alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### No. 06-14-00086-CV

I N THE 

### S IXTH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS 

### T EXARKANA 

### , T EXAS


### F AYE 

### C OMTE 

### & L AURA 

### S EVERT 

### Plaintiff - Appellants

v. 

### S MITH 

### C OUNTY 

### C OMMISSIONERS 

### C OURT 

### , J OEL 

### B AKER 

### , C ARY 

### N IX 

### , J EFF 

### WARR 

### , J OANN 

### H AMPTON 

### & T ERRY 

### P HILLIPS 

### Defendants - Appellees


### O N APPEAL FROM THE 

### 241 ST 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT

OF 

### S MITH 

### C OUNTY 

### , T EXAS 

### T RIAL 

### C AUSE 

### N O 

### . 13-2492-C
APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS: COME NOW Appellees and file this their Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Brief, filed pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) and 38.6(d), and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF PAGE 1 OF 3 ACCEPTED 06-14-00086-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 1/16/2015 4:18:19 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK1. T he deadline to f i le Appellees’ Brief is January 29, 2015.

2. Counsel f or Appellees has a ca s e c u r r e n t ly set f or T rial i n the Eastern District of T ex as, Marshall Div ision o n F e b r uary 9, 2015, and c ounsel w ill be m eeting w ith
w itnesses and preparing f or this T rial. Appellees’ req uest a 30-day ex tension to f ile their Brief

. 3. T his is A p p e l l e e s ’ f irst req uest f or an ex tension of the deadline to f ile Appellees’ responsiv e brief and i s not soug ht f or purposes of u n d ue delay , but so that the Appellees m ay hav e tim e to adeq uately r espond to Appellants’ arg um ents and craf t
a brief w hich w ill aid the Cour t i n d e c id ing the v ery im portant issues presented in this appeal. Appellants do not oppose the relief req uested in this Motion. W HEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees r espectf ully req uest that the Court ex tend the tim e to f ile their Brief to February 27, 2015, and f or any and all other relief to w hich they hav e show n them selv es to be justly entitled. Respectf ully

subm itted, F L O W E R S D A

V I S , P.L.L.C. 1021 ESE Loop 323, Suite 200 T y ler, T ex as 75701 (903) 534-8063 (903) 534-1650 Facsim i le

ROBERT S. DA

VIS State Bar No. 05544200 rsd@ f low ersdav is.com A TTORNEY

FOR A PPELLEES

A PPELLEES’ UNO PPO SED M O T I O N T O EXT END T IM E T O FILE BRIEF PA G E 2 O F 3CERTIFICA TE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certif

y that on January 16, 2015, Counsel f or Appellees’ of f ice contacted counsel f or Appellants, Laura Sev ert. Ms. Sev ert does not oppose this m otion.

_____________________________ Richard B. Vance

CERTIFICA

TE OF SERVICE I hereby certif

y that the abov e and f oreg oing instrum ent w as s erv ed upon all counsel of record in the abov e entitled and num bered cause on January 16, 2015, in the f ollow ing
m anner: X Via Electronic Filing X Via Facsim ile

_____________________________ Robert S. Dav is

A PPELLEES’ UNO PPO SED M O T I O N T O EXT END T IM E T O FILE BRIEF PA G E 3 O F 3
Griffin BILLINGSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-215

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

____________________________________________________________________________________

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Truck, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Clifton R. Beckham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date:  | October 31, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Clifton R. Beckham                  |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   | **Clifton R. Beckham**                  |   |
|   |             |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to USA Truck, Inc. and will be retained by USA Truck, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN the INTEREST OF K.H., a child.

K.H., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4349

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Timothy M. Beasley of The Beasley Law Firm, P.L., Pinellas Park, for Appellant.

Bernie McCabe, State Attorney, and Leslie M. Layne, Assistant State Attorney, Clearwater, for Appellee Department of Children and Family Services.

Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and BADALAMENTI and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
EX PARTE Adam Troy HALEY

1160225 (CR-15-0546)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
OCTOBER 1, 2000 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                           2,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      905
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,677
<PP&E>                                          89,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,401
<BONDS>                                         78,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,061)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,106
<SALES>                                        178,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,510
<CGS>                                           60,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,693
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,608
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,085
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with this quarterly report of Nanophase Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Joseph E. Cross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jess A. Jankowski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:August 8, 2005 |  |                        
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ Joseph E. Cross    
|                    |  | Joseph E. Cross        
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ Jess A. Jankowski  
|                    |  | Jess A. Jankowski      
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Anthony D. NATTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN *, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-55561

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 **

Filed January 26, 2017

Anthony D. Natty, Pro Se

Alarice M. Medrano, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Megan J. Brennan has been substituted for her predecessor, Patrick R. Donahoe, as Postmaster General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2),

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM ***

Anthony D. Natty appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging discrimination under Title YII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Natty’s race, color, and national origin discrimination claims because Natty failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated individuals outside of his protected class were treated more favorably and whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination were pretextual. *See id.*at 1124 (rejecting plaintiffs discrimination claim because he failed to establish that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably); *Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal Inc.,*292 F.3d 654, 658-59, 61-64 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the burden-shifting framework applied to Title VII employment discrimination claims, and requiring a plaintiff to present substantial and specific evidence demonstrating that defendant’s actions were pretext for discrimination).

The district court did not err in dismissing as unexhausted Natty’s disability, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims. *See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t,*276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on defendant’s summary judgment motion prior to the completion of all outstanding discovery requests because *793Natty had not requested any further, discoverable evidence that would have changed the outcome of the order granting summary judgment. *See United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv.,*314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review).

We do not consider any arguments or claims that Natty did not present to the district court. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Nattys contentions that the district court exhibited bias.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
        23.1


Consent
        of Telford Sadovnick, P.L.L.C.


**INDEPENDENT
        REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S
        CONSENT**
 
 
 The
        Board
        of Directors
 Novastar
        Resources Ltd.
 (An
        Exploration Stage Company)
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
        333-135842 and No. 333-137421 on Form S-8, dated July 18, 2006, and September
        19, 2006, respectively, of the consolidated financial statements and financial
        statement schedule of Novastar Resources Ltd. and subsidiaries (the "Company")
        appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
        ended
        June 30, 2006.
 
 
 **TELFORD
        SADOVNICK, P.L.L.C.**
 **CERTIFIED
        PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**
 
 
 
 Bellingham,
        Washington
 
 September
        25, 2006
A.M. v. V.G. and M.G.

2160001

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Samuel TORRES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3995

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DeMarcus KEMP, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11702 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 28, 2017

Gail A. Hayworth, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

DeMarcus Kemp, Pro Se

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*285PER CURIAM: *

DeMarcus Kemp was convicted of one charge of conspiring to distribute hydroco-done and was sentence to serve .175 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that controlled substances other than hydrocodone should be used to calculate his sentence.

The district court’s determination of the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant is a factual finding that we review for clear error. *United States v. Betancourt,*422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole. *Id.*Put differently, a factual “finding will be deemed clearly erroneous if, based on the record as a whole, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” *United States v. Ekanem,*555 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Kemp has not met this standard.

In calculating an offense level, a district court may consider the defendant’s relevant conduct, which includes “all acts and omissions that the defendant committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused” and which occurred “during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1,3(a)(1)(A). “With respect to offenses involving, contraband (including controlled substances), the defendant is accountable under subsection (a)(1)(A) for all quantities of contraband with which he was directly involved.” § 1B1.3, comment.(n.3(D)).

The record shows that Kemp was directly involved with the disputed controlled substances. That is, he took part in the burglaries during which these substances, which were later distributed, were stolen. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by determining that all of the controlled substances should be used to calculate Kemp’s sentence. *See*§ 1B1.3, comment.(n.3(D)); *see also United States v. Wall,*180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6115 

To authorize the waiver of costs of activities relating to evacuation of United 

States citizens when their lives are endangered by war or acts of terrorism. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2023 

Mr. DUNN of Florida (for himself, Mr. MILLS, and Mr. MOSKOWITZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the waiver of costs of activities relating to 

evacuation of United States citizens when their lives 

are endangered by war or acts of terrorism. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF COSTS OF ACTIVITIES RELATING 

4 TO EVACUATION OF UNITED STATES CITI5 ZENS WHEN THEIR LIVES ARE ENDANGERED 

6 BY WAR OR ACTS OF TERRORISM. 

7 Section 4 of the State Department Basic Authorities 

8 Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6115 IH

1 ‘‘(e) With regard to the repatriations loan program, 

2 the Secretary of State is authorized to waive the costs of 

3 activities relating to evacuation of United States citizens 

4 when their lives are endangered by war or acts of ter5 rorism.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
FT. MITCHELL MHP, LLC, and Ft. Mitchell Managing, LLC v. PHILLIPS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC

1160199

Supreme Court of Alabama.

3-10-2017

Affirmed.
ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1

Attachment 1

Major Components; Vendor Data and References

Section 1: Siemens Water Technologies Section 2: EIMCO Water Technologies Section 3: Beaudrey USA Section 4: Passavant Geiger
Section 5: Johnson Screens Section 6: WE Energies, Oak Creek Section 7: Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility Section 8: IBM Poughkeepsie FacilityALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 1: Siemens Water Technologies

Page 2 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 2: EIMCO Water Technologies

Page 3 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 2: EIMCO Water Technologies

Page 4 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 3: Beaudrey USA

Page 5 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 4: Passavant Geiger

Page 6 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 4: Passavant Geiger

Page 7 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens

Page 8 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens

Page 9 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens

Page 10 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens

Page 11 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens

Page 12 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens

Page 13 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 6: WE Energies, Oak Creek

Page 14 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 6: WE Energies, Oak Creek

Page 15 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 7: Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility

Page 16 of 17ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Attachment 1, Section 8: IBM Poughkeepsie Facility

Page 17 of 17
HANNA DEVELOPMENT CORP. HANNA a/k/a Hanna Development Corp., Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK, NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee FOR AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ASSET TRUST 2007-1 MORTGAGE BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, The Fountains of Palm Beach Condominium, Inc. No. 4, Robert Nosel a/k/a Robert J. Nosel, Brian L. Kimber, PA, State of Florida Department of Revenue, Dawn C. Nosel, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1681

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

James R. Ackley of Law Offices of James R. Ackley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Anthony R. Yanez and Nicole R. Topper of Blank, Rome, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for American Home Mortgage Asset Trust 2007-1, Mortgage Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 28, 2014

h0324

Order 

Clerk

March 28, 2014

148337

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148337

COA: 315566

Saginaw CC: 02-021048-FC

ROBERT J. JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6024 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6024

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 to 
extend the increased transfer authority for a certain study on per- and 
  polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in drinking water, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 24, 2023

 Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania (for herself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced 
                           the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

              Referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 to 
extend the increased transfer authority for a certain study on per- and 
  polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in drinking water, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``PFAS Health Study Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED TRANSFER AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING OF 
              CERTAIN STUDY ON PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES 
              CONTAMINATION IN DRINKING WATER.

    Section 316(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91; 131 Stat. 1350), as most 
recently amended by section 342 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117-263; 136 Stat. 2529), is 
further amended by striking ``during fiscal year 2023'' and inserting 
``a year during fiscal years 2023 through 2024''.
                                 <all>
```