alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
                                   EXHIBIT 27

                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from
Balance  Sheet,  Statement  of  Operations,  Statement  of Cash  Flows and Notes
thereto  incorporated in Part 1, Item 1, of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                  132,953
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,242,303
<PP&E>                                  72,789
<DEPRECIATION>                          (69,332)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          2,431,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   155,319
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                3,005
<OTHER-SE>                              2,449,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            2,431,775
<SALES>                                 1,519,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,521,666
<CGS>                                   1,320,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,320,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        464,068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      19,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (256,816)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (256,816)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (256,816)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.09)



</TABLE>
#### Daniel I. WINCOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-665.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 25, 1968.

*43Harold Ungerleider, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

The appellant was informed against by a five-count information, the first count of which charged grand larceny. The second count charged forgery of a mortgage. The third count charged uttering a forged instrument, to wit: the mortgage referred to in Count II. The fourth count charged forgery of a note. The fifth count charged uttering a forged instrument, to wit: the note referred to in Count IV. At the conclusion of a non-jury trial, the appellant was acquitted of the grand larceny charge under Count I, adjudicated guilty of the remaining charges, and sentenced to five years with the sentences to run concurrently.

On this appeal, the principal points urged for reversal are error in admitting certain evidence by a handwriting expert, and' insufficiency of evidence to support the four convictions. We fail to find substantial competent evidence to convict the appellant of Count IV [forgery of the note] and Count V [uttering the forged note]. Therefore, we are required to reverse these convictions and discharge the appellant. Moore v. State, 152 Fla. 295, 11 So.2d 486; Rosenblum v. State, Fla. 1951, 55 So.2d 119; Gilday v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 205.

The principal evidence relied on to establish the forgery of the mortgage was a comparison of the appellant’s signa,; ture on the fingerprint card [which he signed subsequent to his arrest] and the writing on a *copy*of the alleged forged mortgage. Error is urged in permitting the handwriting expert to testify relative to the fingerprint card signature on constitutional grounds, which we find not to be well taken. Accord, Gentille v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 200, cert. denied 386 U.S. 995, 87 S.Ct. 1313, 18 L.Ed.2d 342. Error is also urged in the failure to demonstrate that the blow-up photograph of the signature on the fingerprint card was in continuous possession of the police offi*44cers and, further, it was error to permit the comparisons to be made to writings on a copy of the mortgage, when the information alleged a forgery of the original and there was no predicate introduced for using the copy rather than the original. We find both of these latter points to be well taken. Threadgill v. State, 75 Fla. 240, 77 So. 880; Thompson v. Freeman, 111 Fla. 433, 149 So. 740; Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894; North v. State, Fla.1952, 65 So.2d 77; Watson v. State, Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 161; 14 Fla.Jur., Forgery and Counterfeiting, § 26.

Therefore, we reverse all the convictions and discharge the appellant from further proceedings as to Counts IV and V and, pursuant to the provisions of § 924.36, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., we remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial based on Counts II and III of the Information.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
AAM

- 13

- 008

- E November 5, 2012

Exemption No. 10653 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 1084

Mr. Forest Kirst

Kirst Aviation

P.O. Box 73621 Fairbanks, AK 99707

Dear Mr. Kirst :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision , explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 2, 2012 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on

behalf of Kirst Aviati on for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow Kirst Aviation

, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under

one drug and alcohol testing program

.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Kirst Aviation

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petiti on. In Grant of Exemption No

. 9 703 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air to ur operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the curr ent regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they are similar in all material respect s to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No

. 9703 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No

. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Kirst Aviation an exemption from 14 CFR

p art 120 to the extent necessary to allow Kirst Aviation

, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one testing program

, subj ect to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. E mployees of Kirst Aviation are subject to the drug and alco hol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the

Kirst Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminate s on November 3 0

, 2014 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE-BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Im cvsenuigons DISTRICT NO.
UBTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1920—POPULATION {eroweunon ume noc 22—
NAME OF INCORPORATED PLAGE ap raraiasceecwieee erm —~ WARO OF
EMUNERATED bY ME ON THE....2.ZZ&.. ony OF

by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S, Census Bureau.

information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

gasszensse
#### GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. AVIATION AND GENERAL INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., and Paul M. Knight, Appellees.

No. 70-133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 26, 1971.

Thomas B. Mimms, Jr., and Ronald A. FitzGerald, of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., of Fischer, Hinckley & Shores, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment consequent on a directed verdict. The *763trial judge concluded as a matter of law the plaintiff had not proved the cause of action pled in the amended complaint. We have reviewed the entire record and the briefs and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we cannot conclude that the appellant has demonstrated error. The final judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., and Mc-CAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge, concur.
a oo» SQ Inquiries numbered 7, 16,.and 17 are not to be asked in respect:to infants. Inquiries numbered 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, sai st tes ite csr gbaal Ss
( Pane ie HD . Pee merely by an affirmative mark, as /. ays

‘Soumpuzn 1,—Inhabitants in le LEE rn in the County of besa Lez, State
, tell Z, enumerated by r me on the __7“- oat day of __Y.4 , 1870. | 294

Post Office: Late fer CA- . LB: 4, Mas Lt, Asst Marshal.

VALUE oF Reat Estate |
OWNED.

'

CONSTITUTIONAL
RELATIONS,

© order
| al
state

If
ci
|
K|

Whether deaf
and dumb,
blind, insane,
or idiotic.

thin the year,

year,
., &0.)

| Color.—White (W.), Blacl

The name of every person whose
place of abode on the first day of |
June, 1870, was in this family.

Place of Birth, naming State
| or Territory of U. 8.; or the
Country, if of foreign birth.

ve mon
us, yy

or Sex.—Males (M.),

© Families, numbered tn th

(Se REI SME RPE se SEAT

Oe Lara SNS ELA ET a BE?

——

ht to vote Is

of visitation.

ve ey

Females (F.)

hove rig
denied or abridged on} ;

other grounds than re-

Mother of foreign birth.

Father of foreign birth.

Dwelling-honses, numbered in ~
the order of visitation.
If married within the yeur, state

month (Jan., Feb., &c.)
21 years of age aud up-

wards,

Male Citizens of U. 8. of 21
ears ofage and upwards,

y
¥
bellion or other crime.

(B.), Mulatto (M.), Chi-
nese (C.), Indian (1.)
Male Citizens of U. 8. of

month (Jan., Feb

—

Cannot read.
Cannot write

“| Age at last birth-day.
under! hd 5 Ei
in fractions,

| Attended school] wi

i) Value of Personal Estate, | ‘

@ | Value of Real Estate.

=
—)

= | Lf born within the

7

=
=
wo
_
ou
="
a}
=
Sen)
i)
Se

-_—

See es ae

oe
=!

Fz we vA CO? 2’

a he hes L Lhe LES —

Af Z f/ ae
As, Sf, Zz by za t
LY Ot aa 2 nn Oa EE,
‘A

f7 va
‘Cee fy, vs

4 -
| AZ A, ere PASS A ree
(-, 7 ve 3 _- z d _

|

*;
f -
Fs
y . —
CLLEGE
ak EE

a

5 ve
FEF EE A

Cc 7 i o, “le ys
C27 aS 22 | y. 3 é éza-7 ~ Nene eS
, 7
—*)

A
fico tliv- Zhe ys ete CL 4 lee ae Letiateez es LAS Heer __| LIE 232207

—

¢

¥ / | “7 4 A | 5 7.
= tobe 8g al Pas loth. | EA ee Mere SZ OS
CVA

&. C2. 22-0 >

JP

ILG fc pitts

c

al. = ls. 3
fiz f - 2 7
Sf, L L £5 Cy c fie beds ot

/,
4 4

aie J) & =)
OL 227-2 t fy <

LL ieee Fe,

7 / a ‘ 4, yp
Liege itr, BS SL ALLE,

ane -, a“ 4
Pa 4 Jf : Fa FA, L,
LE 0 a SEX. , 4? OF aes Ake ae ee OS = — 4

4
ad

t Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

a Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Le Lote, Vy” Bf CGCALLL-C —-—-

7

Wltivelas ; Prvrss 67 1 bw bb ot? De: J i Le : Lit a me

|

en G/ aE | iS ys M Kien, K ued 2 ZL. wr) [
LM ale dleil: A 0 ; Z 4 ; - wis ee tos

AL, G3 Zz, WhaseReticee Js ae oe

No. of dwellings, fi Sad of white temales, “47 EO No. sfnalis: Racagen: | No. of insane,
“ families, C éc- Sac: colored males, “ik females, “sé “

ar ret) ad (oc ae a a ae 7 Crys an
i Sere eee een aes Le eeeeiehe ’ 3 > 5 7 a  — | TET
CaN es se rarat DS es Ba SH pega ae ee rein! ; bese

«“ « white males, Z. vi “ “ “ ~ females, “«< © blind,

—_—
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: August 15, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA

SUBJECT: August 13, 2014, Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 13, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Hawaii Officials:

Lorraine Akiba Commisioner, PUC

Veronica Rocha Renewable Energy Project Manager, DBEDT

Thomas Gorak Chief Counsel, PUC

Michael Madsen Engineer, Clean Air Branch, HDOH 

Keith McFall HDOH

EPA

Jeremy Mark OAP, Clean Air Markets Division

Erika Wilson OAP

Joe Bryson OAP, Climate Protection Partnership Division

Matt Clouse OAP, Climate Protection Partnership Division

Jim Ketcham-Colwill Office of Policy Analysis and Review

Misha Adamantiades Advisor

Nate Topham Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Debra Dalcher Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Nicholas Swanson Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Kerry Drake Associate Director, R9 Air Division

Amy Zimpfer Associate Director, R9 Air Division

Ben Machol Chief, Clean Energy & Climate Change Office

Anita Lee R9

Asia Yeary R9 PICO Office

Ray Saracino R9
#### Morgan W. WALKER et al. v. LOUISIANA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY and the Honorable John J. McKeithen, Governor, State of Louisiana.

No. 53520.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Morgan W. Walker and Chester D. Wells applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 274 So.2d 716.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion that the writ should be granted.

CALOGERO, J., recused.
#### William C. PRICE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 11, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
261 La. 829

#### Mrs. Gladys Ann BILLIOT, wife of/and John SCHREWE. Jr. v. SCOTT MANUFACTURING CORP.

No. 52416.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 1972.

In re: Mrs. Gladys Ann Billiot, wife of/and John Schrewe, Jr. ■ applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 258 So.2d 668.

Not considered. The application was not timely filed. See Art. 7, Section 11, La. Const.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. George VIZENTHAL, Appellee.

No. 70-314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Prebish & Masin, and Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the State from an order of the Criminal Court of Record dismissing as insufficient an information which charged the appellee with perjury.

*727Upon consideration of the record and briefs we have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See: Bazarte v. State, Fla.App.1959, 117 So.2d 227; D’Alessandro v. State, 116 Fla. 749, 156 So. 702; Rader v. State, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 105.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,077,775
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,960,849
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,532,486)
<INVENTORY>                                 16,278,519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,505,779
<PP&E>                                       5,018,813
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,748,482)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,815,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,173,789
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    31,951,691
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,815,883
<SALES>                                     17,763,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,763,495
<CGS>                                       10,151,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,151,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,451,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               141,739
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (33)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,241,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (447,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            794,153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   794,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael Paul ALONGI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 25, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5

<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Equitec Real Estate
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000757191
<NAME>              P-B Equitec Real Estate
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1995

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1995

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1995

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          806,000

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     50,605,000

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  17,905,000

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  34,388,000

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           27,917,000

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      6,471,000

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    34,388,000

<SALES>                         5,982,000

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                6,541,000

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   5,162,000

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              2,411,000

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,032,000)

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (1,032,000)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (14.86)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>
**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 Quarterly Report of MangoSoft, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the six months ended June 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Dale Vincent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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.




By:
            /s/ Dale
              VincentChief Executive Officer (principal executive and financial officer)October
                30, 2007




This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.





23
#### In re ESTATE of Joseph Dunbar WIGHT, Deceased. Ruth FERREL and Merrill Treadway, Appellants, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN ST. PETERSBURG, Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Dunbar Wight, Appellee.

No. 71-629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 26, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1972.

John D. Wessel, of Fox, Brannen & Wessel, Boca Raton, for appellants.

Richard A. Eagle, and H. Rex Owen, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of In Re Hewett’s Estate, 1943, 153 Fla. 137, 13 So.2d 904. See also concurring opinion by Drew, J., in In Re Caldwell’s Estate, Fla.1971, 247 So.2d 1; Labine v. Vincent, 1971, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1017, 28 L.Ed.2d 288.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ„ concur.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1438 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

to provide that military technicians (dual status) shall be included in 

military personnel accounts for purposes of any order issued under that 

Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to provide that military technicians 

(dual status) shall be included in military personnel accounts for purposes of any order issued under that Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL 

4 STATUS). 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 251(a)(3) of the Balanced 

6 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 

7 U.S.C. 901(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1438 IS

1 following new sentence: ‘‘For purposes of this paragraph, 

2 military technicians (dual status) shall be included in mili3 tary personnel accounts.’’. 

4 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment 

5 made by subsection (a) shall apply to any order of the 

6 President to exempt military personnel accounts from se7 questration issued under section 255(f)(1) of the Balanced 

8 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 

9 U.S.C. 905(f)(1)) after January 1, 2014. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS