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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5426 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the per resident 

payment floor for direct graduate medical education payments under 

the Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself and Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase 

the per resident payment floor for direct graduate medical education payments under the Medicare Program. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 5426 IH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASING TO 100 PERCENT OF THE LOCAL2 ITY ADJUSTED NATIONAL AVERAGE PER 

3 RESIDENT AMOUNT THE PAYMENT FLOOR 

4 FOR DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDU5 CATION PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE 

6 PROGRAM. 

7 Section 1886(h)(2)(D)(iii) of the Social Security Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(2)(D)(iii)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘70 percent,’’; and 

10 (2) by inserting after ‘‘85 percent,’’ the fol11 lowing: ‘‘for the cost reporting period beginning dur12 ing fiscal year 2008 shall not be less than 90 per13 cent, for the cost reporting period beginning during 

14 fiscal year 2009 shall not be less than 95 percent, 

15 and for the cost reporting period beginning during 

16 fiscal year 2010 shall not be less than 100 percent,’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROMT HE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          20,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     57,241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               206,743
<PP&E>                                         254,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                 149,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,743
<SALES>                                        471,488
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               471,488
<CGS>                                          399,187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,369)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,533
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,902)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,902)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.51)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment #1 to Warrant to Purchase Common Stock dated June 30, 2005



 Exhibit 4.16 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK 
  
 This
Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”), is made and entered into effective as of June 30, 2005, by and between Rentech, Inc., a Colorado corporation (“Rentech”), and Monarch Pointe Fund, Ltd., Mercator Momentum Fund, LP, Mercator
Momentum Fund III, LP, Pentagon Special Purpose Fund, Ltd. (collectively, the “Purchasers”) and M.A.G. Capital, LLC (“MAG”). 
  
 The parties hereby agree to amend the Warrant to Purchase Common Stock between Rentech and MAG and Rentech and each of the Purchasers dated April 8, 2005
(the “Warrant”) as follows: 
  
 Section 1.1 of the
Warrant is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: “This Warrant is exercisable in whole or in part (but not as to any fractional share of Common Stock), at any time that is more than 181 days after the date of this Warrant (October 8,
2005) and from time to time thereafter prior to 6:00 p.m. on the Expiration Date set forth above.” 
  
 This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts and may be delivered by facsimile transmission, each of which shall be deemed an original, but
all of which together constitute one and the same instrument. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed by its duly authorized. 
  

									
	 RENTECH, INC.
	 	 	 	 M.A.G. CAPITAL, LLC

					
	By:	 	 /s/ Dennis L. Yakobson
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ David Firestone

	 Name:
	 	 Dennis L. Yakobson
	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 David Firestone

	 Title:
	 	 President and CEO
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Managing Member


  

									
	 MONARCH POINT FUND, LTD.
	 	 	 	 MERCATOR MOMENTUM FUND, LP

					
	By:	 	 /s/ David Firestone
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ David Firestone

	 Name:
	 	 David Firestone
	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 David Firestone

	 Title:
	 	 Managing Member
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Managing Member


  

									
	 MERCATOR MOMENTUM FUND III, LP
	 	 	 	 PENTAGON SPECIAL PURPOSE FUND, LTD

					
	By:	 	 /s/ David Firestone
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Carolynn D. Hiron

	 Name:
	 	 David Firestone
	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Carolynn D. Hiron

	 Title:
	 	 Managing Member
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Director
Suzanne MACEACHERN v. Hugh MACEACHERN.

No. 48P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Hugh MacEachern, Pro Se.

Suzanne MacEachern, Pro Se.

*AMENDED ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 29th day of January 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of January 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WENDELL C. ROBINSON, and MAY T. JUNG-ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, 

### v. UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 12-0278 (RJL) ) ) ) ) ) ) )**~he** reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, it is this

### ~dayofJune,2013,hereby ORDEREDthat the defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #8] is GRANTED; and it is further ORDEREDthat plaintiffs Amended Complaint [Dkt. #6] is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

7
STATE v. Lawrence E. MONTAGUE.

No. 361P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of July 2004 by Defendant for Relief:

> "Motion dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of August 2004."
MIDLAND FIRE PROTECTION, INC. v. CLANCY & THEYS CONST. CO.

No. COA05-214.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (03CVS440).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Charles S. HONACHER and Catherine M. Honacher v. David K. EVERSON and Patricia M. Everson.

No. 174P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Patricia M. Everson, Pro Se, for Patricia M. & David K. Everson.

David K. Everson, Pro Se.

*174B. Douglas Martin, for Charles & Catherine Honacher.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendants on the 4th day of April 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Plaintiffs, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of April 2006 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
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 Annual Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank M. Semple, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/FRANK M. SEMPLEFrank M. Semple Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|March 30, 2004                                            |  | 

---

QuickLinks
STATE v. CHAVIS.

No. COA05-1313.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Granville (04CRS50673, 04CRS50675, 04CRS50676, 04CRS50677)

Case without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 32.2











STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the Form10-Q) of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (the “Company”), I, Ronald E. Baron, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(a)
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(b)
the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company asof and for the periods presented in the Form l0-Q.








/s/Ronald E. BaronDate: August 12, 2011


Ronald E. Baron


Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MICHAEL D. BARTKO 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2292 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 134 DB 2013 

Attorney Registration No. 40760

(Out of State) 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2016, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation for Public Censure Pursuant to Disciplinary Board Rule §89.205(e), it 

is ORDERED that Michael D. Bartko is subjected to public censure by the Supreme 

Court. 

Additionally, Respondent is placed on administrative suspension, see Pa.R.D.E. 

219(l), and he shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1667/09 KA 08-01267 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY HILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered May 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree. The judgment was affirmed by an order of this Court entered February 11, 2010 in a memorandum decision (70 AD3d 1487), and defendant on July 21, 2010 was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this Court (15 NY3d 774), and the Court of Appeals on October 20, 2011 modified the order and remitted the case to this Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion (___ NY3d ___).

Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals and having considered the issues raised but not determined on the appeal to this Court,
It is hereby ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On a prior appeal in People v Hill (70 AD3d 1487), we affirmed the judgment convicting defendant upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). The Court of Appeals modified our order and remitted the case to this Court for consideration of the suppression issues raised by defendant but not determined by this Court ( People v Hill , ___ NY3d ___ [Oct. 20, 2011]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police because they were the fruit of the alleged unlawful entry into his apartment. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in refusing to suppress those statements, we conclude that the error is harmless ( see People v Watkins , 59 AD3d 1128, 1129, lv denied 12 NY3d 922; see generally-2- 1667 KA 08-01267
People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 237).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5642 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5642

To increase the numerical limitation with respect to H-1B nonimmigrants 
                    for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2008

  Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. 
   Feeney) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the numerical limitation with respect to H-1B nonimmigrants 
                    for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

    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--
            (1) the ``Strengthening United States Technology And 
        Innovation Now Act''; or
            (2) the ``SUSTAIN Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN NUMERICAL LIMITATION.

    Notwithstanding section 214(g)(1)(A)(vii) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)(vii)), the total number of 
aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant 
status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) during fiscal years 2008 and 2009 is 195,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COAST DENTAL SERVICES, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      13,581,798
<SECURITIES>                                13,785,320
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,235,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,481,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,270,665
<PP&E>                                      18,881,911
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,584,352
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,501,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,412,399
<BONDS>                                      2,919,763
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,622
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,081,754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,501,775
<SALES>                                     34,539,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,539,837
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,660,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,961,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,789,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,171,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      633,813
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,537,444
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
GOOD HOPE HEALTH SYSTEM, L.L.C., Petitioner, and The Town of Lillington, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION, Respondent, and Betsy Johnson Regional Hospital, Inc., and Amisub of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Central Carolina Hospital, Respondent-Intervenors.

No. 57A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Maureen D. Murray, Susan M. Fradenburg, Greensboro, William W. Stewart, Jr., Raleigh, for Good Hope Hospital.

C. Winston Gilchrist, Lillington, for Town of Lillington.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Marcus Lodge, for NCDHHS.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Wallace C. Hollowell, III, Benjamin N. Thompson, K. Edward Greene, Kathleen A. Naggs, Raleigh, Denise M. Gunter, Winston-Salem, for Betsy Johnson Regional Hosp.

S. Todd Hemphill, Diana E. Ricketts, Raleigh, for Amisub of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of February 2006 by Petitioners in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Petitioners on the 7th day of February 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Petitioners shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners on the 7th day of February 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners on the 7th day of February 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
Order entered November 16, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00695-CR

DARIOUS DANTREL LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F20-75804-H

ORDER

Before the Court is the November 15, 2022 request of court reporter Cheryl 

A. Dixon for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the 

request and ORDER the reporter’s record filed by November 29, 2022.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5588 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from offering for oil and gas 

leasing or any related activity any tract in the Lease Sale 193 Area 

of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region until the Secretary determines whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species or an 

endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. LARSON of 

Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from offering for 

oil and gas leasing or any related activity any tract 

in the Lease Sale 193 Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region until the Secretary determines 

whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species 

or an endangered species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5588 IH

1 SECTION 1. SCHEDULE FOR OIL AND GAS LEASING ACTIVI2 TIES FOR TRACTS WITHIN THE LEASE SALE 

3 193 AREA. 

4 (a) SCHEDULE.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

5 not offer for oil and gas leasing or any related activity 

6 (including approving any seismic activity, offering any new 

7 lease, or approving any exploration or development plan) 

8 any tract located in the Lease Sale 193 Area of the Alaska 

9 Outer Continental Shelf Region before the earlier of— 

10 (1) the effective date of— 

11 (A) the listing of the polar bear as a 

12 threatened species or an endangered species 

13 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

14 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and 

15 (B) the final decision regarding the deter16 mination of critical habitat for such species 

17 under that Act; or 

18 (2) the date the Secretary publishes a deter19 mination that such listing is not warranted. 

20 (b) LEASE SALE 193 AREA DEFINED.—In this sec21 tion the term ‘‘Lease Sale 193 Area’’ means the area of22 fered for lease in the Final Notice of Sale (FNOS), OCS 

23 Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, Chukchi Sea published in 

24 the Federal Register by the Minerals Management Service 

25 on January 2, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 209). 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS