alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
: TT TM

- ‘noe!
TWELFTH CENSUS OF TE UNITED STATES.

SCHEDULE No. 1--POPULATION.

wer Se

supervioers Didtriet No.1 4 ben Shot Me.

g

Enumeration District Ov

division Of county Ba ae! etaihih — ae
tity, town, or village, within the above-named division, Sit dha
Enumerated ty me on the LL 4

WocaTion same RELATION. PERSON AL DESCRIPTION NATIVITY. % ny. occurs a=
Split “stoner [OTT ee Oi pL eens erode] | | fetonaateneree
— See Ce Wc
j 3 Ss ca i oe og & | sivgit roe tae | “sme wise 4 1 |
; - _ -[?
Hi “Soren ily tH if i | HI a
BBE: : . ras 11 Re CCS CN) rs mse Cac | :
* = ae agit fe? zr £3, e 3 ne “ies i ht) 0
» * an prcenhawer [Mh | P| Mar | 117450 |S amen Ke AT Dakeurets. AS Ek sa ee
el aed 1 “is ag FTW aE TR } 7: & Sareea ; 7
= * 1 tt 1D RU: COI Bag! { has ‘1 ‘Si ,
eae Medina Page [HE Mer bashes LF S| Mocewnt | Minmoeny | Sica En aes
co) py Gee cae | Waseda tae. Abb U8 Konssa Mesatgs A Missouing LOfe ad ets:
» es e nat he 18 aad ole he eee? Uh 22 ae
iy a | ai Sin Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. be
S17 HAA edad, Ute, 4
wo i ¥ Y Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. x
o 4°
fe “3 pr e
mm ii rae | ant ) Ya | ya ,
,] ta Za YO a
“ rar £ SUD 48\% IH 1.\S or
i tk is ORaes te se ‘ a
a3 wis nigel t |
“ Bh and § see ie a hg
# th Ie Od S297T7\Ha | «: WV" Lan stn Ol | Yai Bm ze *
ba tS |Get 7q| 2o}$ mindapbacts he Lal ize | fei es be
ugh | ; ZL be el x o
* Wm Geb Wo 'He\W 121. de eee a L Jemates iat Riel ee %
ie > Gop WCQQST) ie V7 AS IT) prose st harms a BC SH Ces a % Fa ml ri
n ! is | | to a Fare r
* “ih Goh WialielS |] || Wuiseunt euesiena | | HE Abc col) 47 pales =
nm , ae ltsis | || Wiese ai phpsivonat |- Purses Pt wt. Wet nat EAL 3 cok | :
” hays LUlS | Te oT as LE Le .
= Lelgpts trae! 210.1 | tsicacanst. | JM at a SY ee | aa FH |
- 7 |e lis he fe WMaceas by | off ose tas POSES ee
" 2 $inalah nme m Yrrsond | tant 1 | | in ir .
1] rT t ry | :
* PATHE POL wae OMe merece Jase | | Meee | | #4
ad li ck sea LU | Widens Jawa Tees ree i a ”
r Ti | ON veers Msgs} 1 ese aed a <
veg PE. Veh SEA Heo litle Gm velim |S] | | Pisetount | Apsesecat | Aea/ a Pa 4 P|
\f Thay ae be Vcteour vebtioha, | Wlisepwri | aha oe.
° % OPA? a EL 7 ze OP ay |e
4 - “Tt lanl ‘: ' : a an thet a
“hk So . a Se ae aug Piaf . ball? ues 40) a % nttedy | - nti a ta Hie | Fee Sa | *
—aae a3 = a aE ar | Hihiseceni | : : — 4
: Hy ’ 7 yj 7 Ten 2
Or Gm. Yura 7s> $5) Vusernes | Drnlncrin vat ORG be 8 BE fala. Sal 4
Li i é, . a 3 Les | sf
f - 2 ' ; = » ° St. . R i wa A) - ms bead
is , ’ Y »
& f acti! q ¢ 8 fae 7 EW aR GER |
i * $ : 7 5 ~ it "
} * P "i = q es} u |
4 Sx "
oko TF
4 ; #
: moots LEE: “
a oT “* 7 vag
i 3 "
#### Jaime O. TAMAYO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-921.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 7, 1969.

Paul Pollack, and Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Evans v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So.2d 515; Brown v. State, Fla. 1968, 206 So.2d 377; Gertman v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 798; Section 918.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; and Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 761.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3217

KARON ANN PARHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PEPSICO, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-307-5-BR)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karon Ann Parham, Appellant Pro Se. Louis B. Meyer, III, POYNER &

SPRUILL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

her trademark and copyright infringement claims and state law

claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Parham v. Pepsico, Inc., No. CA95-307-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 1995). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
—------------» Enumerator.

194u

POPULATION SCHEDULE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES

se eesualnl

-_—-—Se ee ee ee eee ee oO ee eee eee eee ee eer ee eel

(Name of institution and lines on which entries are made)

(Name of unincorporated place having 100 oe mae

ted

Re

Py
e, .
ered OF cdkey cxcinie Secuns’: Un

ae
Institution

Block Nos. ......-......-.-

RELATION

|

°
Led
“4
=

© S SOVERSEEET PeINTING OFFICE
LOCATION | HOUSEHOLD DATA

State

A
=| [=] 43 45 9 qs ae sea ae es eee sales
seal LIT ETLTITU LITT rere reece

HU PREer EERECREEEREEEES. TrECUMEFEE PrrEETACteer iA

i/ootecos MARGE RRREEEEERREREREREERIEE Hse att

semrmcrneela| N YVE SYS Siggy NO Naa a oe Na id os ia :
3

. ;
te “: + —
.S : = %

vol} | tT tte tt ta ia tT tt tte Iga las le as sssas

Jac aps qa

{|
a

i =

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY—DO NOT WRITE IN THESE COLUMNS

= EERSERR REESE

E | Sty bas :
& ee 4 3 1% : it
: 14354 § iy \ ; \ }
| pea 4 ty ‘ : 1 3 \ N .
d bie ji 3 . , Wy Vig , Ae NS ,
| ae roid ai wit
; La L ; ! HF aie
AHA He Rar ee
a) s a i 3 A . hh
s| EL) Hi . ry i
: sagas] i i s | ay 3
4 a3 ae is 490m w—-OFgT | alt hile
| Hie az SEBFATENMGUEVCOOTRUEREAWES
A p geome a
TTL EIS ELL aS 3 st
UE ec a CCI Bete O° Ds 90 RC DOT Yee ee RO 7 To i
3 uy ae
Mf eS (Pade (WL VIA yas fy | 2 Z
‘ : i |
ligt SPE EEE EC EEE DE peCee twee 9 6 5 PRE ie tf ba
OM 30 80K) _108-¥6 WIV 9° — «&® os fe) a) 1! ‘a F fis 7. ii
ce Mae FERERERUERREEREERRERE 2 “ © oO TERR tt
Set Ad NK QA OCR RRR RE CRO Gen Pee CREREE! i
= = FEMEEREFUL Ga eee Pe
sara al 9 REREEEE rgze §5 1 tas i
con (LO : Hy
‘E 1. © ._. mM —_=— ea +
feo 8 g°0 Hal
“<< @ — oO ® a ahs
% iL B s3
ELE = a
g2O Sg ae
nn >|
Oo oD re :
= > ? toss
; S66 88
Be Ee - = 3 a
3 Son PRIS TSSSPIS SITES SI SRE SERS g-c og
: Ee ;}j @e | ‘co
: iN sae Wise 3
a ) Bs ie as O = a i
Be Ba: J: ASUS y = _ rt
gee SES aa aA Soar s2 4
 |_reemerere none nhs .FREEEREEECENECERERCECEE ar = E :
a [sears [al 8 REEEEE CEE EEE EEEEEEEEE: x = Se suas
(Se potent a] wy : : - = ss FF
gE een 8 SEREEEEE > dh Hi
Es 433 EEEEFEEE MAA = 5 HE
S ve > 8 rf
:

a5 .
a NYE \ \
(die Wy Ss it} .

:

:

an :

33 ii 3 :

oaks ~

ee i :

i ‘fi ut
Pre
ila i
ia E Hy S

Ht Biel BS :

wiv celine BE : 3

i 4

ZzO8

| IS =|

-y dl

I 5

Vase] | YQ a

BEI '
No. 72-824.

#### Board of Education of the City of Pleasant Grove *v.*Stout et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Lucious CHILDS, Petitioner, v. J. R. S. CONSTRUCTION CO., et al., Respondents.

No. 43809.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 6, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

FRANK REYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50049

D.C. No. 3:06-cr-01242-DMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017** 

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Frank Reyes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Reyes contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment

782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has

authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v.

Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded

that Reyes is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not

lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574

F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Reyes’s

sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v.

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Finally, Reyes is not entitled to an

evidentiary hearing regarding the drug quantities attributable to him because that

issue is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at

826 (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a “plenary resentencing proceeding”). 

AFFIRMED. 

2 16-50049
#### Walter Reese WESLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 18, 1973.

Walter Wesley, in Pro. Per., for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the Order denying his post-conviction motion to vacate judgment and sentence. This Court has previously affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence for the offense of rape. Wesley v. State, 239 So.2d 124 (Fla.App.1st, 1970).

We have given full consideration to the record and briefs of the parties. It appearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate that prejudicial error was committed in the proceedings below, the Order appealed herein is AFFIRMED.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2011 

0321 

Order 

 

March 29, 2011 

142193 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142193 

 COA: 299488 

Kalamazoo CC: 94-000678-FC 

RONALD TORINO DYSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Tyrone Moses WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 17, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, David G. Zahka, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Talk America Holdings, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrant's other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)  [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)]
 
 c)  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
 
 d)  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 officers 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 function):
 
 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.
 
 
 November 11, 2003
 
 /s/ David G. Zahka
 David G. Zahka
 Chief Financial Officer
#### Mabel M. WINTERS, Appellant, v. LAKE WORTH GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital and Sherwin Isaacson, Appellees.

No. 69-638.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 4, 1969.

Appeal quashed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1588 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for reimbursement for emergency medical treatment to certain veterans that were 

unable to receive care from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 

the 24-month period preceding the furnishing of such emergency treatment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2013 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. MORAN, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility 

for reimbursement for emergency medical treatment to 

certain veterans that were unable to receive care from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs in the 24-month 

period preceding the furnishing of such emergency treatment. 

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


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1588 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF EMERGENCY TREATMENT RE2 IMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN VETERANS. 

3 Section 1725(b)(2)(B) of title 38, United States 

4 Code, is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ after ‘‘(B)’’; 

6 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert7 ing ‘‘; or’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(ii) the veteran was unable to receive care 

10 under this chapter within such 24-month period be11 cause of a waiting period imposed by the Depart12 ment with respect to a new patient examination of 

13 such veteran.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
et et me -

AGRI, fete | | Me lapélsraltorleg
tear og y; , P| 1. pee ogy Z| ve a
Bote ee / | FAS 2 if
te 5 OS ae oer) |
es rae . (

: Fr... Wbite iase
) CK eczl Chass :
AM hoon Ms py fa
a eee A a5 IR
VA

ZA BID.
LP, messiund Shoemnahen, Yo
Ze a | Chien

Hh, ec E a. (72) 9
Wee DY Gb,

eee EZ,
y, Actor : Seo thee ae 48

ard

yew

yo

aye

eS

:
iu

WAN
oN

}
HX]

we

AQ) ah Oy OX

XQ
AS

\
_

N

-

°@.

a a tee e". a. . -«o-
Sa Ng ROR eT NS Mit,” AED RE MR PAR EEE ORR, RR Peles a ARRAY AIG SR ERE

OF Gj ba be, :

Y hi
ve La hoe Sees fd bie Z Sd

ot SYR ca sy UTERO RARE CEE) AF
#### SIEDER *v.*JEROME.

Bills and Notes — Dishonor—Notice.

In action on promissory note, where testimony shows that indorser was given notice of dishonor, as required by statute (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9338), judgment for plaintiff is affirmed, on appeal by indorser.

Appeal from Wayne; Lamb (Fred S.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 6, 1932.

(Docket No. 37, Calendar No. 36,085.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

*250Assumpsit by Charles P. Sieder against George Jerome and others on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant Jerome appeals.

Affirmed.

*Y erices, Goddard & McGlintock (G. Upton Shreve*and *F. W. Donovan,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*James B. Van Vediten, Jr. (Edmund J. Stafford,*of counsel), for defendant Jerome.

Fead, J.

In this action on a promissory note, as the testimony shows that the indorser, Jerome, was given notice of dishonor, as required by statute (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9338), judgment for plaintiff is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mrs. Loyd E. BOOTHE.

No. 62476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Mrs. Loyd E. Boothe, applying for Writs. Parish of Catahoula.

Writ denied.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENDUS

SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940

“ecaaeese a e e ce aeeth meee or nie Bem

at
——

- r 3 Psi ry ae
na yous wo macnn: 3 “SUSE se ns tee co, H [=

Pynse wagers trom Devmatalt,

wiad Ti ater cereal pone cf meee way
splay f peer Teas “tint alls 43 Aedontry o besten,

Aaeerui eur "

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

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

ls

is is je |S 8 ele)

e

2
2

ais a E a 8
a ae SF
ES is | |

Teel

:

le ,
¢ iz as

il
: KT
La

t
}
t

b=

A VEZ,

—

FOR OFFICE VEE OBLT—DO NOT WHITE IW THESE COLUMNS

Tisy teen Tegel

Yer Porscas Raumorsted ox Lines $5 and 68 PLACE OF MIATM OF PANEER AED NOTHEE [ors Pops ge Harr
Fauicasrage eine teases
mE

Cy P oe

. 4

os a > | ~~ ~
shefs|2/S ah AS Sle

8 3 ia |S js je | [8

NI

|

i=

a

wetanraanee 2
a

a
8) *htaaean 1

=

DNTAL OCCTPANTOG, INDUSTRY, AWD CLAM OF WaNKEE

ikuip ES ESE See
Fig ret Rep a

¥

:

in

E
bined) Se

fhe previeas werk amparbests, extiar “Bane” Ss Cut <2 nat dew Onis. «P e0l C7

es

Septis

Deed

ieee ——— | —— S) =

8)"

Tie
ie Sear
bad

B] Ase et fre marries

&
3]

ERY

ais
1

re GR ROME, TP OWNED: = Gal CONON GE RACE (Cet 1k MIUENET GR4IE CF SCHOOL OokerurrED.
srry is RP eds Bieter eae)
- se ‘Miweeriacy wthesl, bette Gh greds t,t en,
‘High henl, tt OD pee Bae ek
Gattogs, Ste Wh peer OL Oa, Ox
~— Cillngt, Nhe erantmegt yeas

i
snsgentE:

Cain oot CLAD OF WOEEEE
Ene 2

"ee seo eee

|
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1676 

To exempt certain payments to States from sequestration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2013 

Mr. BENNET (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. 

SHELBY, and Mr. NELSON) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To exempt certain payments to States from sequestration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Return Our State 

5 Shares Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS FROM SEQUES7 TRATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 255(g)(1)(A) of the Bal9 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (2 

10 U.S.C. 905(g)(1)(A)) is amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1676 IS

1 (1) by inserting before ‘‘Federal Deposit Insur2 ance Corporation, Deposit Insurance Fund (51– 

3 4596–0–4–373).’’ the following: 

4 ‘‘Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (14– 

5 5029–0–2–303).’’; 

6 (2) by inserting after ‘‘Financial Agent Services 

7 (20–1802–0–1–803).’’ the following: 

8 ‘‘Financial assistance to States pursuant 

9 to section 105(a)(2)(B) of the Gulf of Mexico 

10 Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 

11 note) from the Land Acquisition and State As12 sistance account (14–5035–0–2–303).’’; 

13 (3) by inserting before ‘‘Hazardous Waste Man14 agement, Conservation Reserve Program (12–4336– 

15 0–3–999).’’ the following: 

16 ‘‘Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (20– 

17 8625–0–7–452).’’; 

18 (4) by inserting before ‘‘Payments to Copyright 

19 Owners (03–5175–0–2–376).’’ the following: 

20 ‘‘Payments of States’ shares from certain 

21 Gulf of Mexico leases (14–5535–0–2–302).’’; 

22 (5) by inserting before ‘‘Payments to the 

23 United States Territories, Fiscal Assistance (14– 

24 0418–0–1–806).’’ the following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1676 IS

1 ‘‘Payments to States under the Mineral 

2 Leasing Act and Associated Payments (14– 

3 5003–0–2–999).’’; and 

4 (6) by inserting before ‘‘Tennessee Valley Au5 thority Fund, except nonpower programs and activi6 ties (64–4110–0–3–999).’’ the following: 

7 ‘‘Sport Fish Restoration (14–8151–0–7– 

8 303).’’. 

9 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by this 

10 section shall apply to any sequestration order issued under 

11 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

12 of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) on or after the date of 

13 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
- Pages from 23761117v1
- Pages from 23761117v1ch08
#### Kenneth E. VIARS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49905.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1978.

Joseph Edward Guarino, Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Catherine W. Underwood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Floyd J. Logan Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and BOWLING, JJ., concur.