alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. COMUS CLEANERS et al.

No. 14167.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 17, 1932.

See, also, 141 So. 393.

McLoughlin & West, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Chas. J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

HIGGINS, J.

The state of Louisiana, by rule, sued the defendant, engaged in the business of cleaning hats and shoes in the city of New Orleans, for license taxes for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, under section 25 of Act No. 205 of 1924, as amended by Act No. 241 of 1928, alleging that there was due the sum of $112.50, or $37.-50 per year, together with interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees based upon the statement that the gross receipts from the operation of the business were more than $5,000 and less than $6,000 in each year.

The defendant did not file a return to the rule or raise any special defense.

There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $50.25 with 2 per cent, interest per month on $18.75 from September 15, 1930, until paid, and interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per month on $37.50 from March 1, 1931, until paid-, together with attorneys’ fees and costs of court. Defendant has appealed.

Plaintiff’s rule is accompanied by an affidavit of the tax collector’s attorney that the defendant’s gross annual receipts from his business of cleaning hats and shoes were between $5,000 and $6,000. Plaintiff relied upon section 3 of Act No. 148 of 1906 and the case of State of Louisiana v. Rufus G. Bush, 7 Orleans App. 91, to the effect that the rule and affidavit of a tax collector makes prima facie proof and transfers the onus probandi to the taxpayer.

Defendant then sought -to establish by mem-oranda and his testimony that the annual gross receipts from the business of cleaning shoes and hats were less than $1,000. He admitted- that-though he had kept books at the-time, he had since thrown them away. He testified chiefly from certain memoranda that he had kept and from his recollection. A perusal of his testimony shows that defendant was., merely guessing as to the amount and that it was anything but certain as to the exact amount of the gross annual receipts.

As we view the case, only a question of fact is presented, viz.: Should the unsupported and uncertain testimony of the defendant be held sufficient to overcome a prima facie case established by the state? The district judge, *733who saw the defendant and heard him testify, declined to so hold. The defendant has failed to show that our learned brother below committed any error and a careful reading of the record convinces us of the correctness of his decision. Martinez v. Fabacher, 118 La. 955, 43 So. 632; Williams v. Railway, 121 La. 438, 46 So. 528; Basile v. Taranto, 124 La. 677, *50*So. 649.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
203 La. 997

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. Frank CASS et al.

No. 36676.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1943.

Francis P. Burns and Leo L. Dubourg, both of New Orleans, for appellants.

Salvador T. Cristina, of New Orleans, Frank H. Langridge, of Gretna, and James E. Courtin, of New Orleans, for appellees.

PONDER, Justice.

For the reasons assigned in the case of City of New Orleans v. Larroux et al., consolidated with three other cases, 14 So. 2d 812, this day handed down; it is ordered that the judgment of the lower court is amended so as to award the defendant $400 per acre for the lands taken. As thus amended, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Cost of this appeal is to be paid by appellees.
#### David Braka, Respondent, v Travel Assistance International et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[807 NYS2d 372]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered April 5, 2005, which denied defendants-appellants’ motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this breach of contract action seeking payment for travel expenses in evacuating plaintiff by air ambulance after injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident in Fiji, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

There was no clear evidence that the father intended his payment of the evacuation costs to be gratuitous since he allegedly was aware of the insurance and had sought assistance in connection with the evacuation *(see De Lanoy, Kipp & Swan v New Amsterdam Cas. Co.,*171 Misc 342, 346 [1939], *affd*264 App Div 713 [1942], *affd*289 NY 823 [1943]). There are issues of fact, including what was being done medically to aid plaintiff at the time, and whether appropriate procedures were followed to trigger the insurance.

Further, while a promise supported by past consideration is normally unenforceable *(see Umscheid v Simnacher,*106 AD2d 380, 381 [1984]), here the promissory agreement signed by plaintiff and his father that plaintiff would repay the costs of the air evacuation, an intention further reiterated in an affidavit, constituted valid consideration *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-1105).

We have considered defendants’ further contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ. *[See*7 Misc 3d 1019(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 50665(U) (2005).]
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2004: Q4... 20 30 50 5 56 40 11 4

2005: Q1... 17 34 48 5 53 42 16 3 Q2... 17 58 25 5 62 33 8 5 Q3... 33 61 6 9 68 23 28 6 Q4... 26 32 42 4 55 41 18 52006: Q1... 37 38 25 6 62 32 22 5 Q2... 40 47 13 9 59 32 27 5 Q3... 52 41 7 20 59 21 47 4 Q4... 35 27 38 17 54 29 34 4

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2004: Q4... 10 40 50 5 60 35 9 5

2005: Q1... 12 48 40 5 59 36 12 5 Q2... 15 59 26 5 64 31 14 6 Q3... 35 52 14 15 54 31 34 5 Q4... 30 49 21 13 58 30 27 52006: Q1... 31 52 16 13 58 29 27 5 Q2... 37 57 6 15 60 25 37 5 Q3... 42 48 10 15 54 31 31 5 Q4... 25 43 32 8 62 29 18 6

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2004: Q4... 17 30 52 13 57 30 13 4

2005: Q1... 27 55 18 14 68 18 23 5 Q2... 13 50 38 8 58 33 8 5 Q3... 24 38 38 19 62 19 29 5 Q4... 24 29 48 14 62 24 24 42006: Q1... 36 45 18 18 68 14 27 5 Q2... 35 48 17 17 65 17 32 5 Q3... 23 55 23 5 86 9 23 5 Q4... 22 44 33 11 72 17 17 6 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1868

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow

certain counties flexibility in spending funds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2001

Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. CROWLEY, Mrs. MALONEY of

New York, Mr. RANGEL, and Mr. SERRANO) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

of 1965 to allow certain counties flexibility in spending funds.

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

3 SECTION 1. SPENDING FLEXIBILITY.

4 Section 1124(c)(2) is amended by striking the third

5 and fourth sentences.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

St. Paul’s School

v. Civil No. 06-cv-406-JD

The Travelers Indemnity Company

O R D E R

 I recuse myself. Attorney Glahn is a member of my former

law firm, which firm continues to represent me in estate planning

matters. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 3, 2006

cc: Wilbur A. Glahn, III, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00406-MML Document 5 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 1 of 1

St. Paul's School v. The Travelers Indemnity Company Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Marc D. Durand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.





Date: May 13, 2011





/s/ Marc D. DurandMarc D. DurandChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker, as Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| */s/ Manuel  Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker* |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker        |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer              |   |
| August 10, 2009                               |   |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel Riley,

v. Civil No. 08-cv-117

United States of America, et al.,

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 30, 2008

cc: Daniel J. Riley, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00117-WES Document 7 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-149-01-SM

Hong Bach Nguyen

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 14) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2009 trial period. Defendant shall

file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than May 22, 2009. On the filing of

such waiver, the 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

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00149-SM Document 15 Filed 05/11/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: June 5, 2009 at 3:30 PM 

Jury Selection: June 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

May 11, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00149-SM Document 15 Filed 05/11/09 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 182 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.182

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
  Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential 
 addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other 
                                purposes.

    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 ``Eightmile River Wild and Scenic 
River Study Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
        (1) the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut possesses 
    important resource values, including wildlife, ecological, and 
    scenic values, and historic sites and a cultural past important to 
    America's heritage;
        (2) there is strong support among State and local officials, 
    area residents, and river users for a cooperative wild and scenic 
    river study of the area; and
        (3) there is a longstanding interest among State and local 
    officials, area residents, and river users in undertaking a 
    concerted cooperative effort to manage the river in a productive 
    and meaningful way.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

    Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(138) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--The segment from its 
headwaters downstream to its confluence with the Connecticut River.''.

SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT.

    Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(18) The study of the Eightmile River, Connecticut, named in 
paragraph (138) of subsection (a) shall be completed by the Secretary 
of the Interior and the report thereon submitted to Congress not later 
than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph.''.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection  with  Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly  report of Manchester
Technologies,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended January
31,  2005,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Barry R. Steinberg,  Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and 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; and

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



Date:   July 5, 2005                                 /S/ Barry R. Steinberg
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Barry R. Steinberg
                                                     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.
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2006 Q2 survey,

region share of national

total 2.9 9.0 27.1 22.4 8.0 5.2 4.6 8.6 5.2 7.2

Sample coverage, 2006 Q2

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 11.0 5.6 17.8 32.7 22.2 12.8 7.6 5.8 8.9 28.1

Avg. loan size, 2006 Q2 survey

(thousands of dollars) 47.0 48.8 65.9 72.6 65.1 49.6 177.0 30.1 34.2 98.4

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2001: Q2 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.8 7.4 8.1 8.3 9.2 8.6 7.9

Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2

Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2

2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9

Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1

Q3 6.4 7.5 5.8 6.5 4.6 6.0 7.5 7.3 6.5 5.3

Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5

Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2

Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3

Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8

Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1

Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9

(0.79) (0.14) (0.58) (1.15) (0.38) (0.75) (0.41) (0.45) (0.29) (0.08)

Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

(0.48) (0.07) (0.45) (0.88) (1.01) (0.81) (0.30) (0.22) (0.30) (0.10)

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

(0.19) (0.16) (0.14) (0.71) (0.60) (0.67) (0.34) (0.59) (0.17) (0.15)

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

(0.19) (0.21) (0.77) (0.75) (0.28) (0.65) (0.33) (0.19) (0.05) (0.18)

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

(0.18) (0.23) (0.28) (0.70) (0.20) (0.57) (0.43) (0.30) (0.09) (0.07)

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

(0.80) (0.19) (0.35) (0.45) (0.23) (0.58) (0.49) (0.10) (0.07) (0.16)

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

(0.29) (0.15) (0.21) (0.37) (0.13) (0.37) (0.29) (0.12) (0.26) (0.25)

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

(0.47) (0.18) (0.40) (0.54) (0.15) (0.53) (0.13) (0.26) (0.26) (0.17)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19
Exhibit 32

Certificate 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 First Georgia Community Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Emory B. Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Elaine S. Kendrick, Chief Financial 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:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, 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: August 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Emory B. Lewis                          
|                      |  |  |  | Emory B. Lewis, President and C.E.O.        
|                      |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                      |  | 
|DATE: August 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Elaine S. Kendrick                      
|                      |  |  |  | Elaine S. Kendrick, Secretary and Treasurer 
|                      |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2012 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2012

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate an inequity in the 
applicability of early retirement eligibility requirements to military 
                          reserve technicians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2001

  Mr. Abercrombie (for himself, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Baca, Mr. Evans, Mr. 
Hinchey, Mr. Frost, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. 
 McGovern, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. 
 Pallone, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Rush, 
Mr. Graham, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Shows, Mr. Strickland, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, 
 Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Rangel, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Otter, Mr. Kucinich, 
and Mr. Faleomavaega) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate an inequity in the 
applicability of early retirement eligibility requirements to military 
                          reserve technicians.

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

SECTION 1. EQUITABLE APPLICATION OF EARLY RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY 
              REQUIREMENTS TO MILITARY RESERVE TECHNICIANS.

    (a) Technicians Covered by FERS.--Paragraph (1) of section 8414(c) 
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``after becoming 
50 years of age and completing 25 years of service'' and inserting 
``after completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of 
age and completing 20 years of service''.
    (b) Technicians Covered by CSRS.--Section 8336 of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(p) Section 8414(c) of this title applies--
            ``(1) under paragraph (1) of such section to a military 
        reserve technician described in that paragraph for purposes of 
        determining entitlement to an annuity under this subchapter; 
        and
            ``(2) under paragraph (2) of such section to a military 
        technician (dual status) described in that paragraph for 
        purposes of determining entitlement to an annuity under this 
        subchapter.''.
    (c) Applicability.--Subsection (c) of section 8414 of title 5, 
United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), and subsection (p) 
of section 8336 of such title (as added by subsection (b)), shall apply 
according to the provisions thereof with respect to separations from 
service referred to in such subsections that occur on or after October 
5, 1999.
                                 <all>
```