alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH TURNER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 55657

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 07521

- PA

- RAO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019 **

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Keith Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law claims

arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 55657

Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc ., 656 F. 3d 1034,

1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Turner’s FDCPA claim under 15

U.S.C. § 1692f(6) because Turner failed to allege facts sufficient to show that

defendants sought to foreclose without having the present right to possession of the

property through an enforceable security interest. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)

( prohibiting the taking of any nonjudicial foreclosure action without a present right

to possession of the property claimed as collateral); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, ac cepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Turner’s motion to

alter or amend judgment because Turner failed to estab lish any basis for such

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255,

1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett

v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5375 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5375

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Trimethyl cyclo hexanol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Trimethyl cyclo hexanol.

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

SECTION 1. TRIMETHYL CYCLO HEXANOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.03 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Trimethyl cyclo hexanol) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

HELENA, MONTANA 59620-3003 Supreme Court No. DA 23-0281 SADDLEBROOK INVESTMENTS, LLC, asAssignee ofSTUART M. SIMONSEN, 

# F1LS-,_ JUN 2 3 2n23 Bowen G en,,00d Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana Plaintiffand Appellee, v. GRANT OF EXTENSION KROHNE FUND. L.P., SEAN WRIGHT, and ANTHONY BIRBILIS,

Defendants and Appellant. Pursuant to authority granted under M. R. App.P. 26(1), Appellant is given an extension oftime until July 26, 2023, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's brief. DATED thisJune 23, 2023

Clerk ofthe Supreme Court

c: Anthony Birbilis, T. Thomas Singer, Steven Leon Stockdale, Matthew B. Gallinger

PO BOX 203003• HELENA MT • 59620-3003 • TELEPHONE: (406) 444-3858 • FAX: (406)444-5705 06/23/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0281
### NUMBER 13

- 1 3

- 00 3 58

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellant ,

v.

BONNIE DOWNS , A ppellee

.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County, Texas

.



## O RDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Order Per Curiam

Appellant, The State of Texas

, has filed an appeal

. Upon suggestion of death of

appell ee’ s retained attorney, Randy Mack , we now ABATE this appeal to provide

appell ee with the opportunity to seek new counsel. This appeal is ordered ABATED until

October 28 , 201 3

.2 Appell ee is directed to notify the Court, on or before October 28 , 201 3 , if he has

retained new counsel by filing a notice including that attorney ’ s name, mailing address,

telephone number, facsimile number, and State Bar of Texas identification number. See

generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 6.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do n ot p ublish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2 (b)

.
D elivered and filed the 1 st day of October, 2013

.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5756 

To reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2008 

Mr. KIND (for himself and Mr. GILCHREST) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 

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. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRA4 TORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT. 

5 Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Con6 servation Act (16 U.S.C. 6109) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘for each of 

8 fiscal years 2006 through 2010 the amount specified 

9 for that fiscal year in subsection (b)’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘the amounts specified in subsection (b)’’; and 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5756 IH

1 (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol2 lows: 

3 ‘‘(b) AUTHORIZED AMOUNT.—The amounts referred 

4 to in subsection (a) are the following: 

5 ‘‘(1) $8,000,000 for each of fiscal year 2010. 

6 ‘‘(2) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

7 ‘‘(3) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. 

8 ‘‘(4) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. 

9 ‘‘(5) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

10 ‘‘(6) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
DUKE ENERGY CORP. v. MALCOLM, et al.

No. 379A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 16, 2006.

James H. Kelly, Jr., Winston-Salem, for Callabridge/Granite.

James E. Scarbrough, Concord, for Malcolm.

John W. Francisco, Charlotte, for Duke Energy Corporation.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of October 2006 by Defendant (Callabridge/Granite) for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of October 2006."
## In the
Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00265

- CV

C HESTER W ILDER AND C AROLYN

W ILDER

, Appellants

V

.

J OHNSTON C USTOM H OMES

, I NC

. AND J EROLD B. J OHNSTON

, Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at

Law No. 3

of Tarrant County (2017

- 005058

- 3)

August 15, 2019

Per Curiam

JUDGME N T

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED**
 **PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
  Certification
        of CEO
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of KH Funding Company (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Harris,
        Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C.
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
  (1)  The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)  The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Dated:
                  May 15, 2006
              /s/
                  Robert L. HarrisRobert
                  L. HarrisPresident
                  and Chief Executive Officer
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
        the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
  This
        certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section
        906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
        by
        such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
        certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
        filing
        under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except
        to the
        extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
        reference.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RICHARD F. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 13-504 (JEB)

JANET NAPOLITANO, Sec’y, Dept. of 

Homeland Security,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff Richard Turner filed a pro se Complaint on April 15, 2013, seeking to renounce 

his citizenship. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint). Defendant moved to dismiss the case on August 

13. See ECF No. 10. Two days later, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to 

the Motion by September 20 or risk the Court’s deeming the matter conceded. See ECF No. 11. 

As Plaintiff has never responded, the Court will treat the Motion as conceded and dismiss the 

case without prejudice. See LCvR 7(b). A contemporaneous Order will so state.

 

 /s/ James E. Boasberg 

 JAMES E. BOASBERG

 United States District Judge

Date: October 1, 2013
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




2005 Director Compensation




	 	 	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer:
	 	$	20,000	 
	In-Person Board of Director Meetings:
	 	$	2,000	 
	Additional In-Person Board of Director Meetings held on the day
following an In-Person Board Meeting:
	 	$	1,000	 
	Telephonic Board of Director Meetings:
	 	$	1,000	 
	Audit Committee Meeting — Chair:
	 	$	3,000	 
	Audit Committee Meeting — Member:
	 	$	1,000	 
	Compensation Committee Meeting — Chair:
	 	$	1,000	 
	Compensation Committee Meeting — Member:
	 	$	500	 
	Investigative Committee Meetings:
	 	$	1,000
118 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

Conti Federal Services, LLC $124.7 M

Morgan Engineering Systems, Inc. $13.4 M

Broncho Co. $8.1 M

M1 Support Services $6.0 M

Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. $5.8 M

Native American Services Corp. $5.3 M

Kennon Products $5.0 M

HME, Inc. $4.8 M

Cora Jane Contractors, LLC $4.5 M

High West Energy, Inc. $3.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

WYOMING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$348.9 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

7,171

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Laramie 3,056 970 1,769 121 5,916

Platte 58 72 193 0 323

Natrona ND ND 76 57 ND

Albany 14 ND 99 0 ND

Uinta 0 ND 87 0 ND

Fremont 0 ND 79 0 ND

Campbell ND 0 75 0 ND

Sheridan 0 ND 58 14 ND

Goshen 0 0 72 0 72

Converse 0 0 56 0 56

Research and Construction: 73%

Development: 2%

Service: 20%

Active Duty: 44%

Civilian: 15%

National 

Guard: 38%

Reserve: 3%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

72%

0%

24%

3%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

26%

1%

72%

1%

$0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1

$0.2

$0.1 $0.1

$0.2

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#49 #34 0.1% $1,059 #46 #50 #49 #49

$0.6 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.3% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

7,171 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.3 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$33.4 M GRANT 

SPENDING

Supplies and Equipment: 4%
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

FISCAL YEAR 2018 WYOMING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Laramie

Sheridan

Teton

Sublette

Park

Platte

Natrona

Albany

Fremont

Big Horn

(M = millions)

$218.1 M

$5.0 M

$3.7 M

$2.0 M

$1.4 M

$1.1 M

$767.7 K

$615.3 K

$511.8 K

$68.7 K

Laramie

Platte

Albany

Natrona

Sheridan

Uinta

Fremont

Campbell

Goshen

Park

$315.3 M

$12.4 M

$4.7 M

$3.8 M

$1.9 M

$1.6 M

$1.5 M

$1.4 M

$1.1 M

$1.0 M

119

Park

Teton

Fremont

Sublette

Sheridan

Natrona

Platte

Albany

Laramie

Big Horn

Uinta

Campbell

Sheridan

Fremont Natrona

Goshen

Platte

Albany

Laramie

Park
# L_2013091EN.01001601.xml

| 3.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 91/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 91/16

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 77 of 20 March 2013
  )

On page 21, Article 3(1), the second subparagraph is replaced as follows:

‘They shall apply those provisions from 19 June 2014 as regards aerosol dispensers containing a substance.’

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Alonzo HENDERSON.

No. 344P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Alonzo Henderson, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 28th day of June 2006 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Iredell County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 16th day of November 2006."
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Allin Corporation wholly owns the following subsidiaries:



|                                       |  |                        |  |                                                         
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                     |  | State of Incorporation |  | Additional Names under which SubsidiaryConducts
Business
|Allin Consulting of Pennsylvania, Inc. |  | Pennsylvania           |  | Allin Consulting                                        
|Allin Corporation of California        |  | California             |  | Allin Consulting                                        
|Allin Interactive Corporation          |  | Delaware               |  | Allin Interactive                                       
|Allin Network Products, Inc.           |  | California             |  |                                                         
|Allin Holdings Corporation             |  | Delaware               |  |                                                         
|CodeLab Technology Group, Inc.         |  | Delaware               |  | CodeLab                                                 

Except as noted above, each subsidiary does business exclusively under its corporate name, with or
without the corporate indicator.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 11, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01227-CV COMMERCIAL RECOVERY SY STEMS, INC., Appellant V. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. F/K/ A VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC. AND CERNO SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellees On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-07683 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith We reinstate this appeal. In 2014, we abated this case due to Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc’s bankruptcy. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal P ublic Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which shows the bankruptcy case associated with this appeal was terminated on October 24, 2018, effec tively dissolving the automatic stay. We notified the parties by le tter, requesting they inform the Court of the status of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would–2– result in the appeal being dismisse d for want of prosecution. See id . 42.3(b),(c). To date, neither party has responded. Because we gave the parties an oppor tunity to show why we should not dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this appeal. See id . 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co ., 2002 WL 31312990, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no wr it) (per curiam) (not designated for publication).

131227F.P05 /Crai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

COMMERCIAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant
No. 05-13-01227-CV V. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. F/K/A VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC. AND CERNO SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellees On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-07683. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered June 11, 2021
STATE of North Carolina and Rick Jackson, Superintendent of Lanesboro Correctional Institution v. Billy Todd WATKINS.

No. 166P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 31, 2006.

Billy Watkins, Pro Se.

Rick Jackson, Superintendent, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 30th day of March 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, pursuant to NCGS Sections 17-1, 17-2, 17-3, 17-5, 17-6, 17-9 and 17-10, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Guilford County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st day of March 2006."
# L_2012212EN.01002001.xml

| 9.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 212/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 212/20

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 196 of 24 July 2012
  )

On page 11, Annex, ‘Entities’, entry 2, fourth column, ‘Date of listing’:

the date ‘
  24.7.2012
  ’ shall be added.

---
DOT v. FOWLER.

No. 305PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2005.

E. Burke Haywood, W. Richard Moore, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for DOT.

James H. Hughes, for M.M. Fowler, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of November 2005 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Department of Transportation) shall have up to and including the 14th day of November 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 7th day of November 2005."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5751 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to jointly conduct a study of certain land adjacent to the Walnut Canyon 

National Monument in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Mr. PASTOR (for himself and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land 

adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in 

the State of Arizona, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Walnut Canyon Study 

5 Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5751 IH

1 (1) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map ti2 tled ‘‘Walnut Canyon Proposed Study Area’’ and 

3 dated July 17, 2007. 

4 (2) SECRETARIES.—The term ‘‘Secretaries’’ 

5 means the Secretary of the Interior and the Sec6 retary of Agriculture, acting jointly. 

7 (3) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

8 means the area identified on the map as the ‘‘Wal9 nut Canyon Proposed Study Area’’. 

10 SEC. 3. STUDY. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretaries shall conduct a 

12 study of the study area to assess— 

13 (1) the suitability and feasibility of designating 

14 all or part of the study area as an addition to Wal15 nut Canyon National Monument, in accordance with 

16 section 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a– 

17 5(c)); 

18 (2) continued management of the study area by 

19 the Forest Service; or 

20 (3) any other designation or management op21 tion that would provide for— 

22 (A) protection of resources within the 

23 study area; and 

24 (B) continued access to, and use of, the 

25 study area by the public. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5751 IH

1 (b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretaries shall provide 

2 for public comment in the preparation of the study, includ3 ing consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local 

4 governmental entities. 

5 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the 

6 date on which funds are made available to carry out this 

7 Act, the Secretaries shall submit to the Committee on 

8 Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and 

9 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

10 Senate a report that describes— 

11 (1) the results of the study; and 

12 (2) any recommendations of the Secretaries. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS