alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HOPE A. APLEY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-12748

v. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (#19), DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#13), AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#16)

On July 13, 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review following an adverse

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Whalen. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On April 6, 2011,

Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation on the cross-motions for

summary judgment. In his Report, Magistrate Judge Whalen recommends defendant’s

motion for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be

denied. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the

deadline for doing so has passed. The court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation, and in the absence of timely objection,

The court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Whalen's April 6, 2011 Report and

Recommendation. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

2:09-cv-12748-GCS-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 04/28/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 692
2

Dated: April 28, 2011

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

April 28, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also to

Hope Apley at 911 Wedge Road, Sandusky, MI 48471-9417.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12748-GCS-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 04/28/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 693
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q of
China Jianye Fuel, Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended September 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jianye Wang, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) or 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 operations of the Company.





Date:
March 5, 2010


/s/
      Jianye WangBy:
      Jianye Wang, Principal Executive Officer and
      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002













In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mobile Data Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Cozine, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and






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













/s/ Steven Cozine


Steven Cozine


Chief Executive Officer


December 14, 2010
















CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002













In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mobile Data Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Belkis Jimenez Rivero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and






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




















/s/ Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Chief Financial Officer


December 14, 2010
#### Olivia CRYER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant and Appellant.†

No. 14778.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 28, 1934.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey and F. Carter Johnson, Jr., all of New Orleans, for appellant.

J. I. McCain and Herman L. Midlo, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

†

Rehearing denied Oct. 1, 1934. Writ of certiorari granted Nov. 26, 1934,

JANVIER, Judge.

This case cannot be distinguished in legal principle from the case of Succession of Frank Watson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 150 So. 29, decided by us this day.

For the reasons therein given,

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is amended by reducing the amount thereof to $32.40, with interest at 6 per cent., from judicial demand and for all costs.

Judgment amended.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of CPC of America, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rod A. Shipman,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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; and

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


March 31, 2005            /s/  Rod A. Shipman
                          ---------------------------------------------------
                          Rod A. Shipman,
                          Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTOINE DAMON ASHWORTH,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 09-12801

 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

CARMEN D. PALMER,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner Antoine Damon Ashworth has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging

his Saginaw County convictions for first-degree home invasion, felonious assault, felon in

possession of a firearm, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, and possession of a firearm

during the commission of felony. The habeas petition alleges that: (1) Petitioner was denied his

right to confront the witnesses against him when the trial court refused to permit him to recall a

prosecution witness; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by (a) speculating that Petitioner

stored guns under his trailer and asking him about the guns, (b) identifying a witness as

Petitioner’s parole officer, and (c) asking Petitioner’s girlfriend whether Petitioner was part of

the “Burt Street group;” (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (a) object to prosecutorial

misconduct, (b) conduct competent cross-examination of a key prosecution witness, and (c) call

a witness in support of the defense theory; and (4) Petitioner is entitled to a new trial on newly

discovered evidence that Charles Ashworth confessed to the crime. Respondent argues in an

answer to the petition that Petitioner’s claims lack merit, are procedurally defaulted, or are not

2:09-cv-12801-AJT-DAS Doc # 13 Filed 07/12/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1192
Ashworth v. Palmer, No. 09-12801

2

cognizable on habeas review.

Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner

alleges that he has limited knowledge of the law and is unable to retain counsel. Petitioner

further alleges that the issues are complex and require an investigation, which he cannot perform. 

Additionally, Petitioner asserts that the law library in prison is inadequate and that he has limited

access to it. 

“[T]here is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings,” Post v. Bradshaw, 

422 F.3d 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752-53 (1991)),

and the Court is not persuaded that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel at this

time. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel

[dkt. #12] is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will reconsider Petitioner’s motion, if

necessary, following review of the state court record. It will not be necessary for Petitioner to

renew his motion.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: July 12, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July 12,

2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles 

Judicial Secretary

2:09-cv-12801-AJT-DAS Doc # 13 Filed 07/12/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1193
Motion Denied; Order filed July 16, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00991-CR

____________

BRYAN O. KOSSIE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1356861

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Joseph Salhab. Appellant’s 

brief was originally due March 23, 2015. We have granted a total of more than 90 

days to file appellant’s brief until July 1, 2015. When we granted the last 

extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances. No brief was filed. On July 9, 2015, counsel filed a further request 
for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Counsel did not allege any 

exceptional circumstances in the request. 

We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.

Accordingly, we order Joseph Salhab to file a brief with the clerk of this 

court on or before August 19, 2015. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief 

as ordered, the court will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial 

court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief 

and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other 

appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6785

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC TYLER NEWSOME, a/k/a Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:04-cr-00093-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:06-cv-00165-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Tyler Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Tyler Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from

Judgment or Order and a subsequent order denying his motion for a

certificate of appealability. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-

84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Newsome has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Newsome’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent,

Case No. 09-20239-3

v.

Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

NAZIM AHMED,

Mona K. Majzoub

Petitioner. United States Magistrate Judge

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER 

(1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, 

(2) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VACATE

SENTENCE (Dkt. No. 46), and 

(3) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE (Dkt. No. 52)

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report and Recommendation to

dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate and denying Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite. 

(Dkt. No. 54.)

Having reviewed that Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely objections

from either party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d), the Court ADOPTS the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner’s

Motion to Vacate Sentence, and DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 31, 2013

2:09-cr-20239-PDB-MKM Doc # 56 Filed 05/31/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 199
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the parties and/or attorneys of record by electronic means or

U.S. Mail on May 31, 2013.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager 

2:09-cr-20239-PDB-MKM Doc # 56 Filed 05/31/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 200
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Peninger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 4, 2009



/s/ Michael J. PeningerMichael J. PeningerChief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEBRA BARTH, Individually and

as Conservator for James Barth,

an Incapacitated Person,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARDINGE, INC., Case No. 1:09-cv-13667

 Hon. Thomas L. Ludington

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,

v. 

PRODUCTION TOOL SUPPLY,

an assumed name of PRODUCTION

TOOL SUPPLY COMPANY, LLC,

Third-Party Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

United States Magistrate Judge Charles Binder issued a report and recommendation (ECF

No.131) on September 19, 2011, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Debra Barth’s motion

for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 83). Either party may serve and file written objections

“[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendations. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party objects to the report, the

district court is not obligated to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149–52 (1985). 

1:09-cv-13667-TLL-CEB Doc # 136 Filed 12/13/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3870
-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Judge Binder’s report and recommendation (ECF No.

131) is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 83)

is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 13, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 13, 2011.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-13667-TLL-CEB Doc # 136 Filed 12/13/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3871
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4119 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4119

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 475 Mulberry Street in Macon, Georgia, as the ``William Augustus 
        Bootle Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4119

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 475 Mulberry Street in Macon, Georgia, as the ``William Augustus 
        Bootle Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 475 
Mulberry Street in Macon, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the 
``William Augustus Bootle Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``William Augustus Bootle Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of A.C.
Moore Arts & Crafts, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying
the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth
below, hereby certifies that:


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

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



  /s/ Leslie H. Gordon                                   Date:    March 24, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------         ------------------
Chief Financial Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 493

To amend section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968

to improve the housing counseling program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1994

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to improve the housing counseling

program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 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 ‘‘Housing Counseling

5 Enhancement Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

7 (a) EMERGENCY HOMEOWNERSHIP COUNSELING.—

8 Section 106(c)(9) of the Housing and Urban Development
2

•HR 493 IH

1 Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(9)) is amended by strik2 ing ‘‘September 30, 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30,

3 1997’’.

4 (b) PREPURCHASE AND FORECLOSURE-PREVENTION

5 COUNSELING DEMONSTRATION.—Section 106(d)(13) of

6 the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12

7 U.S.C. 1701x(d)(13)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year

8 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal year 1997’’.

9 SEC. 3. NOTIFICATION OF DELINQUENCY ON VETERANS

10 HOME LOANS.

11 Subparagraph (C) of section 106(c)(5) of the Hous12 ing and Urban Development Act of 1968 is amended to

13 read as follows:

14 ‘‘(C) NOTIFICATION.—Notification under

15 subparagraph (A) shall not be required with re16 spect to any loan for which the eligible home17 owner pays the amount overdue before the expi18 ration of the 45-day period under subparagraph

19 (B)(ii).’’.

20 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

21 Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development

22 Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x) is amended—

23 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3);

24 (2) in subsection (c)—

25 (A) by striking paragraph (8); and
3

•HR 493 IH

1 (B) by redesignating paragraph (9) (as

2 amended by section 2) as paragraph (8);

3 (3) in subsection (d)—

4 (A) by striking paragraph (12); and

5 (B) by redesignating paragraph (13) (as

6 amended by subsection (a)) as paragraph (12);

7 (4) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (7);

8 and

9 (5) by adding at the end the following new sub10 section:

11 ‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

12 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

13 $62,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 and $65,000,000 for fis14 cal year 1997. Of any amounts appropriated for any such

15 year to carry out this section, the Secretary shall use not

16 less than 50 percent to carry out subsection (c) and the

17 Secretary may use 50 percent (or such lesser amount as

18 may be appropriate) for counseling for renters. Any

19 amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall re20 main available until expended.’’.

Æ