alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELITON CARRILLO ROSALES,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No s
. 17

- 72985 19

- 71422 Agency No. A200

- 244

- 536

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 18, 2019 **
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Meliton Carrillo Rosales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for an abuse of discretio n the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Agonafer

v. Sessions , 859 F.3d 1198, 120 3 (9th Cir. 2017)

. We deny the petitions for

* 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

SEP 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 72985

review. As to petition No. 17

- 72985, t he BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Carrillo Rosales’s second untimely motion to reopen because he failed to establish changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for an exception to the time and

number limitations for motions to reopen. S ee 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990

- 91 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening)

. Carrillo

- Rosales’s request to terminate proceedings , as set forth in his opening brief

, is denied. 1 As to petition No. 19

- 71422, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Carillo Rosales’s motion to reopen and terminate proceedings. See Karingithi v.

Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160

- 62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not

include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court)

.
T he government’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 11 in

No. 19

- 71422 ) is granted because the questions raised by th e petition for review in

No. 19

- 71422 are so insubstant ial as not to require further argument. See United

1 Carillo

- Rosales’s contention that the Notice to Appear did not contain the place of his removal hearing is unsupported by the record.3 17

- 72985

States v. Hooton , 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard)

. Carrillo Rosales’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 5 in No.

19

- 7 1422 ) is denied as moot. The temporary stay of remov al will terminate upon

issuance of the mandate.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
214 La. 711

#### STATE ex rel. LUCAS v. HICKEY.

No. 39223.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 10, 1949.

Benjamin Y. Wolf, of New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Delvaille H. Theard, of New Orleans, for relator-appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant, William P. Hickey, as Recorder of Mortgages for the Parish of Orleans, has appealed from a judgment ordering him to erase from the records of his office the inscription of a certain mortgage for the sum of $5,000. The appellee, Ernest A. Lucas, has moved to'have tSie appeal dismissed on the ground that the recorder of mortgages cannot be aggrieved by the judgment and hence has no appedlable interest in the matter.

The identical issue was presented in the case of Tharp v. Edmiston, 175 La. 1075, 145 So. 12, and" in Succession of Burg, 194 La. 985, 195 So. 513. In both instances the motion' to dismiss the appeal was denied. In Succession of Burg, supra, it'was held that the recorder of mortgages was entitled to an appeal as a matter of right.

The case of Carrere v. Reddix et al., 211 La. 566, 30 So.2d 432, had been submitted on its merits after a motion to dismiss the appeal had been denied. See 210 La. 776, 28 So.2d 267. The court concluded, when the case was considered on its merits, that the appeal should have been dismissed because the recorder of mortgages had pot been ordered to perform or to refrain fróm performing any act. The Tharp and Burg cases were properly distinguished on that ground. ‘ ‘

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few

v. Civil No. 06cv427-JL 

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company et al.

 O R D E R

Plaintiff’s motion to strike (document #83) is DENIED. With

respect to defendants' previous motion to strike (document #75):

(a) their motion to dismiss plaintiff's case is DENIED; (b) their

motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of facts is GRANTED.

The plaintiff may file a statement of facts that does not

include any (or simply redacts all) of the statements specified

on pp. 2-4 in the defendants' motion to strike (document #75),

and that includes no additional facts, on or before May 16, 2008. 

If the plaintiff does not file such a complaint, the court will

strike the specified statements and enter the modified statement,

with no other additions or deletions, on the plaintiff's behalf,

and will rely on the court-entered statement in its consideration

of the parties' motions for judgment.

The court advises the plaintiff that its continued

allegations of misconduct by defendants' counsel are not wellreceived by the court.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 88 Filed 05/08/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 8, 2008

cc: Sharon Few, pro se

Guy P. Tully, Esq.

Jeffrey Scott Brody, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 88 Filed 05/08/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSCRYPT
INT'L INC'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,950
<PP&E>                                           7,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,567
<BONDS>                                          2,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,590
<SALES>                                          6,427
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,427
<CGS>                                            3,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (236)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,111)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (464)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
<FN>
<F1>INTEREST EXPENSE IS NET OF $318 OF INTEREST INCOME LESS $82 OF INTEREST
EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2107

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preempt State laws requiring

a certificate of approval or other form of approval prior to the construction or operation of certain airport development projects, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 2001

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preempt State

laws requiring a certificate of approval or other form

of approval prior to the construction or operation of

certain airport development projects, 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 ‘‘End Gridlock at Our

5 Nation’s Critical Airports Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 2107 IH

1 SEC. 2. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REQUIRING AP2 PROVAL OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

3 PROJECTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 401 of title 49, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing:

7 ‘‘§ 40129. Preemption of State laws requiring ap8 proval of airport development projects

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No State, political subdivision of

10 a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may

11 enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision hav12 ing the force and effect of law that—

13 ‘‘(1) requires a certificate of approval or other

14 form of approval prior to the construction or oper15 ation of an airport development project at a covered

16 airport if the project meets the standards established

17 by the Secretary of Transportation under section

18 47105(b)(3), whether or not the project is the sub19 ject of a grant approved under chapter 471; or

20 ‘‘(2) prohibits, conditions, or otherwise regu21 lates the direct application for, or receipt or expendi22 ture of, a grant or other funds by the sponsor of a

23 covered airport under chapter 471 for an airport de24 velopment project at a covered airport if the project

25 meets the standards referred to in paragraph (1).
3

•HR 2107 IH

1 ‘‘(b) COVERED AIRPORT DEFINED.—In this section,

2 the term ‘covered airport’ means an airport that each year

3 has at least .25 percent of the total annual boardings in

4 the United States.’’.

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for

6 such chapter is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new item:

‘‘40129. Preemption of State laws requiring approval of airport development

projects.’’.

Æ
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2005...... 77.1 62.7 71.4 73.0 83.9 90.6 67.6 62.9 65.4 83.2 2006...... 75.3 56.9 68.0 70.4 84.1 91.8 68.7 66.1 65.5 79.8 2007...... 69.6 62.0 62.0 63.5 68.8 88.1 64.3 63.3 66.1 72.0 2008...... 75.9 69.0 71.2 72.1 59.2 90.2 66.2 63.3 68.7 79.7 2005: Q3... 75.3 70.0 70.5 63.3 89.1 88.4 68.5 66.5 61.5 81.4  Q4... 75.4 59.7 65.2 81.5 72.6 87.9 70.3 60.5 66.7 81.1 2006: Q1... 70.5 59.1 71.1 65.7 76.4 90.9 63.9 64.5 62.7 74.0  Q2... 75.9 68.7 69.8 66.0 85.6 90.8 68.8 64.4 70.3 79.4  Q3... 78.3 43.0 64.3 81.2 78.5 96.6 76.9 72.9 62.9 83.5  Q4... 76.6 62.7 67.4 74.9 91.4 87.1 65.4 62.3 65.3 82.9 2007: Q1... 64.6 71.8 68.1 55.8 50.0 87.4 62.6 64.9 70.9 62.9  Q2... 71.4 55.6 75.2 65.5 70.8 90.0 63.9 65.3 71.3 73.3  Q3... 74.8 41.5 75.5 71.7 70.2 89.8 66.2 64.0 61.1 82.8  Q4... 69.1 65.5 43.5 64.6 77.1 86.1 64.6 59.1 61.3 73.1 2008: Q1... 68.7 71.7 48.9 62.6 47.5 91.4 56.9 53.5 64.3 71.5  Q2... 74.7 70.5 56.6 72.5 69.0 86.7 65.2 68.7 71.2 76.9  Q3... 82.1 57.8 81.5 82.6 54.6 91.3 70.2 63.9 70.8 87.7  Q4... 79.4 70.4 86.3 73.8 58.9 91.2 71.7 66.9 68.4 84.5 2009: Q1... 61.1 63.8 83.6 52.8 45.6 89.4 71.9 69.4 64.7 59.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7316-7317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2255]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Temporary Road Closure of BLM-Administered Road; Rio Blanco 
County, CO

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Temporary Road Closure of BLM-Administered Road; Rio Blanco 
County, Colorado.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a certain access road in Rio 
Blanco County, Colorado, is closed to all entry or use by all members 
of the public. The closure is made under the authority of 43 CFR 
8364.1. The public road affected by this closure is specifically 
identified as follows:

Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado

T. 95 W., R. 3 S.
Section 18 NW \1/4\,

    BLM Road 1005, Piceance Creek Crossing at Sprague Gulch.

    The following persons, operating within the scope of their official 
duties, are exempt from the provisions of this closure order: Dan and 
Cheryl Johnson/ Piceance Creek Ranch, Bureau of Land

[[Page 7317]]

Management employees, state, local, and Federal law enforcement and 
fire protection personnel. Access by additional parties may be allowed, 
but must be approved in advance in writing by the Authorized Officer.
    Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this closure 
order may be subject to the penalties provided in 43 CFR 8360.0-7, 
which include a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to 
exceed 12 months, as well as the penalties provided under Colorado 
State law.
    The road closed to public use under this order will be posted with 
signs at points of public access.
    The purpose of this closure is to protect persons and public 
resources from a low water stream crossing made unsafe by unstable 
streambed and banks, and an excessive buildup of ice.

DATES: This closure is effective as of 12 noon, January 22, 2008 and 
will remain in effect until June 1, unless otherwise directed by the 
authorizing officer.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the closure order and maps showing the location of 
the road are available from the White River Field Office, 220 E. Market 
Street, Meeker, Colorado 81641.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Walter, Field Manager, White 
River Field Office, at (970) 878-3800.

    Dated: January 28, 2008.
Kent Walter,
Field Manager, White River Field Office.
 [FR Doc. E8-2255 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JP-P
Exhibit 10.5


 


EXHIBIT A


INCENTIVE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE


CFO BONUS COMPENSATION


	
  PART I — BONUS

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2004/05

  	
   

  	
  For 2004 and 2005 (and any
  Renewal Term), Executive shall be entitled to a bonus equal to .20% of EBITDA
  if Company’s ROA is in the top 1/2 of public homebuilders having revenues of
  $500 million or more per year, and an additional .20% of EBITDA if the
  Company’s ROA is in the top one-half of these public builders.  If either measurement falls within the 33%
  to 49% percentile, the bonus shall be .13% of EBITDA for the applicable
  measurement.  If either measurement
  falls below the 33% threshold, then there will not be any formula bonus paid
  with respect to such measurement.
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2006...... 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.0 2007...... 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.5 8.5 7.6 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.0 2008...... 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.9 6.3 4.8 6.8 6.6 6.1 5.3 2009...... 4.8 5.0 4.2 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.8 5.6 5.4 4.5 2006: Q4... 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 7.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.1 2007: Q1... 8.5 8.9 8.3 8.7 8.9 8.1 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.4  Q2... 8.6 9.0 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.4  Q3... 8.5 8.9 8.6 8.8 8.4 7.7 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.1  Q4... 7.7 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 6.9 8.6 8.5 8.3 7.4 2008: Q1... 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 5.8 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q2... 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.1 5.9 4.9 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.4  Q3... 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.5 6.3 4.7 6.6 6.6 6.1 4.9  Q4... 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.1 6.5 4.0 6.1 6.1 5.6 4.3 2009: Q1... 5.1 5.8 4.1 5.5 5.4 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.0  Q2... 4.7 5.3 4.4 5.0 6.0 3.6 5.9 5.6 5.3 4.3  Q3... 4.7 5.0 3.9 5.0 5.8 3.8 5.8 5.7 5.4 4.1  Q4... 4.5 4.4 4.7 5.0 4.4 3.4 5.9 5.7 5.5 4.0 2010: Q1... 5.0 4.9 5.3 5.4 5.6 3.7 5.9 5.9 5.4 4.8  Q2... 5.2 5.3 5.1 5.5 6.1 4.4 6.1 6.0 5.6 4.9  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1541 KA 07-01840**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, GREEN, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DONYELL J. MCKENZIE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONYELL J. MCKENZIE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. WALDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered August 22, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly refused to charge the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Such a charge is not appropriate where, as here, the defendant’s conduct before, during and after the offense is “inconsistent with the loss of self-control associated with the defense” ( People v Roche , 98 NY2d 70, 77; see People v Smith , 1 NY3d 610, 612). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that there was not the requisite “sufficient credible evidence . . . presented for the jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the elements of the affirmative defense [had] been established” ( People v White , 79 NY2d 900, 902-903), particularly in view of the conflicting reasons given by defendant for his actions.
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
All concur except P INE , J., who is not participating. Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1873 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1873

  To reauthorize the funding for the Native American Housing and Self-
                       Determination Act of 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2001

  Mr. Hayworth (for himself and Mr. Kildee) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize the funding for the Native American Housing and Self-
                       Determination Act of 1996.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Housing and Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF BLOCK GRANT ASSISTANCE.

    Section 108 of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination 
Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4117) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this 
title such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002, 
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.''.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF GUARANTEES FOR TRIBAL HOUSING ACTIVITIES 
              LOANS.

    (a) Aggregate Fiscal Year Limitation.--Section 605(a) of the Native 
American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4195(a)) 
is amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001'' and 
inserting ``2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations for Credit Subsidy.--Section 
605(b) of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 
1996 (25 U.S.C. 4195(b)) is amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 
2000, and 2001'' and inserting ``2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.''.

SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

    Section 703 of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination 
Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4212) is amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 
2000, and 2001'' and inserting ``2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.''.
                                 <all>
```