alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Betsey Gordon v. Benjamin F. Farrington.

*Replevin by trustee in banhruptcy*— Oral *evidence.*

A trustee in bankruptcy can maintain replevin for property belonging to> the bankrupt but held by one who claims under a contract purchaser who has not fulfilled the terms of the contract.

Oral evidence is admissible, if no objection is made, to show that plaintiff in replevin is trustee in bankruptcy of the owner of the property, and that his previous right as assignee of the owner is not cut off by the decree in bankruptcy so far as relates to the right to maintain the action.

*421Error to St. Clair.

Submitted June 22.

Decided June 29.

Replevin. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*O’Brien J. Atkinson*and *Elliott G. Stevenson*for plaintiff in error.

Adjudication of bankruptcy divests the bankrupt of all right to his property: *Exp. Foster*2 Story 131; *Matter of Cook*id. 376; *Smith v. Eaton*36 Me. 298 ; *Plestoro v. Abraham*1 Paige 237; *Howard v. Crompton*14 Blatch. 328.

*C. K. Dodge*and *A. E. Chadwick*for defendant in error.

Graves, J.

This controversy concerns the right to an organ. The defendant in error took the instrument on replevin and recovered. Prior to October 19,1876, one Roe Stephens owned the organ and left it with Charles F. Col-well at London, Ontario, to be disposed of, and he, at the date mentioned, leased it to one Abel Scott, who was to be allowed to purchase on certain terms. The title was not to pass without payment of the purchase price. Scott has never paid anything, and prior to this suit the property and right of possession were in Stephens.

Scott removed the property to Port Huron and the plaintiff in error derived her claim through him. Stephens assigned his right to Farrington, who thereby became entitled to have the organ unless Stephens’ right was cut off by his bankruptcy, so that nothing passed from him to Farrington, and it is claimed by plaintiff in error that the evidence shows that this was the ease, and in support of this view reliance is placed on the order found in the record by which Stephens was adjudged a bankrupt on the sixth of October, 1877. But there is nothing in tiffs order to militate against the right claimed 'by Farrington, since he may have been the trustee in bankruptcy and have become entitled in that character. And all question on the subject is removed because it appears by the oral evidence, which was not objected to, that Farrington was in fact such trustee and hence vested with the right which Stephens held.

*422The objections now insisted on to certain parts of tbe depositions of Colwell, Raymond and Dyer have no force and do not require comment.

This disposes of tbe case and requires an affirmance of tbe judgment witb costs.

Tbe other Justices concurred.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1591 

To amend section 7014 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to advance toward full Federal funding for impact aid, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. COLE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend section 7014 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 to advance toward full Federal 

funding for impact aid, 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. AMENDMENT TO ESEA. 

4 Section 7014 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu5 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7714) is amended by strik6 ing subsections (a) through (d) and inserting the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(a) PAYMENTS FOR FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF

9 REAL PROPERTY.—For the purpose of making payments 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1591 IH

1 under section 7002, there are authorized to be appro2 priated— 

3 ‘‘(1) $90,313,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

4 ‘‘(2) $102,313,000 for fiscal year 2025; 

5 ‘‘(3) $114,313,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

6 ‘‘(4) $126,313,000 for fiscal year 2027; 

7 ‘‘(5) $138,313,000 for fiscal year 2028; and 

8 ‘‘(6) $150,313,000 for fiscal year 2029. 

9 ‘‘(b) BASIC PAYMENTS; PAYMENTS FOR HEAVILY IM10 PACTED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—For the pur11 pose of making payments under section 7003(b), there are 

12 authorized to be appropriated— 

13 ‘‘(1) $1,632,476,041 for fiscal year 2024; 

14 ‘‘(2) $1,796,710,082 for fiscal year 2025; 

15 ‘‘(3) $1,960,944,123 for fiscal year 2026; 

16 ‘‘(4) $2,125,178,164 for fiscal year 2027; 

17 ‘‘(5) $2,289,412,205 for fiscal year 2028; and 

18 ‘‘(6) $2,453,646,246 for fiscal year 2029. 

19 ‘‘(c) PAYMENTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABIL20 ITIES.—For the purpose of making payments under sec21 tion 7003(d), there are authorized to be appropriated— 

22 ‘‘(1) $60,316,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

23 ‘‘(2) $72,316,000 for fiscal year 2025; 

24 ‘‘(3) $84,316,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

25 ‘‘(4) $96,316,000 for fiscal year 2027; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1591 IH

1 ‘‘(5) $108,316,000 for fiscal year 2028; and 

2 ‘‘(6) $120,316,000 for fiscal year 2029. 

3 ‘‘(d) CONSTRUCTION.—For the purpose of carrying 

4 out section 7007, there are authorized to be appro5 priated— 

6 ‘‘(1) $22,906,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

7 ‘‘(2) $27,406,000 for fiscal year 2025; 

8 ‘‘(3) $31,906,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

9 ‘‘(4) $36,406,000 for fiscal year 2027; 

10 ‘‘(5) $40,906,000 for fiscal year 2028; and 

11 ‘‘(6) $45,406,000 for fiscal year 2029.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JERMAINE ALONZO MITCHELL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-17002

D.C. Nos. 3:11-cv-00056-ECR

3:04-cr-00010-ECR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Jermaine Alonzo Mitchell appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for habeas relief. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Mitchell contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing

FILED

MAY 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17002

to strike a prospective juror for cause. This contention fails because Mitchell has

demonstrated neither deficient performance nor prejudice. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

Mitchell also contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

failing to object that his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). This claim fails for lack of prejudice under Strickland, because the

Supreme Court has held that “cocaine base” under 21 U.S.C. § 841 encompasses

cocaine in its chemically basic form, not just “crack cocaine.” See DePierre v.

United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225, 2237 (2011).

Mitchell further contends that the trial judge committed structural error by

failing to excuse a prospective juror for actual bias. Even if this argument were not

forfeited by Mitchell’s failure to raise it in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, our

conclusion in United States v. Mitchell, 568 F.3d 1147, 1152-54 (9th Cir. 2009),

precludes reconsideration of the issue under the law of the case doctrine. See

United States v. Scrivner, 189 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 1999).

Mitchell finally contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him for

possession of “crack cocaine” without finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the

cocaine base was actually “crack cocaine.” Even if this claim were not forfeited by

Mitchell’s failure to raise it in his section 2255 motion, the claim fails in light of

DePierre, 131 S. Ct. at 2237.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID TYRONE MARTIN, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0370-CB-M

 :

JAMES REYNOLDS, :

 :

Respondent. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues 

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this habeas petition be DISMISSED 

as time-barred. It is further ORDERED that any certificate 

of appealability filed by Martin be DENIED as he is not 

entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE this the 30th day of March, 2015.

 _s/Charles R.Butler, Jr.___________

 CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR.

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00370-CB-M Document 11 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly reporton Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2005 of Allstate LifeInsurance Company of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York.

 

August 8, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Casey J. Sylla                                 |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Casey J. Sylla                                     |
|   | Chairman of the Board and President                |
|   |                                               |
|   |                                               |
|   | /s/ John C. Pintozzi                               |   |
|   | John C. Pintozzi                                   |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|        |                                                    |        |  |

 

E-5

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARY A. LASKEY )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00097-CG-B

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on January 15, 2015, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Application for 

Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) is hereby 

GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s attorney is hereby AWARDED an EAJA fee 

in the amount of $3,429.18 payable to Plaintiff. No costs are taxed.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00097-CG-B Document 22 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 1
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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C OR NELIO M ATA ESPINOZA, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10472

D.C . No. 3:09-c r-00103-C RB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. C orne lio M ata Espinoz a

a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing Espinoz a ’ s m otion to alte r or am e nd the judgm e nt de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2255 m otion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . In his se c tion 2255 motion, Espinoz a c onte nde d tha

t his trial c ounse l 

# FIL ED FEB 21 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by a dvising him to a gre e in his ple a a gre e m e nt tha

t he wa s a c are e r offe nde r for purpose s of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1. The distric t c ourt de nie d the m otion on the

ground tha

t Espinoz a ’ s c ounse l wa s not ine ffe c t ive for a dvising Espinoz a

to stipula te to be ing a

c are e r offe nde r. Espinoz a e v e ntua lly

file d a m otion to alte r or am e nd the distric t c ourt judgm e nt unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 59(e ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Espinoz a ’ s m otion be c a

use Espinoz a

fa i le d to pre se nt ne wly

disc ove re d e v ide nc e or to de m onstra

te that the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t Espinoz a

ha d not suffe re d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e wa s c le arly

e rrone ous, m anife stly

unjust, or underm i ne d by an inte rve ning c ha

nge in c ontrolling la

w. Se e Sc h. Dist. N

o . 1J , Multnomah C ounty , Or. v . AC

andS, Inc
. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd grounds for re lie f unde r R ule 59(e )). AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 1 0 4 7 2 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 Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
IV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
President of the Company, 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.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                   /s/ William Colucci
                   ----------------------------
                   William Colucci, President
                   BF Acquisition Group IV, Inc.
---

EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. (“CRM”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jerome S. Flum,
Chief Executive 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, to the best of 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.
 
 By:
      /s/
              Jerome
      S. FlumJerome
      S. FlumChief
      Executive Officer
 
 November
12, 2009
 
 This
certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to
liability of that section.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cherokee International Corporation (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jeffrey M. Frank, asChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Van Holland, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ JEFFREY  M. FRANK |                                                                    |   |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:                 | Jeffrey M. Frank                                                        |   |
| Title:                | *President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive Officer)*  |   |
| Date:                 | April 1, 2005                                                           |   |
| /s/ vAN hOLLAND  |                                                                    |   |
| Name:                 | Van Holland                                                             |   |
| Title:                | *Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |   |
| Date:                 | April 1, 2005                                                           |   |
|                       |                                                                         |        |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided toCherokee International Corporation and will be retained by CherokeeInternational Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM")
on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence Fensterstock, 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; and

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


                                            By: /s/ Lawrence Fensterstock
                                                    Lawrence Fensterstock
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2003
<Page>

                 WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF NASH FINCH COMPANY

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

<Table>
<Caption>
                  Subsidiary                              State of
                 Corporation                            Incorporation
                 -----------                            -------------
<S>                                                      <C>
Erickson's Diversified Corporation                       Wisconsin
Edina, Minnesota

GTL Truck Lines, Inc.                                    Nebraska
Omaha, Nebraska

Hinky Dinky Supermarkets, Inc.                           Nebraska
Edina, Minnesota

Nash Finch Funding Corp.                                 Delaware
Edina, Minnesota

Piggly Wiggly Northland Corporation                      Minnesota
Edina, Minnesota

Super Food Services, Inc.                                Delaware
Dayton, Ohio

T.J. Morris Company                                       Georgia
Statesboro, Georgia

U-Save Foods, Inc.                                       Nebraska
Edina, Minnesota
</Table>
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC.
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of RegistrationFoundry Networks International Inc.
    
    BarbadosFoundry Networks Ltd.
    
    United KingdomFoundry Networks GmbH
    
    GermanyFoundry Networks France SARL
    
    FranceFoundry Networks Singapore, PTE Ltd.
    
    SingaporeFoundry Networks Nederland BV
    
    NetherlandsFoundry Networks Canada Company
    
    CanadaFoundry Networks Italia Srl
    
    ItalyFoundry Networks Japan KK
    
    JapanFoundry Networks do Brasil Ltda.
    
    BrazilFoundry Networks Holding Co.
    
    Delaware, U.S.AFoundry Networks Japan-US., LLC.
    
    Delaware, U.S.A
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1450 

AN ACT 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to modify the treatment of revenue from timber sale contracts and certain 

payments made by counties to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior under good 

neighbor agreements, 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, 
2 

•HR 1450 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Treating Tribes and 

3 Counties as Good Neighbors Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF THE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN 

5 REVENUE AND PAYMENTS UNDER GOOD 

6 NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS. 

7 (a) GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY.—Section 8206 of 

8 the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a) is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ‘‘or Indian 

11 tribe’’; and 

12 (2) in subsection (b)— 

13 (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ‘‘, 

14 Indian tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’; 

15 (B) in paragraph (2)(C)— 

16 (i) by striking clause (i) and inserting 

17 the following: 

18 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Funds received 

19 from the sale of timber by a Governor, an 

20 Indian tribe, or a county under a good 

21 neighbor agreement shall be retained and 

22 used by the Governor, Indian tribe, or 

23 county, as applicable— 

24 ‘‘(I) to carry out authorized res25 toration services under the good 

26 neighbor agreement; and 
3 

•HR 1450 EH

1 ‘‘(II) if there are funds remain2 ing after carrying out subclause (I), 

3 to carry out authorized restoration 

4 services under other good neighbor 

5 agreements.’’; and 

6 (ii) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘2023’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘2028’’; 

8 (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, In9 dian tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’; and 

10 (D) by striking paragraph (4). 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 8206(a) 

12 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a(a)) is 

13 amended— 

14 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ‘‘, Indian 

15 tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’; and 

16 (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘, Indian 

17 tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this Act apply to any project initiated pursuant to a good 

20 neighbor agreement (as defined in section 8206(a) of the 

21 Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a(a)))— 

22 (1) before the date of enactment of this Act, if 

23 the project was initiated after the date of enactment 

24 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public 

25 Law 115–334; 132 Stat. 4490); or 
4 

•HR 1450 EH

1 (2) on or after the date of enactment of this 

2 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1450 

AN ACT 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to modify 

and for other purposes. the Interior under good neighbor agreements, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of tracts and certain payments made by counties to the treatment of revenue from timber sale con-