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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-174-01-SM

Kelly Guay

O R D E R

Defendant Guay’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2006

trial period. Defendant Guay shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than September 12, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: December 19, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: January 4, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00174-SM Document 12 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 28, 2005

cc: Michael Sheehan, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00174-SM Document 12 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-106-01-PB

Craig Marcotte

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 3, 2006

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

complete discovery and engage in plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from October 3, 2006 to December 5, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00106-PB Document 13 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 26, 2006 final pretrial conference is

continued until November 20, 2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 21, 2006

cc: Tony Soltani, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00106-PB Document 13 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-4 Filed 03/22/04 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-4 Filed 03/22/04 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-4 Filed 03/22/04 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-4 Filed 03/22/04 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-4 Filed 03/22/04 Page 5 of 5
SCPW-14-000859

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL G.M. OSTENDORP, Petitioner,

vs.

THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, ACTING CHIEF DISCIPLINARY

COUNSEL CHARLENE M. NORRIS, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the May 30, 2014 petition for a

writ of prohibition submitted by Petitioner attorney Michael G.M.

Ostendorp, this court notes the passage of time between the

initial complaints and the present but, upon a review of the

record, anticipates their timely resolution, and concludes nothing

in the petition or the attached exhibits supports the conclusion

that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has violated a duty owed

this court, or abused the discretion delegated to it by this court

to investigate the allegations of misconduct lodged against the

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-14-0000859

13-JUN-2014

01:39 PM
2

Petitioner. See Breiner v. Sunderland, 112 Haw. 60, 64-65, 143

P.3d 1262, 1266-67 (2006); In re Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai#i

Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368-71, 984 P.2d 688, 693-96

(1999); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai#i Supreme Court,

91 Hawai#i 51, 57, 979 P.2d 1077, 1083 (1999). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

prohibition is denied, without prejudice to the Petitioner, in his

discretion, filing a protective order with the appropriate party,

pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Rules of the Disciplinary Board with

regards to his medical records.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 13, 2014. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR EFRAIN OSORIO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 151

Agency No.

A200

- 064

- 017

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 4, 2023 **

Pasadena

, California

Before: WARDLAW and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO, District Judge

. ***

Oscar Efrain Osorio Rodriguez (“Osorio”), a native and citizen of El

* 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).

*** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo

, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of California , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 8 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 151

Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ’ ( “ BIA ” )

decision denying his motion to reopen. We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Osorio’s motion to

reopen based upon failure to establish materially changed country conditions

. See

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The evidence that Osorio submitted in support of his

motion to reopen

—

his 2019 declaration and the 2018 Human Rights Report for El

Salvador

— do es not show an appreciably different level of gang violence in El

Salvador when compared to the evidence Osorio submitted at his 2016 hearing.

Moreover, the new evidence describes only “generalized conditions” of crime and

violence and is thus immaterial to the success of Osorio’s petitions. Najmabadi v.

Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Osorio cannot establish that

“ circumstances have changed sufficiently that ” he, who “ previously did not have a

legitimate claim” now does. Malty v. Ashcr o ft , 381 F.3d 942, 945 ( 9th Cir. 2004)

.

2. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to exercise its

sua sponte authority to reopen Osorio’s proceedings. See Lona v. Barr , 958 F.3d

1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020) (“BIA denials of sua sponte relief premised on legal or

constitutional error remain the ‘one narrow exception’ to our rule that the agency’s

sua sponte authority is not subject to judicial review.” (quoting Menendez

Gonzalez v. Barr , 929 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2019) ) ). Here, t he BIA’s decision3 22

- 151

rested on Osorio’s failure to establish “exceptional circumstances,” a benchmark

which “does not provide a sufficiently meaningful standard to permit judicial

review.” Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 586 (9th Cir. 2016) (as amended)

.

Osorio has not identified any “ legal or constitutional error ” in the BIA’s denial of

sua sponte reopening ; as such, “there is nothing left for us to review.” Lona , 958

F.3d at 1235

.

DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M ANUEL ALEJANDRO PATINO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50616

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-02715-JAH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . M anue l Ale

ja ndro Pat ino a

ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 95-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for posse s sion of m e t

ham phe tam ine with inte nt to distribute , in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED

AUG 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pa tino c l a im s tha t the c ourt e rre d by

de ny i ng his re que st for a m inor rule re duc t ion pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 be c a use (1) Pa tino pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to justify

the re duc tion, a

nd (2) the c o urt im

prope rly re lie d upon he arsay sta te m e nts re ga

rding his sta

tus a s a re c ruite r to de ny

the re d uc tion. W e re vie w for c le ar e rror the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l de t e rm i nation tha t a de fe nda n t is not a m inor pa rtic i pa nt. Se e Unite d

State s v . Rodrigue

z-C astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011). In light of the

re c ord, inc luding Pa

tino’ s tra nsporta tion of a substa ntia l am ount of c urre n c y

and m e tha

m phe t am i ne , the c ourt did not c l e arly e rr by de ny ing the a djustm e nt. Se e i d . at 1193. Furthe r, be c a use Patino ha s not shown tha t the c ha lle nge d sta

t e m e nts re ga

rding his sta

tus a s a re c ruite r we re fa lse or unre lia ble , the d istric t c o urt did not err by c onside ring the m . Se e Unite d State s v . Vande rw e rfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th C i r. 2009). Pa tino ne x t c onte nds tha

t his se nte nc e is substa

n t ive ly unre a sona

ble . The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in im

posing Pa t ino’ s se n te nc e . Se e Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The be low-Guide line s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s a nd 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors, inc luding the nature of Patino’ s offe nse . Se e id . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 0 6 1 6 2
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 of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher A. Kuebler, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
October 26, 2004

/s/CHRISTOPHER A. KUEBLERChristopher A. Kuebler
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Northwest Bypass Group, et al

v. Civil No. 06-cv-258-SM

US Army Corps of Engineers, et al

O R D E R

As all parties have not filed waivers with the Clerk of Court by the prescribed time, the 

undersigned is hereby recused from presiding over this matter. The Clerk shall reassign this case

in accordance with the usual practices. 

SO ORDERED.

September 1, 2006

 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr., Esq.

Daniel R. Dertke, Esq.

Samantha Klein, Esq.

John P. Almeida, Esq.

E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.

Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.

Gregory H. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00258-JAW Document 29 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1236

To amend the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 to provide for

the permanent designation of the San Antonio International Airport

as an airport at which certain private aircraft arriving in the United

States may land for processing.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000

to provide for the permanent designation of the San

Antonio International Airport as an airport at which

certain private aircraft arriving in the United States

may land for processing.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1236 IH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SAN ANTONIO INTER2 NATIONAL AIRPORT FOR CUSTOMS PROC3 ESSING OF CERTAIN PRIVATE AIRCRAFT AR4 RIVING IN THE UNITED STATES.

5 Section 1453(a) of the Tariff Suspension and Trade

6 Act of 2000 is amended by striking ‘‘For the 2-year period

7 beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the’’

8 and inserting ‘‘The’’.

Æ
January 4, 1952
Hon. J. A. PhIllips, Chairman Texas State Board of Public Accou&ancy TheSteck Building Austin, Texas Opinion Ho. 

### V-1384

C

C Re: Legality of a licensed public accountant using Dear Sir: the designation “P.A.’

YOUPrequest for OUPopinion reads In part as followsi \

*TheTexas State Board of Public Accountancy desires an opinion from your office in respect of whether or not a public accountaM (one other than a Certified Public Accountant, but holding a permit to practice public accountancy) mayuse the designation, or rather the initials ‘P.A.’

.

“Our‘Board is having difficulty in satisfactorily lnterpieting the appropriate provisions of the Act. Section 16deals with the desigimtion lCertifled Public Accountant’ and provides that such ,aperson nay use the abbreviation ‘C.P.A.’ Section 

### 18deals with the use of the designation

‘Public Aocountant’ but contains no provision for using the abbreviation ‘P.A. ’ (Similar to the use o;,~;;~;A;~ prr;id;fth for in Section 

### 16). prohibited abbreviations and the first sentence prohibiting abbreviations closes with the following words%

“Ior other such abbreviations by a public accountant or by any other person is prohibited. Ia Section 16 of Article 41a, V.C.S., dealiaq with the initials authorized to be used by a certl-’ fied public accountant, provides:Hon. J. A. Phillips, page 2~:

### (Vi13841

*Anyperson whohas received from the Board a~Csrtificate of Certified Pub- ’ lit Accountant andholds a valid permit to practice, shall be styled and known as a ‘Certified Public Accountant* and mayalso use the abbreviation ‘C.P.A. I. Noother person except partnerships registered under this Act, shall assume or use that title or abbrevia~tlon or any other title; sign, card or device tending to imply that the person using the sameis a certified public accountant.* Section 

### 18 of Artlcle~ 41a, V.C.S., relating to public accountants, provides:Hon. J. A. Phill.ips, page 

### 3 (v-1384)

In Board of Insurance Commissioners of Texas v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Texas, 142Tex. 0, MO s w 2

. . d 906, 909 (1944) It is stated: 'Where the language of a statute is unambiguous, and its meaning is clear, the statute must be given effect according to its terms, and, 'we are not at liberty to speculate'upon the intention of the LegIslature in its enactment.'" Webelieve the language of the above quoted provision is plain, clear, and unambiguous. Therefore, it is our opinion that the abbreviation 'P.A." comes within the prohibited designations and maynot be used~by a public accountant. SUMMARY Apublic accountant is not authorized to use the designation "P.A.' after his name, such use,belng prohibited by Section 20, Art. 41a, V.C.S. A certified public akountant mayuse the designation "C.P.A." as specifl-~ tally provided InSection 

### 16of the sameAct. Yours very truly, APPROVED; PRICEDARIEL Attorney General J. C. Davis, Jr. County Affairs Division E. Jacobson Reviewing Assistant BY
Charles D. Mathews First Assistant BA:lllh
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-280-01-PB

Diane Smith

The defendant has moved to continue the May 2, 2006 trial in the above case. 

Defendant cites the need for additional time to negotiate a plea agreement. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time to negotiate a plea

agreement, or properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial from May 2,

2006 to June 6, 2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in

granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00280-PB Document 13 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 18, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued until May 25, 2006 at

4:45 PM.

SO ORDERED.

April 14, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: William Morse, Esq.

Paul Garrity, Esq.

U. S. Probation

U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00280-PB Document 13 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-85-01-PB

Richard Villar

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the February 6, 2007

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

complete discovery and prepare a defense. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 6, 2007 to May 1, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00085-PB Document 45 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 18, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 19 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 18, 2007

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00085-PB Document 45 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6354] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C.”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 18, 2008, until on or about March 15, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (                        *telephone:*                         202-453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                     

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-21014 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 1997


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1497

To revoke the authority to extend permanent normal trade relations to the

People’s Republic of China.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. MURTHA (for himself, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr.

DOYLE, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. CAPUANO, and

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To revoke the authority to extend permanent normal trade

relations to the People’s Republic of China.

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

3 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF AUTHORITY TO EXTEND PER4 MANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO THE

5 PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

6 (a) REVOCATION OF AUTHORITY.—Sections 101 and

7 102 of Public Law 106–286 are repealed.

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Public Law 106–

9 286 is amended—
2

•HR 1497 IH

1 (1) in division A, by striking the division head2 ing and the heading for title I and inserting the fol3 lowing:

4 ‘‘DIVISION A—RELIEF FROM

5 MARKET DISRUPTION

6 ‘‘TITLE I—RELIEF FROM

7 MARKET DISRUPTION’’;

8 and

9 (2) in the table of contents, by striking the

10 items relating to division A and inserting the fol11 lowing:

‘‘DIVISION A—RELIEF FROM MARKET DISRUPTION

‘‘TITLE I—RELIEF FROM MARKET DISRUPTION

‘‘Sec. 101. [Repealed]

‘‘Sec. 102. [Repealed]

‘‘Sec. 103. Relief from market disruption.

‘‘Sec. 104. Amendment to section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974—Compensation

authority.’’.

Æ