" 	


	  		  		 "
	 "#

 "P 	
	  
 	 &	&	 )
	

	"  *	 g"# &	"
  
	 	
&  
	 &"	 &  
	 	


i	P ""	 	 
	
P 	 
P   	
j 
 	"# 	 

	

	 #


	 <
 <
	 $	
 E

	

&	 +f	 i<$E+j

>?3C?0115 A )H 

+	

 =	 Hf		
 i& E!6j $
"

 	
& 

	

&	  -=<('(E

<
	 +&
  "  =$  EEJ-,+( &	"
  	 *	

	
"	



	

&	  
	 	
  
	 <
 =	 N	

	 )
	 & "  

 f	


  g# 
	 "#  *	"
P "  "	 	P  		 	 "  
	&
P
 	






	



 


	 	!!		
"
	#	
	
$		!

!
	!"

!$ 

	
		
	 	!
		
			

	

%
&%'()*

#		

	
	

! 	+!"


	

	

	,
-.	/	

	 
	 

	


 	

	
 
"			
,.0,.10
!!
*

 !!	
	!

 	

		!	!	
					


		



,.0

,.10%
	2
 	

	
&
		
3	
	
) !!			


	! 

	

	 	+!"
456
 




	
!
	
!
	$
!"	
$
		!	 	+!"	
!		
 !!

	
	

		!*

#	 !!	!"!
!"$!
!	


		#	!

	
	 	

	,
-.	/	

	$!		

!&	$

'	!"
)$!
$		 	!
%		 
	
	
!!		



#	
!	
7646#	
 !!	
	!	!	! 	! 

 	!

"!!!"!-	
	
			
!
	
5


"!"$ 	
	
"$	!! !!	!!		"! 	!
	
$	

	+!!"	 				&	) 	!
!$	
	 	!
$!!"


"!!!"	
	 	!
$	!	!"
	 	!
.		!"
	
		"$

	

"
	&456)	
!"$
!		
	!	!


 !!	


					!
	!"

!$	
	
			*
	

	! 	+!"	!

		

	!	
		


&	$!!		
	
$	
$	
)
	!"	

	

	"


	,
-,
	1	
%

	

	0#	&,1%0)	
		
!!	


	

			
	!		
	
	)
	
"!	" 	!
	



! 	
$)
		!
	
	
	
		
 		
	!


&	$80)		
		"
! 	
$3)
		


	
	
	
'!!		
	 	!		!

		
&	$			 	!		!)$#
$		!&	$893$89$

8:3$8$!8$

!	0)$

!	
&	$

!	9$%$8)%	


			

#	!	),!!	 	
!	
	!		
 	!!



!"$)0	

 	
!	


!	
	
$3);!	
!	
893$8:($

09(!"
	
	

!	
80&
!	

	%.6	!"

)$()

' !
	

	 	!		!!	
!!	 	!		!

	

!$2).	 	+!"	
!
	

	:0<!!
"
'


"
	

 #	!

	0	



#	

			




		
#			

 	!!
	!

=>?@ABCDAEFGHIJKLMNOPJQRSTMNLJMKNUVW2*9

8!
# C_2012273EN.01001701.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/17

---

Action brought on 6 July 2012 — Torrefacção Camelo v OHIM — Pato Hermanos (Decoration of packaging for coffee)

(Case T-302/12)

2012/C 273/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Torrefacção Camelo Lda (Campo Maior, Portugal) (represented by: J. Massaguer Fuentes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lorenzo Pato Hermanos, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare, in view of the lodging of this pleading and the documents attached to it, that the direct action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 April 2012 in Case R 2378/2010-3 has been lodged within the prescribed period and in the correct form and, following the appropriate procedural steps, deliver judgment upholding the present action, thereby annulling the contested decision and upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division of 26 November 2010 which declared invalid Community design No 0 0070 6940-0001, and expressly order Lorenzo Patos Hermanos, SA to pay the costs if it opposes the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: design with a red background, coffee beans with a white outline scattered at random over the red background, and two upper and lower horizontal yellow borders placed over the red background, for goods in Class 99-00 of the Locarno Classification — Community design No 0 0070 6940-0001

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lorenzo Pato Hermanos, SA

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: application for a declaration of invalidity granted

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Pleas in law:

---
No. 96-308.

#### Loyal American Life Insurance Co., Inc. *v.*Mattiace.

Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert P. Belcher, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Memry Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 20, 2006



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Robert P. Belcher        
|Robert P. Belcher            
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(principal executive officer)
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No . 02 - 21 - 00029 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 00030 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 00031 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 00032 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 00033 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 00034 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 00035 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 00036 - C R No. 02 - 21 - 00037 - CR No. 02 - 21 - 000 38 - CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court T arrant County, Texas Trial Court N o s . 1584122D, 1584132D, 1584137D, 1584140, 1584146, 1584148D, 1584152, 1608585D, 1608823D, 1530955D Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### A SHLEE 

### N ICOHL 

### J ONES 

### , Appellant

V 

### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellant has m oved to dismiss her appeal s . Because we have not yet decided th e s e case s , we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal s . See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App . P. 47.2(b) Delivered: April 29, 2021
```

[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Notices]               
[Page 12738]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-58]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of International Regimes and Agreements, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic
    Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is 
providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the 
Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States and the European 
Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 302,188 kg 
of U.S.-origin natural uranium trioxide (UO3) (82.73% U), 250,000 kg of 
which is uranium, from Cameco in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada to 
Springfields Fuels Ltd. in Lancashire, United Kingdom. The material, 
which is currently located at Cameco, Blind River, will be transferred 
to Springfields Fuels Ltd. for conversion to uranium hexafluoride (UF6) 
for ultimate end use in a civilian nuclear power program. The UO3 from 
U.S.-origin concentrates was originally obtained by Cameco from Crowe 
Butte Resources Inc. pursuant to export license XSOU8798.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: March 11, 2010.

    For the Department of Energy
Richard Goorevich,
Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. 2010-5803 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Diogenes Sierra, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 688]

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.), rendered July 22, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The record, including defendant’s thorough plea allocution, establishes the voluntariness of the pleas, and defendant’s assertion that his pleas were impaired by mental illness and medication is unsupported by any evidence. We note that defendant was examined pursuant to CPL article 730 and found competent.

Defendant’s unrestricted waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim *(People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733). In any event, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-8
(commission file No. 333-93229) of our reports dated March 31, 2010,
relating to our audits of the financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Datalink Corporation (which reports express an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the Companys change in its
method of accounting for business combinations), which appear in this December 31,
2009, Annual Report of Form 10-K.   /s/ McGLADREY &
PULLEN  Minneapolis, Minnesota March 31, 2010
Case No. 5,617.

#### GORDON v. The MARY J. VAUGHAN and The TELEGRAPH.

[Cited in The D. S. Gregory, Case No. 4,100. Probably an earlier decision in The Mary J. Vaughan, Id. 9,217. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       4,910,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,032,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (896,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,657,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       104,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,677,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,657,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,343,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,499,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,500,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             660,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,684,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,910,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,774,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      974,000
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,869,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

                                      

</TABLE>
# C_2012258EN.01002502.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/25

---

Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM — Merz Pharma (PROSEPT)

(Case T-284/12)

2012/C 258/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oro Clean Chemie AG (Fehraltorf, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2012 in Case R 1053/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2012 in Case R 1053/2011-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PROSEPT’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8 353 245

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘Pursept’ for goods in Class 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
# C_2014175EN.01003401.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov — Romania) — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Brașov

(Case C-444/13) (1)

1

2014/C 175/44

Language of the case: Romanian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9. 11. 2013.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1958 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until May 31, 2012. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until May 

31, 2012. 

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 THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSUR4 ANCE PROGRAM. 

5 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the Na6 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘May 31, 2012’’. 

9 (b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National 

10 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1958 CPS

1 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘May 31, 2012’’. 

3 (c) REPEAL.—The Continuing Appropriations Act, 

4 2012 (Public Law 112–36; 125 Stat. 386) is amended by 

5 striking section 130. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS